45 replies to this topic

[LackofCertainty]

Victor Morson, on 19 April 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

• Pirating a game you've already bought. Wait, what? Welcome to the world of copyright hell. I've personally owned games in the past that have had such broken anti-copyright measures, I've had to literally pirate them or at the very least cracks - games I've already purchased, no less! - in order to play them. This trend sounds like it's dying until you figure in the horrors of DRM that, if you need to reinstall the games three times, they remove it from you - or messes like Ubisoft's service. All in all this one rides the gray line, even legally, since you've already purchased the IP but have to circumvent the physical media. Notably this also applies to DRM laden music - I simply cannot blame someone for downloading a CD they own because of protection that refuses to allow them to put it on their music player.

It is impossible to pirate a game you already bought, because pirating implies downloading something you don't own. It is legal (for example) to download a rom for a snes game if you already own a physical copy of the snes game.

Pirating is not downloading a virtual copy of something. Pirating is download a virtual copy of something you don't own. (or theft on the high seas, I guess)

Victor Morson, on 19 April 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

• Used games versus No Game - If your only options for obtaining a title are used games versus piracy, again, I can't condemn someone for taking the piracy option. Why? Simply put, developers and publishers do not see a single dime on used games. The reason there's such an attempt to stop places like GameStop today is because they exploit this system and hurt the bottom line far, far worse than piracy ever has, despite what publisher PR likes to say. You have to understand how sales work brick & mortar stores - they sell the stores X number of copies, not individuals. So when a place like GameStop purposely under buys and then pushes used games, they completely screw the dev over. I can't feel too bad if someone is unable to obtain a new copy of a game then goes to other channels as a result, at all. It's nice to see places like Steam and Good Old Games trying to rectify this situation and I think many people given the option would take these options.

I don't know why people have so much hatred toward used games. It's okay to steal a copy of the game rather than buy it used? What? There's all sorts of previously owned stores in the world. Since when did they become the devil? Are rentals considered the same way? It smacks of a lot of self-deluded justification for pirating to me. (and I don't even like buying used games/rentals myself)

Also, the devs/publishers do see some money from rentals/used games, because those stores have to purchase the game in the first place. That's not even considering how gamestop and the like buy passes for online play to include with their used games.

Edited by LackofCertainty, 19 April 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[MagnusEffect]

LackofCertainty, on 19 April 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

It is impossible to pirate a game you already bought, because pirating implies downloading something you don't own. It is legal (for example) to download a rom for a snes game if you already own a physical copy of the snes game.

Incorrect! Pirating is copyright infringement (look it up). Using an UNLICENSED (ie different) copy... even if you already own another... is legally pirating. If you bought 2 copies of the Chronicles of Narnia and then downloaded a pirated version, do you think the publisher/distributer is going to give a **** about that fact? I will give you a hint... they didn't (got a cease and desist letter anyway).

The really ****** up thing about publishers and copyrights is that they can own them for eternity... even when they didn't actually MAKE anything. That game you just bought... guess what... it's a LICENSED game. You don't OWN ****. Messed up, I know, but true.

Seriously, people need to watch that link I posted on the last page. Get educated.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 19 April 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Roh]

*takes off his wizard hat and robes... So he can put on his pirate hat and clothes* AAAARRRRRRR!!!! Where's the booty?

[Lyon]

I'll jump in here with a specific reference.

I live in south Mississippi, far from high-speed internet access, out in the country. When I did try dialup, it was at a connection rate of 14.4kpbs at best, fax machine speed. There are games that specifically require me to have an internet connection just to start their singleplayer game, and since I'm now using a limited-bandwidth cellular connection, I dare not hook up to let any such game burn my bandwidth.

So, one day I bought a copy of Civilization 5. It required a Steam account, just to install. Okay, I said, this is fine, just one check, right? But no, it wanted to download the entire game again, roughly 5 GB of data. This is when I grabbed my laptop, headed back to town, 40 miles away, and parked in the coffeeshop to attempt to make it happen. 2 hours later, I'd had enough, and I downloaded the crack.

**** on DRM.

[Catamount]

LackofCertainty, on 19 April 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

I disagree, because having people play your game acts as free advertising in most situations. If you are boycotting a game, but download and play it, you are likely to talk to your friends about it. That means that the boycotter is (in a small way) helping that game, which in turn makes the boycotter into a hypocrite. In a multiplayer game, it becomes even more beneficial to the company you're "boycotting" because the best way to get people to continue to play a multiplayer game is to ensure that there's a large playerbase. Iirc Farmville's devs have said that they consider their most valuable asset to be the untold masses that don't pay for their game, because they provide so much advertising that their sheer numbers increases the amount of paying customers they -do- grab.

If a person wants to boycott something they should do it properly. As a historical example, the Boston Tea Party would've been a lot less effective if the boycotters had stolen the tea and drunk it themselves.

But that assumes that every lack of affinity must be raised to the level of boycott, does it not?

I have never found a game that objectionable. There are, however, plenty of games which simply fail to pass the test of meriting purchase.


It also assumes that active advertising works anything like that. If I find a game is really so unworth purchasing, then even if I do pirate it, I'm not going to be so praising of it as to likely say anything that would incite a mass spree of purchasing. More than likely, I'd just tell other people it's not worth purchasing, and that I only have it because I didn't pay for it, which I suspect anyone would were this their reasoning. If someone pirated a game and really ran around going "Oh wow, this game is great! You have to try it!", then clearly it was worth purchasing in the first place.

As for being online, that assumes someone has already purchased a title in the first place, which means advertising is mostly redundant, and if maintaining a community alone is really enough to keep a game going, then clearly it's worth continued investment in anyways, and the fact that that's because of an active community should be irrelevant, since a game is simply either worth investment, or it isn't, and if it wasn't prior to such participation, then the act of participating has mitigated the reasons to not invest in it, thus pirating again becomes an unwarranted action, and the advertising again becomes redundant.


In other words, if the act of pirating really gives a game enough redeeming qualities to where it attracts customers, then it mitigates the reason to not buy it, and therefore, there should be no concern about attracting customers.

Now, if the reasoning is "I'm not buying this game because this company murders kittens", then that's different, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it (in other words, when EA crosses that line, too )

Edited by Catamount, 19 April 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Victor Morson]

LackofCertainty, on 19 April 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

It is impossible to pirate a game you already bought, because pirating implies downloading something you don't own. It is legal (for example) to download a rom for a snes game if you already own a physical copy of the snes game.

Pirating is not downloading a virtual copy of something. Pirating is download a virtual copy of something you don't own. (or theft on the high seas, I guess)

As stated this is incorrect. This is pure crap that ROM sites like to place on disclaimers like BBS before them. It's no less silly than the "I'm not a cop" disclaimers and has zero basis in anything except made up stoner philosophy that someone totally heard from someone that one time.

LackofCertainty, on 19 April 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

I don't know why people have so much hatred toward used games. It's okay to steal a copy of the game rather than buy it used? What? There's all sorts of previously owned stores in the world. Since when did they become the devil? Are rentals considered the same way? It smacks of a lot of self-deluded justification for pirating to me. (and I don't even like buying used games/rentals myself)

Because they went from being a legitimate source of hard to get games as they used to be to the primary business model of brick & mortar game stores. GameStop turns far more profit selling used copies than new ones and that is why they literally force their employes to push buying used games at all costs.

The result is massive losses of revenue. Again, we're not talking some old Xbox game, but something that came out 24 hours ago and is now being sold at a tiny, tiny discount to the consumer and a huge loss to the developer. It's not even remotely comparable.

Lyon, on 19 April 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

I'll jump in here with a specific reference.

I live in south Mississippi, far from high-speed internet access, out in the country. When I did try dialup, it was at a connection rate of 14.4kpbs at best, fax machine speed. There are games that specifically require me to have an internet connection just to start their singleplayer game, and since I'm now using a limited-bandwidth cellular connection, I dare not hook up to let any such game burn my bandwidth.

So, one day I bought a copy of Civilization 5. It required a Steam account, just to install. Okay, I said, this is fine, just one check, right? But no, it wanted to download the entire game again, roughly 5 GB of data. This is when I grabbed my laptop, headed back to town, 40 miles away, and parked in the coffeeshop to attempt to make it happen. 2 hours later, I'd had enough, and I downloaded the crack.

**** on DRM.

I loathe DRM too but what happened to you was an incorrect installation. Once you registered for the Steam account you should have been able to download the game from the CD, so it really wasn't the DRM's fault here.

Notably Steam itself is very laid back in terms of being a DRM but other DRM can be included as well. There was a lot of angry buzz with Bioshock got limited to 3 installations, ever, via Steam; this DRM was 2K's and outside of Valve's control, however. So it's a major buyer beware situations.

And thus my point: If you've installed Bioshock 3 times and want to install it again (new computers, reformatting your HDD) I cannot possibly condemn you for pirating it. I can't even get mad if you pirate it in the first place because of it, even though that's clearly far more wrong.

LackofCertainty, on 19 April 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Also, the devs/publishers do see some money from rentals/used games, because those stores have to purchase the game in the first place. That's not even considering how gamestop and the like buy passes for online play to include with their used games.

The first part is false; GameStop purposely buys far less units than they would otherwise because of their plan to push used titles. So they lose money, regardless.

Second, online passes were invented specifically to try to patch the hole used games has made. Bringing that up really does nothing but admits it's a huge problem that this creative solution was used to improve.

EDIT: I should bring up we also have the risk of going too far on this, too, just like DRM. There's been talk of the next Xbox system, for example, not working with used games at all if they're not tied to the Xbox. It'd make sense if you had to tie a game to your account in a manner similar to Steam (thus completely ending used games while providing an option to allow rentals to exist) but not being able to take a console game to your friends house would be mind blowingly bad; and once again, inspire people to own pirated Xbox systems purely for this purpose. Right now we haven't gotten to that point, but ultimately whenever you make life hell on the consumer and refuse to let the consumer use products they own the way they want to, that's when you face serious piracy. The casual pirates are such a small percentage at this point, they barely have any impact at all.

Edited by Victor Morson, 19 April 2012 - 04:53 PM.

[MagnusEffect]

Oh don't even get me started on the used game market in places like Gamestop. I will rage so hard the ragers will be like.. "dude... it will be okay, Magnus". (one mad face wasn't enough)

What Victor Morson said is 100% true. Gamestop is a giant middle finger to all hard working game developers everywhere. Only the publishers tolerate them for the exposure it gives, but even that is changing with the online market becoming more mainstream. Seriously, **** them.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 19 April 2012 - 04:58 PM.

[Thorqemada]

Abandonware is technically piracy i guess but as there is a rightfull interest in keeping computer gaming history alive i feel its legitimate to copy and spread such software to the people who want to learn about the past or experience the gems lost in the digital junkyards.
Therefore i am a big fan of GoG.com, who sell some of such games officially, making old software able to run on todays computers.

Used Software is not a problem but a chance - one must understand that used software generates an income to the people that sell their old games that is spend on new games.

Edited by Thorqemada, 19 April 2012 - 05:00 PM.

[MagnusEffect]

Quote

Used Software is not a problem but a chance - one must understand that used software generates an income to the people that sell their old games that is spend on new games.

Right.. an income of which the creator is partially robbed of (that's a bad thing btw).

Abandonware falls into that weird legal no-man's-land, but can basically be simplified as the copyright holder no longer sees any profit in enforcing its copyright... even when people break it. In other words, downloading (pirating) unlicensed abandonware is NOT any more legal... it just means the copyright owner no longer gives a **** to do anything about it.

Unless the copyright is expired (which I think can happen)... then it really is free and clear.

I should add that not all publishers are evil... but I'm sure we can all think of a few that are most definitely B@ST@RDS.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 19 April 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[Iron Mouse]

LOL this discussion is funny.

Piracy is illegal. Simple as that. There is NO gray line. If you gain access to a software that you have not purchased or have access that violates the EULA its wrong. The people/business that put it out is there to bring income to the company or person(s). Yes part of the driving force is about money.. the other is to protect the rights of those who created it. The software income is there to pay for the employees, R&D, future product expenses and to pay the investors. Most companies today DO NOT exist without investors. Plus it sets a bad example for everyone.

ANyway, look at this way. Lets say YOU make a software to put it up for sale. This money is there to feed your family, pay the bills, and to provide education for your children. NOW some ding dong, who thinks they shouldn't have to pay for the game because the law has tight rules on how its used. You take apirated version. Well thats lost profit for you. Well that pirated copy goes out to 100 people..then that goes out to another 100 people..well guess what.. your losing thousands of dollars. Now you don't have enough money to pay you bills so you have to declare bankruptcy.

Think about it.

[Aegis Kleais]

Catamount, on 19 April 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

For what it's worth, I think it's immature to judge maturity based on whether someone wants to say "********". Let's not reduce this to "He said a potty word; oh noes"

He called my opinion "********". And it's fine if you disagree with someone's opinion, but when you go so far as to call someone's opinion ********, you're verbally assaulting them, not maturely disagreeing.

Edited by Paul Inouye, 19 April 2012 - 08:56 PM.
..... seriously.. someone is going to have to answer for this tomorrow. >:(

[BerryChunks]

The concept is wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You want to enjoy products and also say the people who made the product suck.

All that really means is that you enjoy the product despite your protest, and thus encourage the creation of More of similar product in the future. I can bet you if people knew how far DRM would go in the future, they would've stopped buying video games with DRM back around Mechwarrior 2 days.

But consumerism is the addiction of the new age. Read the book http://en.wikipedia....selves_to_Death

You cannot prove what you do and dont like by words, but by action. If you pirate something, it's because you want it and like it. Therefore, whatever the company did to produce this consumer object, has been justified.

It's the same way people hate DRM, but will buy music and video games that have it. If you buy it, you're saying that it's justified. THe only way to voice your opinion is to withold your money.

dollars = votes.

[Pht]

Theft is still theft is still theft, and just because someone else did something wrong does not make it ok to do what is wrong in return.

[RL Nice]

Here's something to think about:

Borrowing books or movies from your local library is perfectly legal, and no one seems to have any moral qualms with it. But it seems to be pretty damn similar to piracy. Sure, the authors get paid for the work when the library buys the book, DVD, etc., but then again, the individual who uploads pirated content also has to initially buy a game or movie in order to copy it.

Of course, I don't exactly know how libraries work, but I'm fairly certain that they don't make enough money from taxes to pay royalties to every single author whose books they have copies of.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[MagnusEffect]

I know, this is sort of lazy, but it has already been well explained. For anyone who didn't watch the last link posted earlier or are still wondering "when is piracy bad", you should at least watch this:

(warning, Jim is a potty-mouth)
http://www.escapistm...y-Becomes-Theft

Peeedophile Burglars!

Edited by MagnusEffect, 19 April 2012 - 06:22 PM.

[Zakatak]

I would gladly pirate a game if the people who are getting my money don't deserve it. Yes, I would absolutely torrent Call of Duty, because the developers (and Activision) are getting payed billions each year for a game that is nothing more then an expansion pack of the last. It isn't "stealing" because you can't steal something from the internet, because it is available in infinite amounts. Although these cases are quite rare. Also, say, if I bought a game for PS3, but it didn't work at all and I couldn't return, I am entitled to play that game because I payed 60$ for it. Then I would probably torrent it for PC instead.

Would I torrent Minecraft, Battlefield, Firefly, or what have you? No, absolutely not. No justification for that.

Edited by Zakatak, 19 April 2012 - 06:44 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

Roh, on 19 April 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

*takes off his wizard hat and robes... So he can put on his pirate hat and clothes* AAAARRRRRRR!!!! Where's the booty?

Great. now we're bringing up prostitution on top of piracy?

With 'pro' in 'prostitution', you GOTTA be a fan of it.

[Helmer]

Morals are subjective.


For me? No.



Cheers.

[Volthorne]

BEFORE THIS TOPIC GOES ANY FURTHER, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF "PIRATING" AND "UNAUTHORIZED COPYING".

Pirating: 1) The act of distributing someone else's content, and making money off of it, thus removing any income they would gain from said content. 2) Looting the booty.

Unauthorized copying: Distributing content without the owner's express permission, while not gaining any monetary benefits from mentioned distribution.

The are NO laws that make unauthorized copying illegal (unless you violate copyright infringements). There ARE laws (and plenty of them) the make piracy illegal. ThePirateBay almost got shut down because, while they weren't making money off of unauthorized distribution (AKA torrents), they WERE making money off of T-shirts, thus could be legally charged with piracy because they were generating income from their "business".

[John Talbert]

it is never morally acceptable.. do alot of people do it? you betcha.

Edited by John Talbert, 19 April 2012 - 06:59 PM.