Piracy and it's reasonings.

[Kurtisb]

I hate to bring this up, but I believe it IS a MUST NEGOTIATE type of subject.

*****First off, this is ENTIRELY IMHO.*****

Piracy, IMHO, is not entirely bad.

First of all, those corporate money-mongers in it for themselves. Even IF one third of the gaming community did pirate those games the companies would still be making millions in profits a year. Take EA for an example; last time I checked they were making approx 3 BILLION a year.

It's overly simplistic to say that one will either buy or pirate a game. I know some cases where people pirate the game, and if they like it they go and buy it; if they don't they don't play it.

Secondly, AFAIK, every single major software company would have to band together to get piracy down 60%. Then, as soon as they turn their backs for one week... they would have to do it all over again and basicly run themselves into the ground because they would have to use 80% of their resources on anti-piracy jobs. Therefore, the entire gaming community would suffer greatly.


All that said, I would like to add: I in NO WAY endorse or condone piracy. All I am saying is... be realistic but dont let your guard completely down against piracy. Just be more understanding of those who: can't afford these great games, those who are being almost mentaly tortured by hearing so much about them; but knowing they can't get them otherwise.

I am an idealist at heart but often can be a realist, like now....

Best regards to everyone

[Vanquisher]

There are others who feel the same my friend

[DarkKnight]

First of all, those corporate money-mongers in it for themselves. Even IF one third of the gaming community did pirate those games the companies would still be making millions in profits a year. Take EA for an example; last time I checked they were making approx 3 BILLION a year.

That is called capitalism. If millions of people will pay $50 per game so that the mega gaming corporations make billions of dollars, then that is not the fault of the corporation. And no one (besides of course uncle sam) has the right to go in and steal money from them just because they think that they make too much money and don't feel like spending their own. Lets say you already live comfortably get a HUGE bonus. You go buy a new car with that bonus. How would you like it if your neighbor saw the new car you bought, and thought, "wow he already has so many things and I have nothing, I'll just take his car, after all he already lives so comfortably".

Secondly, AFAIK, every single major software company would have to band together to get piracy down 60%. Then, as soon as they turn their backs for one week... they would have to do it all over again and basicly run themselves into the ground because they would have to use 80% of their resources on anti-piracy jobs. Therefore, the entire gaming community would suffer greatly.

I don't know where you are getting those statistics from, but the concept is true. The gaming industries (music industries too) spend so many resources on anti piracy, and the results aren't enough to compensate them. Pirates will simply always find a way around them.

However, this does not make piracy "not bad". This is simply an arguement against companies putting so much effort into anti piracy. At no point in this arguement does it even attempt to justify piracy.


However, I do agree with you that all forms of piracy are not bad.

Piracy these days is all digital copies from a consumer. If I went into a music or gaming store and stole a game, then the store suffers loss. If I somehow steal a copy of the game between when it is manufactured and when the retailer buys it, then the gaming company suffers the loss of the cost it took to manufacture the CD, box, and any other goodies included in it.

However, if I download the game, then there is no direct loss suffered by anyone. The only loss that can be claimed by the industries is the lack of payment. However, how many games would you get if they were free? Then ask yourself, how many games would you get if you had to pay $50 a pop? EXPONENTIALLY LESS.

I see nothing morally wrong with downloading a game that I would never buy in the first place. If I didn't pirate it, then I wouldn't have bought it. The company gets no money from me, I get no enjoyment of the game. If I pirate it, then the company gets no money from me, but I get the enjoyment of the game. And if I end up really liking the game I might buy it. In either situation the company gets nothing from me. The arguement that the company is losing money does not always work.

However, lets say that if the faucets of piracy were not available, you would purchase that game. But you decide, "hey why not get it for free instead". Then that is wrong. The company would get profits if you did not pirate, but you ended up getting the enjoyment of the game you would pay for without paying for it.

It is not a black and white issue though. If that was how the law worked, then anyone would just go up and say that they never would have bought the game even if piracy wasn't an option. That is why the law is the way it is. And those of us who choose to pirate games that we never would buy are aware of the consequences and will have to pay them if we get caught.


On a similar note, I think the music industry simply needs to adapt to piracy (since music piracy is so much easier and more common than gaming piracy). They could offer free downloads, but load up the download sites with ads to make money. And it would only be legal to download from the industries' sites, unless a site had an agreement with them.

[LoZz]

i agree, companys like sony and EA are *******s, BUT piracy dosent hurt them, because people still have to buy/pay for the original to pirate it, its far more effective to just having nothing to do with them and not buy any of their products.

but be careful when doing piracy, they are watching you even if you think you are being careful

[Denny Crane!]

Just a brief FYI, discussion on piracy is fine so long as it does not cross the lines into promoting it or informing people how or where to do it - Seneca

Now with that off my chest I must add. In terms of music piracy, there are people out there who never bought a cd or a tape then downloading music was like a gift from god. Buying an album was never a great idea as generally there are a lot of bad songs to go with the good. It was always a bit of a minefield.

Downloading music introduced such persons to the delights of chopan and palchabel. JS bach and British folk music, something that would not have happened without the internet.

Of course now the music industry caught up and there is a legal option to circumventing the music store route and as far as I am concerned the picture is hunky dory. The music companies should agree since they are experiencing a high volume of sales.

What really worries them though is the thought of Bands and Groups bypassing the music companies in order to make a lot more money. Music Companies are a bit of a monolith, old and outdated. They are hanging on quiet desperation - The English Way.

Peter

[Stalins Ghost]

For music piracy, I do rather abhor it really, but only for peoples attitudes towards it, in that people will gladly never buy a CD in their life, or buy through I-Tunes or something like that. I admit I download, but only to try a band out. 9/10 songs I download, chances are they now have a place on my ever growing shelving. If a band is good enough, then I give them (and I guess their record company) a cut of my cash. I do rather dislike people who don't buy albums, since I believe that real talent comes through producing whole albums no one off songs with a catchy hook. But thats a whole entirely different issue I guess!

[Denny Crane!]

For music piracy, I do rather abhor it really, but only for peoples attitudes towards it, in that people will gladly never buy a CD in their life, or buy through I-Tunes or something like that. I admit I download, but only to try a band out. 9/10 songs I download, chances are they now have a place on my ever growing shelving. If a band is good enough, then I give them (and I guess their record company) a cut of my cash. I do rather dislike people who don't buy albums, since I believe that real talent comes through producing whole albums no one off songs with a catchy hook. But thats a whole entirely different issue I guess!

I think you are generalising massively. I have extensive experience in music and the majority off mainstream does not appeal. I do not mind paying for music but at the same time I certainly don't want to listen to a lot of badly written badly produced songs. Snow Patrol as a case in point, they are ok they have written some music that is passable but I certainly do not want their full album which is over 50% steaming turd.

I support more the legal download method as it gives access to the songs you want not the ones you don't. The idea of an album is antiquated and often forces creativity where it should not be, that is why you get filler songs.

The artists publicly support internet music and the freedom to move away from record companies who exploit them and force actions they do not want to take. What we are seeing now is the possibility of music without record companies and that would be a great thing indeed.

Peter

[Stalins Ghost]

Interesting argument

Admittedly I'm fond of albums. I tend to think that if a band can put out a good album, then they deserve credit and applause. So what if a band can put out 1 or 2 singles? They will only fade out into obscurity. Produce a timeless album, and you become timeless!

Its interesting really, since I've debated this with friends in the past - i.e. the merits of the single vs. the album, and I think its something that is an interesting aspect of the nature of music piracy. Its easy for you to download a popular song off the usual sources, but getting a whole album is often somewhat more laborious a process.

It kind of exposes peoples preference in some ways I think. Since if you just want to listen to one song, its easy to get hold of them. If you're the kind like me who enjoys putting on and listening to the whole flow of an album from start to finish, the pirate method of music acquisition is less attractive.

Piracy kills concept albums too. A travesty!

[Denny Crane!]

Interesting argument

Admittedly I'm fond of albums. I tend to think that if a band can put out a good album, then they deserve credit and applause. So what if a band can put out 1 or 2 singles? They will only fade out into obscurity. Produce a timeless album, and you become timeless!

I am not really in love with albums rather good music. I sit and listen to music for a vast amount of the day and I create my own playlists out of the 39gb or so of music I have.

Its interesting really, since I've debated this with friends in the past - i.e. the merits of the single vs. the album, and I think its something that is an interesting aspect of the nature of music piracy. Its easy for you to download a popular song off the usual sources, but getting a whole album is often somewhat more laborious a process.

Not willing or allowed to go into details other than to say 1. Use the legal process but 2. In regards to piracy and full albums you are incorrect. It is far from laborious, infact it is quick and easy.

It kind of exposes peoples preference in some ways I think. Since if you just want to listen to one song, its easy to get hold of them. If you're the kind like me who enjoys putting on and listening to the whole flow of an album from start to finish, the pirate method of music acquisition is less attractive.

Piracy kills concept albums too. A travesty!

Meh, I guess music is subjective. I can see your point of view in regards to someone like Sting, where something like Ten Summoners Tales has a distinctive theme to it, and you can sit and listen to the full album as they are all exceptional pieces. However there are countless pieces of music where I do not desire the full albums.

Good example, the acoustic folk box four album set. An absolute gold mine for good music yet I deleted 75% of it. One of my most treasured tracks was found on there but there was some atrocious music to.

Peter

[Cadmium77]

For those who feel smitten by the towering self righteousness of Hollywood and the RIAA it is worth noting that originally the movie industry was started in New York state where it prospered. However all the patents on tall the movie technologies were owned by their inventor; Thomas Alva Edison. Now California had very lax or nonexistent patent laws in the 1920's so clever ruthless enterpreneurs set up in California, in an obscure place called Hollywoodland, and stole Edison's patents to set up a rival industry, which, not having to pay high royalties, were very competitive and prospered. Thus Hollywood was born, in patent theft....the same kind of theft they now howl about, those criminal scumbags....for they are indeed criminals, using the loose budgeting of the movie and music industry to camouflage and launder profits from illicit drug dealing, prostitution, gambling and other illegal acts.

Piracy is wrong, but the RIAA are rotten hypocrites...

[Tzif]

Well, I downloaded a full version of Rome: Total War, before I bought it at EB, to get a more 'in depth' look at the game. The demo wasn't to clear on some things. I played half of a campaign and then went and bought Gold Edition at EB.

I don't find that pirating, I call it a more 'in depth' demo.

Tzif

[Ronin]

I do not condone piracy for the record, I buy all my games.

But I must say the prices gaming companies are charging us for their produce is ridiculous. Here in Australia a new game costs around about $100. That's pretty much out of my league.

If they sold their new games at half the price they'd still be making a massive profit.

[Fallen.Soldier]

piracy wouldnt be a problem if the devs would release "good stuff" in each patch.

look at galactic civilizations. the company accepts the fact that piracy DOES exist, but instead of putting in "security" on their cds they instead UPDATE the game almost weekly. if devs DID something similar like that then piracy MIGHT slow down...

as it is, i bought games that i only played for about 2 weeks, hell even 1 week then it became a really expensive paperweight. so sometimes i go warez.

as for music, i like to support indie bands buy buying their cds, mainstream bands not so.

[Simetrical]

First of all, those corporate money-mongers in it for themselves. Even IF one third of the gaming community did pirate those games the companies would still be making millions in profits a year. Take EA for an example; last time I checked they were making approx 3 BILLION a year.

First of all, your figures are wrong. Its 2005 revenues were $3 billion; its profits were $504 million. (Source) Second of all, as you can see from here, EA (like many or most big businesses) pays no dividends, so its owners actually don't get a penny of that $504 million in profit. Instead, it gets reinvested in the company. Or in other words, it goes to pay for more games, more staff, more market share.

That's the way big business works. Sure, EA makes tons of money. But it spends that money on making new products, some of which you'll probably want to buy. No profits, no money to invest in making new games. Simple as that.

It's overly simplistic to say that one will either buy or pirate a game. I know some cases where people pirate the game, and if they like it they go and buy it; if they don't they don't play it.

From the perspective of the law, of course, it's unlikely that there can be a practical distinction made. How should anyone know whether any given downloaded game will be paid for if it's found to be good enough? If we had unbreakable DRM (e.g., all computing centralized into a single facility), I would agree that it would be worthy considering requirements that companies allow sampling of their goods. But we don't, so the only thing that can be done is cracking down on all currently-illegal downloads.

Secondly, AFAIK, every single major software company would have to band together to get piracy down 60%. Then, as soon as they turn their backs for one week... they would have to do it all over again and basicly run themselves into the ground because they would have to use 80% of their resources on anti-piracy jobs. Therefore, the entire gaming community would suffer greatly.

I don't know where you are getting those statistics from, but the concept is true. The gaming industries (music industries too) spend so many resources on anti piracy, and the results aren't enough to compensate them. Pirates will simply always find a way around them.

I would be very, very cautious about presuming to know more about the game/movie/music industries' financial interests than they do. You didn't spent countless hours in meetings creating and scrutinizing cost-benefit analyses, which every one of the major companies in the field surely has.

My suspicion would be that they're actually spending a tiny amount of their budgets fighting piracy, and that their effort is probably well returned by making the average person a bit nervous about warez. People who spend their time on Internet forums know all the tricks, but your average Joe might just read about people being sued for downloading illegally and decide he can afford that $5 after all.

That is called capitalism. If millions of people will pay $50 per game so that the mega gaming corporations make billions of dollars, then that is not the fault of the corporation. And no one (besides of course uncle sam) has the right to go in and steal money from them just because they think that they make too much money and don't feel like spending their own.

A rather ineffective argument, for the simple reason that many people would disagree. Due in part to misconceptions, probably, but just stating this argument won't convince anyone.

I see nothing morally wrong with downloading a game that I would never buy in the first place.

Would you really never have bought it in the first place? It's easy to deceive yourself, when your self-interest is at stake.

i agree, companys like sony and EA are *******s, BUT piracy dosent hurt them, because people still have to buy/pay for the original to pirate it

I don't follow your logic. One person has to pay for the original for thousands upon thousands to use it. Without piracy, each of those thousands — or perhaps only half, or a tenth, but still a lot of people — would pay for their own copy. How many games are pirated, we'll never know for sure, but 1% here and there adds up.

I've heard the argument, incidentally, that word-of-mouth from piracy helps spread games and thus increases sales. Personally, I think that's ridiculous. Any large company does intensive surveying and focus groups, and knows what makes its consumers decide to buy its products far better than you do; but even if that weren't the case, it's not your job or business to try improving Sega's sales from the peanut gallery.

For those who feel smitten by the towering self righteousness of Hollywood and the RIAA it is worth noting that originally the movie industry was started in New York state where it prospered. However all the patents on tall the movie technologies were owned by their inventor; Thomas Alva Edison. Now California had very lax or nonexistent patent laws in the 1920's so clever ruthless enterpreneurs set up in California, in an obscure place called Hollywoodland, and stole Edison's patents to set up a rival industry, which, not having to pay high royalties, were very competitive and prospered. Thus Hollywood was born, in patent theft....the same kind of theft they now howl about

Seems to be roughly accurate, according to the Columbia Encyclopedia. I would like to note, though, that patent law is a federal matter, not state, so I wouldn't view state law as a likely deciding factor. I thing it's pretty dubious to connect the MPAA to something that happened over 90 years ago. Surely they don't officially endorse illegal activities, although the upshot is that they don't care as long as it doesn't affect them, of course.

those criminal scumbags....for they are indeed criminals, using the loose budgeting of the movie and music industry to camouflage and launder profits from illicit drug dealing, prostitution, gambling and other illegal acts.

I see. Do you have citations for this? Because otherwise it strikes me as pretty straightforwardly defamatory. Not that you could really be prosecuted with the US's defendant-friendly libel law.

If they sold their new games at half the price they'd still be making a massive profit.

But they've calculated that it's not as much. Otherwise they'd charge less.

[Miraj]

I have never downloaded a song, game or movie and upon liking it not bought it. If I like a game or movie I almost always buy it since I like good quality and official items from the makers themselves. I like the box and its tremendously ugly to add pirated game or movie to your shining collection. And lastly, it tremendously evil and disrepectful if you really like something and don't acknowledge quality products with payment. I personally believe certain movies and games are worth every penny (or perhaps more).

[Ronin]

But they've calculated that it's not as much. Otherwise they'd charge less.

Greed on the multi-billion dollar scale is hardly an excuse .

[Your Lame Sister]

Piracy is stealing, end of discussion.
The reason for it is very simple: people DONT like to pay money for stuff they buy, so they download it illegally. you can't justify it, so don't try. no one is blaming you for pirating, but if you try to justify it people will just view you as a hypocrite.

[MaximiIian]

Piracy is stealing, end of discussion.

Well, of course, it's stealing. The thing is, occasionally, it is stealing from people that deserve to be stolen from, like the big corporations.

you can't justify it, so don't try

Well, that's a bit pessimistic, don't you think?

but if you try to justify it people will just view you as a hypocrite.

Who the **** decided that hypocrisy is so wrong? Just who is the cock with the balls and arrogance to declare what is and what is not wrong or right?

[Armfelt]

Piracy is stealing, end of discussion.
The reason for it is very simple: people DONT like to pay money for stuff they buy, so they download it illegally. you can't justify it, so don't try. no one is blaming you for pirating, but if you try to justify it people will just view you as a hypocrite.

Is "I just don't give a ****, I save money!" A good enough reasoning for you?

[Mathias]

Saving 1000s of $ is a good enough reason for me.