Why do anti pirates come to a homebrew forum mostly used for piracy?

[gamesquest1]

i think the problem is that homebrew and rom loaders are often intertwined, think of it more like religion, unfortunately sometimes people fall under the belief of "oh he is a muslim so he must also be a terrorist"....leading to people who are muslims but not terrorists feeling like they have to make a point that they are NOT terrorists rather than leave people to assume otherwise

the point is that most of the anti-piracy people on the site are here for homebrew reasons only as lets be honest a homebrew only forum probably wouldn't last all that long or get much attention

i can see that it would get annoying having someone trying to take the moral high ground and bee all "ohhh im sooo much better than you". there are some people that take it to that level, and yeah it does end up making them just look like preachers, but you have preachers everywhere

 

[Meteor7]

i think the problem is that homebrew and rom loaders are often intertwined, think of it more like religion, unfortunately sometimes people fall under the belief of "oh he is a muslim so he must also be a terrorist"....leading to people who are muslims but not terrorists feeling like they have to make a point that they are NOT terrorists rather than leave people to assume otherwise.

Oh, that's interesting. So, you're saying that the mere mental association between homebrew->rom loading->piracy is enough for the existance of homebrew to create a flux in the industry? I can't say that I disagree. I can definitely believe that game companies have become so sensitive to the possibility of piracy that just the presence of homebrew can be taken to be a financial threat, causing them to take preemptive anti-hacker measures, but because homebrew doesn't necessarily involve piracy, I think there is a way for companies to coexist alongside, and even feed off of, the homebrew scene. This kind of cooperation would take a lot of trust and, right now, that company-consumer trust is practically non-existant. Having seen the recent trend of hackers/modders/homebrew makers taking a firm stance against piracy (all of the Absolute Zero game translations, for instance), I don't think that the development of that trust is impossible. If the two were to coincide, I think both parties would benefit greatly, so long as there's no abuse of power by the consumer. Some could easily argue that the consumer will take every opportunity to abuse their ability, and while I understand that sentiment, I'm not sure that it needs to be a certainty forever.

 

[Queno138]

But we know that piracy will financially hurt a company. There are instances of piracy, the fraction of which is speculative, which subtract from the sale of the software pirated, impacting a company's bottom line. We assume that this financial impact will negatively affect the future of the company, future game releases, user-friendliness of consoles, etc, but these assumptions seem to follow logic. It would make at least some sense to say that the less money a company has, the fewer resources its able to make use of, impacting, if only slightly, development of future games. It also follows that console designers will include more anti-piracy measures, making things like installing homebrew and hacking games, more difficult, in direct response to the pirating of software. It's subjective whether or not this things are "bad", but I think it's pretty safe to say that piracy does indeed have an impact on game companies, one that most who enjoy partaking in video games would likely find undesirable. I can't draw the same connections to homebrew, in fact, I think that things like mods, homebrew, and hacks actually add incentive to buy the systems and software rather than detract, 2 examples of which would be Skyrim and the PSP.

Everything you just said is pure speculation and unsubstantiated.

There is arguably no concrete evidence that proves that piracy and homebrew harms companies, hence why they are still topics of discussion, which is pretty impartial.

However, you're being partial, by trying to justify that one hurts and the other doesn't, when they're equally illegal.
You say that homebrew can incentivise getting a console, but I can say the same about the ability to import roms.

Developers may not like mods or hacks, simply because it wasn't their intention.
It may interfere with the secret features they planned to release further on.
Or they don't like their work being tampered with.

My bottom line is:
1. Homebrew and piracy are both illegal,
As they are unlicensed tempering of others intellectual property
2. I agree that piracy is a greater evil, but given that digital piracy does not do any actual harm, there is no need for all the hate; since it's the same family tree, they can coexist [well, at least until it's proven]
3. (Slightly going off point) I'm okay with developers not wanting to develop piracy as compared to homebrew; it's their code, their choice. No complains there
4. I'm okay to agree to disagree.
I'm not an extremist where I need to force others to accept my view. As long as they see it, they can decide to do whatever they want with it.

Edit:
All homebrew on 3ds is illegal homebrew, until Nintendo accepts it

 

[Meteor7]

Everything you just said is pure speculation and unsubstantiated.

There is arguably no concrete evidence that proves that piracy and homebrew harms companies, hence why they are still topics of discussion, which is pretty impartial.

However, you're being partial, by trying to justify that one hurts and the other doesn't, when they're equally illegal.
You say that homebrew can incentivise getting a console, but I can say the same about the ability to import roms.

Developers may not like mods or hacks, simply because it wasn't their intention.
It may interfere with the secret features they planned to release further on.
Or they don't like their work being tampered with.

My bottom line is:
1. Homebrew and piracy are both illegal,
As they are unlicensed tempering of others intellectual property
2. I agree that piracy is a greater evil, but given that digital piracy does not do any actual harm, there is no need for all the hate; since it's the same family tree, they can coexist [well, at least until it's proven]
3. (Slightly going off point) I'm okay with developers not wanting to develop piracy as compared to homebrew; it's their code, their choice. No complains there
4. I'm okay to agree to disagree.
I'm not an extremist where I need to force others to accept my view. As long as they see it, they can decide to do whatever they want with it.

Edit:
All homebrew on 3ds is illegal homebrew, until Nintendo accepts it

But how does digital piracy not do any harm? Game companies have vocalized this feeling for years, claiming that pirated software = lost sales, and it seems to make sense. Is it that you think that all people who pirate games would never have bought them in the first place, thus never equating to a lost sale? I'd really prefer not to guess at your reasoning, if it's all the same.

Also, yes, I definitely acknowledge that they are both illegal, but I think a difference might exist in our philosophies where illegal and wrong are synonymous in your mind. Not that I'm criticizing you, mind you, I'm just trying to confirm what I think I understand about your way of thinking.

 

[gamesquest1]

ofc game companies would like to believe 1,000,000 downloaded pirate copies would have been 1,000,000 lost sales, the glaring truth is that pirates will generally download a hell of a lot more games than they would have ever been able to afford legitimately, not only that lets just play with figures,

lets take a rather excessive amount of those downloads and assume that if piracy would not have been an option they would have bought them so lets say 500,000 downloaded copies would have been legitimate sames otherwise (although i would imagine it would even be a fraction of that), how many of those sales do you think would have been brand new sales rather than second hand copies, if someone feels they cant afford to buy games legit, i doubt they would turn down a saving on second hand vs brand new, and we all know second hand sales don't contribute anything to the original dev's

so basically crying about piracy is saying "please save gamestop" who already makes a huge profit on second hand sales and don't help the original dev's.....infact second hand sales could arguably cause more damage than piracy easily , kinda strange we dont get "i buy my games brand new" knights on a crusade

 

[Meteor7]

ofc game companies would like to believe 1,000,000 downloaded pirate copies would have been 1,000,000 lost sales, the glaring truth is that pirates will generally download a hell of a lot more games than they would have ever been able to afford legitimately, not only that lets just play with figures,

lets take a rather excessive amount of those downloads and assume that if piracy would not have been an option they would have bought them so lets say 500,000 downloaded copies would have been legitimate sames otherwise (although i would imagine it would even be a fraction of that), how many of those sales do you think would have been brand new sales rather than second hand copies, if someone feels they cant afford to buy games legit, i doubt they would turn down a saving on second hand vs brand new, and we all know second hand sales don't contribute anything to the original dev's

so basically crying about piracy is saying "please save gamestop" who already makes a huge profit on second hand sales and don't help the original dev's.....infact second hand sales could arguably cause more damage than piracy easily , kinda strange we dont get "i buy my games brand new" knights on a crusade

If that were the case, then the war by the games industry on piracy would be a false crusade and pirates would simply be scapegoats, but scapegoats for what? If there didn't exist a substantial effect on a company's profit by piracy, then why raise the pitchforks at all? Why go through all the continued effort to churn out updates blocking unlicensed software if it wouldn't make a difference in the end? I have to imagine that there's something there to justify the expense of developing and implementing anti-piracy measures, otherwise companies wouldn't take the loss, right? So what else could anti-piracy be for if not to stop piracy?

I can see the argument that game companies don't realize the true extent to which piracy actually affects their sales, but why would it be more apparent to us on the outside than it is to the companies, who are likely in a more informed position to analyse the situation financially?

 

[gamesquest1]

well obviously they dont just want piracy to happen....if its too easy/too main stream then obviously it would cause a large loss of sales if everyone and their nan can pirate with zero negative consequences, basically some companies need scapegoats to justify poor sales to their share holders when they make a crap game, they also can't been seen to admit that piracy has little effect on their overall sales

basically DRM and antipiracy is just to deter the masses and keep shareholders happy

 

[Jayro]

I use sites like giveawayoftheday dot com to get sweet pro-versions of software for free and legit these days. Sometimes the app is great, other times it's meh. sharewareonsale dot com is another good one.

(I'm purposely not linking the URLs because I don't want this post flagged as spam)

 

[Meteor7]

well obviously they dont just want piracy to happen....if its too easy/too main stream then obviously it would cause a large loss of sales if everyone and their nan can pirate with zero negative consequences, basically some companies need scapegoats to justify poor sales to their share holders when they make a crap game, they also can't been seen to admit that piracy has little effect on their overall sales

basically DRM and antipiracy is just to deter the masses and keep shareholders happy

Hmm. I'm not entirely ready to accept that reason, but it definitely holds together. It's too bad if that is the case as I don't see how we, as consumers, can change the situation.

 

[gamesquest1]

Hmm. I'm not entirely ready to accept that reason, but it definitely holds together. It's too bad if that is the case as I don't see how we, as consumers, can change the situation.

we can't thats just how it works, they have to make piracy hard, but not to the point where end users suffer for it (unless it one of the greedy companies who would prefer everyone suffers ridiculous levels of DRM if they could get even 1 extra sale), and yeah im sure some developers/publishers have different reasons but sometimes you fail to be objective if its your own work, they would really love to believe that those 1,000,000 pirated copies would have been sales and wouldn't want to admit otherwise, then spend an inordinate amount of time/money on DRM believing they will be able to tap that 1,000,000 extra sales they missed out on and be rolling in da moniez

 

[Vipera]

I believe that piracy that can hurt sales is wrong. Pirating a new game is wrong. That's what I think.
I don't care if you actually do it, I just hate the hypocrisy of saying that not paying for someone's work is not wrong.

 

[FAST6191]

Everything you just said is pure speculation and unsubstantiated.

There is arguably no concrete evidence that proves that piracy and homebrew harms companies, hence why they are still topics of discussion, which is pretty impartial.

However, you're being partial, by trying to justify that one hurts and the other doesn't, when they're equally illegal.
You say that homebrew can incentivise getting a console, but I can say the same about the ability to import roms.
My bottom line is:
1. Homebrew and piracy are both illegal,
As they are unlicensed tempering of others intellectual property

Edit:
All homebrew on 3ds is illegal homebrew, until Nintendo accepts it

Again that very much depends upon where you are in the world.

Some places are more along the lines of "your device, your rules" and/or emulators are just programs. If you use that further to either copy or mess with copyrighted (or possibly patented) works then that is a separate issue but as it is entirely possible to hack a device (or download an emulator), write some code using a programming setup that is entirely available to you to use and have said code be good within other areas of intellectual property then homebrew is not inherently illegal. In some places there may be exceptions to these rules for certain devices; we recently saw the US release a list of further exceptions to the DMCA. In other cases this may be the position but depending upon the protections you have to bypass it can trouble things; the GBA had nothing beyond a simple header it needed there and so arguably fell under the old Sega vs Accolade ruling in the US, newer devices might have actual encryption/cryptography based protections and thus in the US they might well be troubled there, even if they are piss weak protections.

Similarly piracy may just be a subset of the commercial code bothering -- legal provisions are made in various places for actual backups, region protection dodging and in some places you may even be allowed to run modified versions of software you own.

Licenses, if indeed they apply (in many places ones presented after the point of sale are invalid and thus leave you back at the copyright law of the land), may ask for you to only use licensed software but just because a license says something does not make it legally binding -- they may ask for things beyond the scope of the law, indeed many view it as the prerogative of the license writer to try to get away with as much as possible. Likewise I have not seen it tried for consoles but in cars there are frequently rulings along the lines of using other parts does not invalidate warranties for unrelated systems -- I can use a different fuel filter on my car and if it messes up something further down the line then they might say no to a warranty repair, however if my car radio breaks then they still get to fix it regardless of my fuel filter. With a lot of software defined systems that can get harder but the legal precedent is out there.

 

[Pleng]

Why go through all the continued effort to churn out updates blocking unlicensed software if it wouldn't make a difference in the end? I have to imagine that there's something there to justify the expense of developing and implementing anti-piracy measures, otherwise companies wouldn't take the loss, right? So what else could anti-piracy be for if not to stop piracy?

The most common argument I see against anti-piracy measures, and IP owners continually trying to shut down torrent sites is that "Somebody will just find a way around it" or "as soon as one site is taken down, another ten pop up in its place". I don't believe that any company executive really believes that they can wipe out piracy by implementing additional security, or going after a few sources of pirated material. They just need to make it difficult enough so that most people can't be bothered.

It's plainly obvious that if 3DS games, for example, came on SD cards, and it was possible to simply copy the files from one SD card to another, there would be a much larger amount of people doing it than there are now - where people have to jump through all kinds of hoops, or have to invest in a flashcart, to be able to play ROMS.

A lot of people only know how to download movies from torrent site x because they have been shown that specific site either from a friend who is more knowledgeable in the subject, or who themselves were shown by somebody. If that site is no longer available next time they want to download a film then there's a decent chance, if they have the funds and really want to see that film, that they'll go to a paid service to get it. That's one step to being in the habit of paying for films - hence shutting down site x has generated additional income for the copyright holder.

 

[DinohScene]

All homebrew on 3ds is illegal homebrew, until Nintendo accepts it

Don't you mean "All homebrew on all game systems is illegal homebrew, until said company who made the systems accepts it"?

 

[Queno138]

Don't you mean "All homebrew on all game systems is illegal homebrew, until said company who made the systems accepts it"?

thanks for fixing it XDD

 

[DinohScene]

thanks for fixing it XDD

I kinda agree with what you're going for.
The systems are produced by said companies and mostly, contain proprietary components, not to mention the OS it runs on is completely closed source and what not.

Hacking the device so that nothing but Linux runs on it isn't a "crime" seeing you paid for said hardware.
Hacking it so you can run your own games inside the proprietary OS is technically "illegal", atleast, it's not allowed.
Running homebrew in a Linux environment however is.
Seeing no proprietary OS files/functions are used then.

If I where to buy a Xbone and want to run it over with me car, I got every right to do so, seeing I purchased it.

It's complicated indeed but, you pretty much get the point ;p

 

[Maikel Steneker]

Hacking the device so that nothing but Linux runs on it isn't a "crime" seeing you paid for said hardware.
Hacking it so you can run your own games inside the proprietary OS is technically "illegal", atleast, it's not allowed.
Running homebrew in a Linux environment however is.
Seeing no proprietary OS files/functions are used then.

I'm really surprised to see people arguing for this. If I understand correctly, you're essentially arguing that if you use a piece of software in an unintended way that the author does not approve of, this is a crime. But this seems much too strict to me. It may sound like a fake example, but Windows is a proprietary OS. That said, if I buy a copy of it, I can use it to run whatever program I want on it. I can see why I'm not allowed to do whatever I want with this software (for example, I'm not allowed to circumvent its copyright protection or share it on the internet), but it seems ridiculous to assert that I can only use it for things Microsoft would approve of. If this would be the rule, I'd have to stop using Steam if Microsoft decides that they want to disallow platforms that compete with their Windows Store.

Note that the example of running an application on Windows is pretty analogous to running a self-developed application on the 3DS OS. The only caveat is that this OS is not intended to run anything other than licensed software, while Windows is a more open platform.

 

[RemixDeluxe]

Well, it's simple really. This isn't a forum mostly used for piracy.
Now, I'm a pirate and I do use this forum... but rarily anything I do around here revolvs around piracy. I'm a regular in the "Japanese FAQ" super thread, I discuss games (the content), video game business / industry, programming... Talking about which games to buy, reading reviews, sharing experiences...

Sure, a lot of people come here for help and support with their piracy devices or help with modding, but it's far from the purpose of this forum now (in the beginning it was the sole purpose).

I really dont think you understand the word most

most =/= completely

 

[DinohScene]

I'm really surprised to see people arguing for this. If I understand correctly, you're essentially arguing that if you use a piece of software in an unintended way that the author does not approve of, this is a crime. But this seems much too strict to me. It may sound like a fake example, but Windows is a proprietary OS. That said, if I buy a copy of it, I can use it to run whatever program I want on it. I can see why I'm not allowed to do whatever I want with this software (for example, I'm not allowed to circumvent its copyright protection or share it on the internet), but it seems ridiculous to assert that I can only use it for things Microsoft would approve of. If this would be the rule, I'd have to stop using Steam if Microsoft decides that they want to disallow platforms that compete with their Windows Store.

Note that the example of running an application on Windows is pretty analogous to running a self-developed application on the 3DS OS. The only caveat is that this OS is not intended to run anything other than licensed software, while Windows is a more open platform.

It's purely the software.
Windows is a platform which is closed source yets specifically allows people to install whatever they want and run what ever they want on it.
The 360's dash/ PS3 XMB/ PS4 OS & Xbone OS don't allow it.

Thing is, you can't really compare a computer OS with a console OS.
Seeing a console its main purpose is to play games.
Nowadays more then games... but it's got no other intended use.

Self made homebrew applications, that run on consoles/handhelds are usually made with a pirated SDK.
Atleast, most of the native applications.
Open SDKs do exist but their homebrew is rather... limited.

 

[Muffins]

People want a tall horse -a high one, if you will- to preach from because their soapbox is too damned short to address the masses.
The same tools that get used for piracy also get used for some rather useful things as well.

Want to play that colorization hack of Metroid II?
Or delve into a lovely translation of Shin Megami Tensai?
Or how about that copy of Another Code R that never saw the light of day in the US but is in full English but the US Wii refuses to run because Nintendo implemented a bloody stupid region lock on the console?

Nintendo wants you dead.

Well, locked away somewhere anyway.

Maybe they want you dead. I don't know the situation between you and Nintendo, but Reggie seems like a fellow that gets mean when he gets crossed.

And on the forums here the aforementioned soapbox-horsing leads to people declaring how right Nintendo is to go after the ones who sell the tools to allow it to happen. How the poor little multibillion dollar company needs to "protect" itself from the mean nasty people selling "piracy" devices, because if people bought those than Nintendo would surely not sell any games or consoles ever again.