[QUOTE=catbarf;38356376]It's not about giving people the experience without paying, it's about devaluing the work through unlawful reproduction. If there are so many copies that anyone who wants one can get it from a friend or extremely cheaply, then the publisher's ability to sell their own product has effectively been destroyed.[/QUOTE]
That's already how it is with digital copies thanks to piracy and giveaways. Anyone can in fact get their own copy without paying for it and nobody is really stopping them. Still Steam, Spotify, Netflix and wherever you buy Ebooks still sells copies all the time. Because they want to support the producers and have a legitimate copy.
The biggest slump of people that pirate a game or borrow a game and don't buy it are people who weren't interested enough in the game in the first place, didn't actually want to buy it, but hey I can pirate/borrow it so why not, maybe it's so good I want to purchase it in the end. It's the same old same old argument we make everytime that people that pirate and don't buy never would have bought in the first place, and whether they pirate or borrow it really doesn't change anything one darn bit.
The publisher's ability to sell their own product can only be destroyed by not selling the product or restricting it's usage. Piracy has never been a cause for a games lack of sales, developers or publishers have however been the reason for high piracy rates, with Spore the obtrusive and ridiculous DRM they added to the game caused a record in amount of downloaded pirate copies. This wasn't caused by how easy it was to pirate Spore, it was caused by how hard they fucked over their highly anticipated game.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38356376]I might buy a book, even after borrowing it from a friend, because even though he isn't reading it at this instant, he likes it and wants to keep it, and I would like a copy too.
The same is for games. But if my friend gives me a perfect duplicate of his book and says I can keep it, I have no reason to go and actually buy the work. In a broader economic context, there are now two books, which are individually not as valuable as the one was before. If I print off ten thousand more of this book and give them away to anyone who wants one, it would clearly be undercutting sales of the book.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you want your copy because you liked the book so much you wanted to support the author and have nice book in your collection that you can proudly call your own and even borrow to others so they too can read this fantastic book you discovered.
And what would you know, that's exactly why people buy games as well. They pirate it to test it out, see what it really is about, know if it actually runs on their PC and making sure that the promises of the developers actually have been held, that they haven't been lied to. This perfect pirate copy is perfectly useable, and for a few people they are content with that, they don't need updates for the games, they didn't like it enough to support the developers or they don't have the money to spend on games in the first place but wants to buy it sometime in the future when they can afford it.
Thanks to services like GoG and Steam lots of pirates, including myself (I have pretty much stopped pirating games, and I have bought lots of classics I used to play pirated as a child) have turned it to valuable customers that purchases games despite having that clear and safe alternative of saving all our money and just pirating copies of games.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38356376]I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. There is nothing illegal about borrowing a piece of physical media.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, looking further into it now and I can't find anything on it anymore, no it's perfectly legal after all, just some old rustic piece of information laying back in my brain.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38356376]See above. It's not about people getting 'the experience' without paying. It's about people [i]owning[/i] the experience, permanently, without paying. It's the difference between a movie rental and a street vendor selling burned movies. There's a massive conceptual difference between transferring ownership and creating new ownership.
I mean, think about it. By your reasoning, giving your friend a counterfeit $20 to keep is just as legitimate as letting him borrow $20. Doesn't that seem off?[/QUOTE]
But there is really no practical difference whatsoever between the two. The effect of owning the copy and borrowing the company is the exact same for the developers/producers/publishers. A person has used their product without them gaining any money whatsoever, and even though he can't access it at exactly any time he want, he can still access it often enough to experience it over and over and over again without paying a dime.
That seems off because that whole situation makes no sense and doesn't transfer to the discussion. You don't borrow the pirated copy, you get it yourself. A counterfeit $20 isn't actually useable (of course you can use it and risk going to jail and I get the whole point behind that) whereas a pirated copy is just as useable as a legitimate copy.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38348680]Doesn't matter. There's still only one physical copy. Nobody reads one single book 24/7, that doesn't mean you can print off a hundred copies and give them to everyone you want.
It's not about who gets to use it, it's about how many copies there exist. One copy exists. One copy has been paid for.
The same exact argument could be applied to books, music, movies, anything. Just because you can loan it to someone else without undue inconvenience to yourself doesn't mean you have the right to freely duplicate the material.
Reading a book and then giving it to a friend to read is legal. Photocopying the entire book and giving your friend the copy is illegal. It doesn't matter that you won't be reading the book 24/7, or that you've already read it and it'll just sit on your shelf. You don't have the right to make a copy, and doing so hurts the publisher and by extension the writer. It's exactly the same with games. What are you arguing here? That you have every right to print a hundred thousand copies of a book, CD, or game and distribute them, because of the trivial fact that you can not in fact be using the product all the time?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=catbarf;38356376]It's not about giving people the experience without paying, it's about devaluing the work through unlawful reproduction. If there are so many copies that anyone who wants one can get it from a friend or extremely cheaply, then the publisher's ability to sell their own product has effectively been destroyed.
I might buy a book, even after borrowing it from a friend, because even though he isn't reading it at this instant, he likes it and wants to keep it, and I would like a copy too. The same is for games. But if my friend gives me a perfect duplicate of his book and says I can keep it, I have no reason to go and actually buy the work. In a broader economic context, there are now two books, which are individually not as valuable as the one was before. If I print off ten thousand more of this book and give them away to anyone who wants one, it would clearly be undercutting sales of the book.
See above. It's not about people getting 'the experience' without paying. It's about people [I]owning[/I] the experience, permanently, without paying. It's the difference between a movie rental and a street vendor selling burned movies. There's a massive conceptual difference between transferring ownership and creating new ownership.
I mean, think about it. By your reasoning, giving your friend a counterfeit $20 to keep is just as legitimate as letting him borrow $20. Doesn't that seem off?
[/QUOTE]
What doesn't matter is the number of copies existing. Games and movies are about giving you experience. Borrowing and pirating has the same exact impact. More than 1 person gets the experience and doesn't pay for it. I borrow a game from my friend, play it, like it, finish it and I give it back, never pay for it. Same thing happens if I pirate it. Both are lost sales and stealing. Why would I buy the game after borrowing it? To give my support? So just like after pirating?
[QUOTE=catbarf;38356376]Borrowing reusable products isn't legal? What? Since when? How?
I guess I should tell my roommate that letting him borrow my vacuum cleaner is illegal now. Then I'll go tell the public library that they're in violation of the law. Maybe I'll bring it up with Blockbuster, if they're still around.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. There is nothing illegal about borrowing a piece of physical media.
[/QUOTE]
Actually steam and battlenet accounts are one-user-only.
I think that the longest a pirated game has stayed on my HDD is about 3 days, personally I wouldn't have any pirated games as long as that game offered an mp and sp beta/demo before release, my purpose in downloading these is just to see if I should buy the whole game, I do think that borrowing games/dvds etc is fine most copyrights before a film are just saying how the film shouldn't be played in prisons, schools etc. nothing to say you can't lend it to a friend, and you can't borrow many games on disc now because most have those ridiculous online passes, which really is unfair. 1.)It is making a potential customer say know, if that guy wants to try the game surely he wants to play the whole thing rather than trying it but paying 25% of the game's RRP anyway. 2.) It puts people off of companies, I for one will probably never buy a EA Game on disc again if I think that game is shit I have wasted money, at least without a online pass system I can sell it which is my third point. 3.) Second hand trading in games is pretty big and alot of smaller companies or individual stores rely on it, if they can't sell games because people know they have a used pass then they have lost a lot of business, and if that person was looking for it second hand I doubt they were massively exited about it or they would've bought it new anyway
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38360609]What doesn't matter is the number of copies existing. Games and movies are about giving you experience. Borrowing and pirating has the same exact impact. More than 1 person gets the experience and doesn't pay for it. I borrow a game from my friend, play it, like it, finish it and I give it back, never pay for it. Same thing happens if I pirate it. Both are lost sales and stealing. Why would I buy the game after borrowing it? To give my support? So just like after pirating?[/QUOTE]
The idea is that you're playing a paid copy of the game. You can't split the paid copy, so it can only be used by one person at a time.
[QUOTE=Agoat;38389404]The idea is that you're playing a paid copy of the game. You can't split the paid copy, so it can only be used by one person at a time.[/QUOTE]
Aaaaaaannd?!
So what? The effect, the experience, the everything is exactly the same. That one point is the only thing that differenciates the two, and it's completely redundant as an argument for why borrowing should be seen as ok and pirating not, because they both cause the same effect, just in different scales. (of course, here I am saying that borrowing shouldn't be okay from the perspective of companies, not the other way around)
I understand that if piracy didn't exist then you would have to have a hell lot of purchasers to borrow it to the rest of the country, then it would have been a legitimate argument. But piracy does exist, an infinite number of copies are available to the whole world, thus borrowing only becomes a different form of piracy, because if they can't borrow it they could still just pirate it. So this whole physical copy thing is a argument that holds no ground in reality, neither practically nor theoretically.
[QUOTE=dgg;38389483]Aaaaaaannd?!
So what? The effect, the experience, the everything is exactly the same. That one point is the only thing that differenciates the two, and it's completely redundant as an argument for why borrowing should be seen as ok and pirating not, because they both cause the same effect, just in different scales.
I understand that if piracy didn't exist then you would have to have a hell lot of purchasers to borrow it to the rest of the country, then it would have been a legitimate reason. But piracy does exist, an infinite number of copies are available to the whole world, thus borrowing only becomes a different form of piracy, because if they can't borrow it they could still just pirate it. So this whole physical copy thing is a argument that holds no ground in reality, neither practically nor theoretically.[/QUOTE]
You'll believe this up until you get a job.
[QUOTE=Agoat;38389584]You'll believe this up until you get a job.[/QUOTE]
Uh, I've had several jobs. What the hell kind of argument is this?
Saying things like "you'll understand when you get older" is not how you debate you know?
What changes my attitude towards physical copies when I get a job? Could you please give me a counter-argument and not some unexplaining childish thing like that. You don't have an argument and resorted to some sort of personal attack or what?
There is no such thing as intellectual property. It is just an artifice created by governments.
Honestly. Does no one know the free rider issue here?
[QUOTE=dgg;38318340]There is literally no difference between borrowing something from a friend and pirating it. In most cases people don't give a shit and you can end up borrowing it for the rest of your life.
Also it doesn't matter if there is a time constraint to your borrow, you can still play through the whole game without paying a dime. And in most cases you can easily play through the whole game in the timespan that you borrow it.[/QUOTE]
Man this thread is still going?
Anyways, I disagree.
If you borrow a game from your friend, there's nothing wrong with it because you and your friend can never play at the same time. Its because your friend's license only allows him to have one copy of the game.
However, if you copied your friend's game, then both of you could play it at the same time. Also, thats a copy of a game that the distributor would have otherwise sold had pirating not been the way your particular copy were obtained.
I still think that some shit in this thread is ridiculous; people are so goddamn cheap that they justify stealing from other people, and try to use the technicality of the definition of the word "stealing" to back it up
Money is, in a loose way, a representation of how much work you did. If you can't afford, or are unwilling to give, money in exchange for something as pointless as a game then why do you deserve to have it? somewhere, someone sat down and invested his or her own work into that game and they put it on the market expecting their work to bear fruit
Granted a little piracy here and there won't hurt the big companies but even then it isn't right. Sure, most of us here do it but I'm just dissapointed that people try to justify it.
[editline]13th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fenrisulfr;38433488]There is no such thing as intellectual property. It is just an artifice created by governments.[/QUOTE]
Oh yea? lets say I was a hypothetical genius and I worked my ass off week in and week out for a decade, in order to invent the perfect... lets see, the perfect plowing device.
You, who has just been farming for 10 years, see my blueprint and construct one yourself. Then you go and not only become more successful in your farming but you also start selling your self constructed plows to people without my permission.
So basically, I just worked my ass off for 10 years while you went about your usual business, and yet somehow you're profiting off of my work without compensating me?
Bullshit.
I think there is actually a historical example of this. Eli Whitney, inventor of the cotton gin. After working his own ass off he eventually created an invention that would change the world: the cotton gin. However, he lost a lot of money to other people because these other people basically just started making their own cotton gins and selling them without compensating Eli. So basically, these people bypassed having to do a shitload of work by making money off of the work of others.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38445207]Granted a little piracy here and there won't hurt the big companies but even then it isn't right. Sure, most of us here do it but I'm just dissapointed that people try to justify it.[/QUOTE]
I'm not justifying piracy. Piracy is wrong and I don't care. I'm calling bullshit on the argument that borrowing from a friend is any different from piracy just because of the physical copy aspect.
I don't agree that it matters that you can't play it at the same time (which you actually can because most games nowadays doesn't require a CD to run and can usually be played without any verification. (this of course does not apply to any CD game that forces you to install it on a DRM solution, in those cases you have to register them on your friends account or you won't be allowed to play it at all... Which kinda brings us back to the whole borrowing = piracy).
You can both still play it, even if at irregular intervals, and beat, finish and experience the whole game. You've had the exact same experience, you've had the exact same product and done the exact same things as if you were pirating.
[QUOTE=dgg;38445332]I'm not justifying piracy. Piracy is wrong and I don't care. I'm calling bullshit on the argument that borrowing from a friend is any different from piracy just because of the physical copy aspect.
I don't agree that it matters that you can't play it at the same time (which you actually can because most games nowadays doesn't require a CD to run and can usually be played without any verification. (this of course does not apply to any CD game that forces you to install it on a DRM solution, in those cases you have to register them on your friends account or you won't be allowed to play it at all... Which kinda brings us back to the whole borrowing = piracy).
You can both still play it, even if at irregular intervals, and beat, finish and experience the whole game. You've had the exact same experience, you've had the exact same product and done the exact same things as if you were pirating.[/QUOTE]
Yes but you didn't have the convenience of your own copy, now did you?
You can only have the game at one person's house at a time. Or if you're rooming together and one wants to play it while another has a game still in progress. Everyone in the goddamn world can download a copy of a copy of a game on the internet, but if you have more than 4 people try to share a game between them via borrowing it just doesn't work. You PAY for the right to have your own copy at your own disposal that you can lend to whoever the fuck you want. You PAY for the convenience of not having to go to your friend's house to borrow his copy.
Also, most games are not actually playable on multiple computers at once (these days at least) unless we're talking about games like Quake and Quake II which come from a finer, more civilized age.
Even so these games came at a time where they were just starting to use CD keys; it took a while for them to fully implement them. So by the time Quake III hit you already were not able to have multiple multiplayer-enabled copies of Quake III on the network at the same time without being detected, whereas in the two previous games in the same series you were.
Then it came to a point where you had to validate the CD key with a remote server, or had to keep the CD in the entire time you played.
Bypassing ANY of these measures is nothing short of piracy.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38445415]Yes but you didn't have the convenience of your own copy, now did you?
You can only have the game at one person's house at a time. Or if you're rooming together and one wants to play it while another has a game still in progress. Everyone in the goddamn world can download a copy of a copy of a game on the internet, but if you have more than 4 people try to share a game between them via borrowing it just doesn't work. You PAY for the right to have your own copy at your own disposal that you can lend to whoever the fuck you want. You PAY for the convenience of not having to go to your friend's house to borrow his copy.
Also, most games are not actually playable on multiple computers at once (these days at least) unless we're talking about games like Quake and Quake II which come from a finer, more civilized age.
Even so these games came at a time where they were just starting to use CD keys; it took a while for them to fully implement them. So by the time Quake III hit you already were not able to have multiple multiplayer-enabled copies of Quake III on the network at the same time without being detected, whereas in the two previous games in the same series you were.
Then it came to a point where you had to validate the CD key with a remote server, or had to keep the CD in the entire time you played.
Bypassing ANY of these measures is nothing short of piracy.[/QUOTE]
What convencience? Install it, be able to play it whenever I want whereever I want since having the CD at your disposal isn't required.
No, I didn't have my own copy, neither do you when you pirate. You get the copy from a seeder / borrow the CD from your friend. Install it and voila, you can have it forever.
You're rooming together and don't have your seperate pc's? Whaaat? Also what game doesn't have several save slots? Only really shitty ones.
If they use DRM they are not, but do you know what DRM is fighting besides piracy? Borrowing. They limit the amount of unique pc's you can install on so that if you borrow it you lose an install, because in the end they don't want you to borrow it to a friend because *ding ding ding* it has the exact same effect as piracy.
I don't understand why does it matter whether I borrow or pirate a game. The impact it has is exactly the same.
Piracy is stealing when there is a lost sale. Lost sale is when you get a game, satisfy your need for it and never pay for it. It doesn't matter if you borrowed or pirated it. It works in the same exact way. Both are lost sales and stealing.
And fuck, a lot of modern games have "one user only" in terms of use.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38445207]
So basically, I just worked my ass off for 10 years while you went about your usual business, and yet somehow you're profiting off of my work without compensating me?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE=Proffrink;38338576][b]If you can't afford it then live without it.[/b][/QUOTE]
You seem to think people actually give a fuck about the developer / artist / publisher. As a long term pirate I can tell you a large percentage of pirates don't care and the remainder enjoy making up excuses as if to make themselves appear morally correct.
Nothing can be done at the end of the day since too many people enjoy getting stuff for free regardless of it being legal or illegal, from the view of the pirate it's the people who pay who are the idiots for not taking advantage.
Personally I could not care less about the software, music and games industry, piracy gives me free access to entertainment and education (textbooks, etc) at no cost to me, does this make me an asshole? probably but as with piracy the opinion of others means little to me.
Arguing against piracy is like talking to a brick wall, you can't really convince a pirate to stop pirating since you have nothing at all to offer in return, arguments like "it's illegal", "it hurts the developers", etc have no effect since all pirates know this although some might deny it.
Anti-piracy measures have practically zero effect, other than pissing off the people who actually might buy said product, it amuses me greatly that their poor attempts at reducing piracy only serve to harm them even more.
[QUOTE=dgg;38446700]What convencience? Install it, be able to play it whenever I want whereever I want since having the CD at your disposal isn't required.
No, I didn't have my own copy, neither do you when you pirate. You get the copy from a seeder / borrow the CD from your friend. Install it and voila, you can have it forever.
You're rooming together and don't have your seperate pc's? Whaaat? Also what game doesn't have several save slots? Only really shitty ones.
If they use DRM they are not, but do you know what DRM is fighting besides piracy? Borrowing. They limit the amount of unique pc's you can install on so that if you borrow it you lose an install, because in the end they don't want you to borrow it to a friend because *ding ding ding* it has the exact same effect as piracy.[/QUOTE]
hmm good point
but think a little bigger. Borrowing involves just lending maybe people you know in real life a game which would probably be people you're good friends with.
Whereas, if you were to submit it or download it from a pirating site you'd basically be taking/giving a copy of the game to whoever the fuck is out there on the internet that wants to download it. Which means, 9001 people could download it at once, and that could mean a significant loss of sales; whereas with a friend you're just swapping the copy with each other.
Also, the network-verified-one user only bullshit that we have to deal with these days was caused by something. What's that thing you ask? Mass piracy. The fact is if companies had to choose between letting friends borrow and losing sales they'd choose to lose the borrowing.
[editline]14th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fenrisulfr;38453667]Yes.[/QUOTE]
well then you're just an exploitative personality.
[editline]14th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chryseus;38455948]You seem to think people actually give a fuck about the developer / artist / publisher. As a long term pirate I can tell you a large percentage of pirates don't care and the remainder enjoy making up excuses as if to make themselves appear morally correct.
Nothing can be done at the end of the day since too many people enjoy getting stuff for free regardless of it being legal or illegal, from the view of the pirate it's the people who pay who are the idiots for not taking advantage.
Personally I could not care less about the software, music and games industry, piracy gives me free access to entertainment and education (textbooks, etc) at no cost to me, does this make me an asshole? probably but as with piracy the opinion of others means little to me.
Arguing against piracy is like talking to a brick wall, you can't really convince a pirate to stop pirating since you have nothing at all to offer in return, arguments like "it's illegal", "it hurts the developers", etc have no effect since all pirates know this although some might deny it.
Anti-piracy measures have practically zero effect, other than pissing off the people who actually might buy said product, it amuses me greatly that their poor attempts at reducing piracy only serve to harm them even more.[/QUOTE]
But then there are some devs who are more affected by pirates than others. namely, small-time indie or upstart devs.
and sure, there's no surefire way to stop people from getting shit illegally and for free but that doesn't mean its right. Like I stated before, pirates aren't going to be the end of intellectual property but the fact that people are justifying it just pisses me off.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38457360]But think a little bigger. Borrowing involves just lending maybe people you know in real life a game which would probably be people you're good friends with.
Whereas, if you were to submit it or download it from a pirating site you'd basically be taking/giving a copy of the game to whoever the fuck is out there on the internet that wants to download it. Which means, 9001 people could download it at once, and that could mean a significant loss of sales; whereas with a friend you're just swapping the copy with each other.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and that's completely true. But the fact remains that piracy exists. This physical argument only holds grounds in a world where piracy doesn't exist in the first place. Piracy exists and is readily available for anyone, it isn't going away and will always be a possible choice, because of that fact it makes borrowing the same thing as piracy because it serves the same purpose and has the same effect, just in a smaller scale.
It also always will be wrong to think of piracy as lost sales for reasons that have probably been said a billion times in this thread and is brought up in any other piracy thread as well. Pirates has no right to the product and shouldn't have it, but the only thing they serve is free PR and you get the possibility to win over people to buy your product that otherwise wouldn't have bought it. The only way you could lose a sale from piracy is that someone wanted to buy it because of your marketing but decided to try it before buying it and it turns out your game is fucking shit and nothing like your marketing campaigns made it seem like, so they didn't buy it because your product was bad.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38457360]Also, the network-verified-one user only bullshit that we have to deal with these days was caused by something. What's that thing you ask? Mass piracy. The fact is if companies had to choose between letting friends borrow and losing sales they'd choose to lose the borrowing.[/QUOTE]
If a company had a choice between losing money and something that wasn't losing money it would chose not losing money. Why would they choose to lose sales over letting people borrow?
And if you just wrote that wrong and meant that they would allow people to borrow over losing sales, then that exact argument could be made about piracy because your whole choice argument is "lose money or not lose money".
[QUOTE=dgg;38458454]Yes, and that's completely true. But the fact remains that piracy exists. This physical argument only holds grounds in a world where piracy doesn't exist in the first place. Piracy exists and is readily available for anyone, it isn't going away and will always be a possible choice, because of that fact it makes borrowing the same thing as piracy because it serves the same purpose and has the same effect, just in a smaller scale.
It also always will be wrong to think of piracy as lost sales for reasons that have probably been said a billion times in this thread and is brought up in any other piracy thread as well. Pirates has no right to the product and shouldn't have it, but the only thing they serve is free PR and you get the possibility to win over people to buy your product that otherwise wouldn't have bought it. The only way you could lose a sale from piracy is that someone wanted to buy it because of your marketing but decided to try it before buying it and it turns out your game is fucking shit and nothing like your marketing campaigns made it seem like, so they didn't buy it because your product was bad.
If a company had a choice between losing money and something that wasn't losing money it would chose not losing money. Why would they choose to lose sales over letting people borrow?
And if you just wrote that wrong and meant that they would allow people to borrow over losing sales, then that exact argument could be made about piracy because your whole choice argument is "lose money or not lose money".[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to say we should banbanbanban ban it and get rid of it, because its not going away ever, and I do it on occasion myself
All I'm trying to say is that to try and justify piracy is like shoving food up your anus and shitting it out of your mouth, and that the reason why we have DRM in the first place is because of piracy.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38459011]All I'm trying to say is that to try and justify piracy is like shoving food up your anus and shitting it out of your mouth, and that the reason why we have DRM in the first place is because of piracy.[/QUOTE]
We're not justifying piracy though, so where does your point come in to the discussion?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38360609]What doesn't matter is the number of copies existing. Games and movies are about giving you experience. Borrowing and pirating has the same exact impact. [/QUOTE]
On the contrary, the number of copies existing is the most important part. That's why it's COPYright, because it's about the ability to control the number of playable copies in existence.
Why do you suppose Steam has unique CD keys that are only redeemed once? It's a way of directly controlling how many user-owned copies of a game exist. This limitation gives them intrinsic value beyond just the experience, as with any other physical good. A book that you can't find at a library is worth a fair bit more than one so common you can always find a free copy from someone who doesn't want theirs.
All this about piracy versus borrowing is just clouding the issue. The problem isn't really whether you get the experience for free, or how many copies have been sold versus how many people play the game, it's about the publisher's legal right to control and determine how their work is distributed. For purely digital games this is accomplished through unique CD keys. For games with a physical component, it's done by limiting the number of CDs manufactured. Either way, free and unrestricted access to unlimited additional copies of the game severely devalues the original, just look at how often gamers say 'I'm not gonna pay $60 for that [i]if I can get it for free[/i]'.
[QUOTE=dgg;38459268]We're not justifying piracy though, so where does your point come in to the discussion?[/QUOTE]
You're saying piracy is no more harmful than borrowing. Unless you are morally against borrowing games, that's a justification for piracy.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38461377]On the contrary, the number of copies existing is the most important part. That's why it's COPYright, because it's about the ability to control the number of playable copies in existence.
Why do you suppose Steam has unique CD keys that are only redeemed once? It's a way of directly controlling how many user-owned copies of a game exist. This limitation gives them intrinsic value beyond just the experience, as with any other physical good. A book that you can't find at a library is worth a fair bit more than one so common you can always find a free copy from someone who doesn't want theirs.[/QUOTE]
Controlling the number of copies is not the END but MEANS to an end. And the end is that everyone who wants to play the game has to pay for it. The impact of pirating a game is exactly the same as borrowing it. People who didn't pay get the experience. That's what entertainment industry is selling. Entertainment. And if you get it without paying for it, it's stealing. Doesn't matter if you have additional copy or not. It works exactly the same from company's point of view.
The number of copies doesn't matter with digital goods. You can copy paste them to oblivion and nothing is going to change. The only important thing is whether people pay for it or not. And it's funny that you mention Steam because it has "one user only" in terms of use.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38461377]All this about piracy versus borrowing is just clouding the issue. The problem isn't really whether you get the experience for free, or how many copies have been sold versus how many people play the game, it's about the publisher's legal right to control and determine how their work is distributed. For purely digital games this is accomplished through unique CD keys. For games with a physical component, it's done by limiting the number of CDs manufactured. Either way, free and unrestricted access to unlimited additional copies of the game severely devalues the original, just look at how often gamers say 'I'm not gonna pay $60 for that [I]if I can get it for free[/I]'.[/QUOTE]
All digital products have unlimited supply of pirated copies. Unless we're talking about multiplayer. But even then if you borrow a game, play it, satisfy your need for it and give it back, it's a lost sale. Exactly the same as if you stole the CDkey or cracked it.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38461377]You're saying piracy is no more harmful than borrowing. Unless you are morally against borrowing games, that's a justification for piracy.[/QUOTE]
Borrowing has the same exact impact as Pirating. If you are against pirating then you should also be against borrowing.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38461377]You're saying piracy is no more harmful than borrowing. Unless you are morally against borrowing games, that's a justification for piracy.[/QUOTE]
I am not against piracy nor borrowing. Not because I think there is any justifiable reason to steal a game, but because I don't care and I can only see good things come from piracy, not bad things.
I see borrowing and pirating as the same thing, and I don't think neither of them are the right thing to do.
I have pirated before, this was to try out the game (Farming Simulator 2013) then I bought it after for the whole sale price. I noticed that the pirated copy was a LOT less laggy, so I decided to use that instead of the real version. Is this bad?
[QUOTE=Timothythe;38754414]I have pirated before, this was to try out the game (Farming Simulator 2013) then I bought it after for the whole sale price. I noticed that the pirated copy was a LOT less laggy, so I decided to use that instead of the real version. Is this bad?[/QUOTE]
Nope, you already paid for the experience.
[QUOTE=Timothythe;38754414]I have pirated before, this was to try out the game (Farming Simulator 2013) then I bought it after for the whole sale price. I noticed that the pirated copy was a LOT less laggy, so I decided to use that instead of the real version. Is this bad?[/QUOTE]
Isn't this similar to cracking a game you bought because it has got a stupid DRM that won't let you play ?
Piracy is not an excuse for "try and buy" because odds are since you already have it you won't buy it (I'm generalizing here not everyone is like this) I would do the same so instead of piracy and to combat that excuse just simply make a demo haha.
[editline]9th December 2012[/editline]
try before you buy!
People should choose what they want to pay for games. This works well for people who release good games. And not as well for people who are developing to make some cash off you. It's a win win situation and gets rid of the phonies in the industry.
[QUOTE=Chryseus;38455948]Nothing can be done at the end of the day since too many people enjoy getting stuff for free[/QUOTE]
Very true, but obviously not moral.
[QUOTE=Chryseus;38455948]piracy gives me free access to entertainment and education (textbooks, etc) at no cost to me, does this make me an asshole?[/quote]
Yep, I've pirated in the past to further my education, and I can honestly say that it's helped a great deal - my life wouldn't be the same without piracy, but as I've said, we have no say in this. We can't take things because it's easy or convenient, no matter how much they'll improve our lives - it's not up to us, and should never be.
I don't welcome DRM, as most of it just pisses me off as an end-user, but I do no condone it. I know pirates exist, and the publishers have the right to do something about it - this is about people being uncaring arseholes, and I know that's something that cannot be changed en-masse, but again, to have the audacity to complain about DRM choking some of the life from games when it's pirates who've put it there just sickens me.
I rarely pirate video games and when I do it's usually games that aren't sold anymore or are over 14 years old, and yes I have pirated some newer games but I always buy them a month or so after playing them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
