pirates get trolled

[Erloas]

I found this rather amusing.
A small game company released a game and then released a hacked version of it on a torrent site (http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/30/games-company-releases-version-for-pirates-that-forces-them-to-fail-constantly-irony-lost-on-pirates/)
It is a game where you run a company that makes games and if you do well, after a little while, if you have the hacked version off of the torrent, you stop making any money because it says your games are being pirated.
Of course the players then went online to complain about how the game wasn't seeming to let them progress and asking what they need to do to fix the problem of too many people pirating their game so they can't make any money. Of course this only happened if you pirated the game.

Along with that they also state that of the users the game has, sales only account for 10% of those users. So even at $8 the game is still being pirated 90% of the time.

[shawnhcorey]

What a good way to lose customers forever. Also, pirated games have higher sales than those which try to stop pirates.

[Tebryn]

The most amusing part of this story is that the game in question is a pretty clear copy of another game.

[Traab]

What a good way to lose customers forever. Also, pirated games have higher sales than those which try to stop pirates.

How are they losing customers when only thieves that arent buying the game get the busted copy?

[shawnhcorey]

How are they losing customers when only thieves that arent buying the game get the busted copy?

Copyright reduces sales. It reduces book sales (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-missing-20th-century-how-copyright-protection-makes-books-vanish/255282/), music sales (http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-pirates-are-bigger-music-fans-than-average-consumers-121113/), and movies sales (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121125/23542621140/new-study-megaupload-shutdown-may-have-hurt-box-office-smaller-movies.shtml).

Pissing off potential customers means they will never buy anything from you again.

[Mutant Sheep]

Copyright reduces sales. It reduces book sales (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-missing-20th-century-how-copyright-protection-makes-books-vanish/255282/), music sales (http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-pirates-are-bigger-music-fans-than-average-consumers-121113/), and movies sales (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121125/23542621140/new-study-megaupload-shutdown-may-have-hurt-box-office-smaller-movies.shtml).

Pissing off potential customers means they will never buy anything from you again.

They didn't buy anything the first time.

[Don Julio Anejo]

They didn't buy anything the first time.
Many people who pirate stuff generally buy it later anyway if they like it. For the multiplayer, for the sake of owning a game, for the sake of patches/support, to support a developer, whatever.

The ones who don't either: didn't like the game (in which case they'd just feel very ripped off if they bought it given that demos are barely produced anymore) or don't have the disposable income at the moment to buy anyway (i.e. 15 year old kids with no allowance). They might in the future, i.e. when they get a job, but alienating them now is a very dumb move.

[shawnhcorey]

...but alienating them now is a very dumb move.

More than a dumb move. By law, corporations must maximize their profits. Following policies that reduce their sales is illegal as well as dumb.

[AshesOfOld]

That may be so (though it sounds really odd to me). But still, this is brilliant. A pirate complaining about something he stole, being stolen by pirates. And the irony doesn't face him.
If something this delicious doesn't at least tickle your lip a smidgen upwards, we work on different wavelengths.

Besides, as the article states, the attention he's gaining now will probably further his sales for the game, as well as future sales. It's not like he's the head of a big company like Blizzard that will get stamped as 'the evil empire' or anything.

[Grinner]

More than a dumb move. By law, corporations must maximize their profits. Following policies that reduce their sales is illegal as well as dumb.

I find that disturbing, yet illuminating.

Nevertheless, I would be interested to see their sales numbers since this...publicity stunt?

[kurokotetsu]

More than a dumb move. By law, corporations must maximize their profits. Following policies that reduce their sales is illegal as well as dumb.What are you talknig about? SInce when making bad bussiness decisions is illegal? Really, I never heard about that, and if that was true most bussinessmen should be in prison, as they are human and made mistakes, failing to maximize profits. While accountable to their investors, while they don't do fraud, they can be as dumb as they want.

About this, well at least it has a sense of humour and it has a message. It is one of the funnier ways I've seen to combat piracy.

[Brother Oni]

By law, corporations must maximize their profits.

I guess nonprofit corporations don't exist then.

[VanBuren]

Many people who pirate stuff generally buy it later anyway if they like it. For the multiplayer, for the sake of owning a game, for the sake of patches/support, to support a developer, whatever.

I see this claimed all the time. Is there anything to back it up? Because it seems a little dodgy to me.

[shawnhcorey]

I guess nonprofit corporations don't exist then.

A different set of laws apply to non-profit corporations.

[Brother Oni]

A different set of laws apply to non-profit corporations.

You stated that all corporations are required by law to maximise their profits, which I've demonstrated not to be true as non-profit corporations don't.

Regardless Greenheart Games are not required to maximise their profits as they're a proprietary limited company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_company) and hence aren't open to the public.

[factotum]

A different set of laws apply to non-profit corporations.

Utter cobblers. There is no legal requirement whatsoever that a corporation or company has to make any profit at all, whether they're officially a not-for-profit or not. The thing that drives them to make profits is their shareholders (if they're a publically traded company) or their owners (if they're private).

[Karoht]

More than a dumb move. By law, corporations must maximize their profits. Following policies that reduce their sales is illegal as well as dumb.BY all means, post one of these laws you are refering to. Burden of proof is upon the one making the claim.

But if what you say is true, EA would be facing massive fines. How many of their games had to fail before their recent CEO stepped down? Is he going to be facing fines for the failure that was Sim City? Doubtful.


On topic:
I find this game clever and ironic.
The problem of piracy can not be solved by heavy handed tactics nor can it be solved by just letting it run rampant either. As said on Jimquisition, many pirates do so because of convenience issues. The minute there is a more convenient method of getting what they want, they'll most likely do that.

A great example, though I don't recall the article in which I read this.
iTunes VS Napster, Limewire, Etc.
In it's first year, iTunes had more downloads (paying ones) than a handful of the illegal services put together. Why? Probably because it was just as convenient and it worked better than the illegal services. Do that with other forms of media, and it works out pretty well, Steam being an excellent example. Not perfect mind you, but at least it isn't Origin.

[Coidzor]

Provide a better product, cut the hassle to acquire the product.

That's the usual mantra I believe, especially when DRM gets brought up.

[Giggling Ghast]

When I clicked on this thread, I was kind of hoping it involved actual pirates getting attacked by trolls. :smallfrown:

[Coidzor]

When I clicked on this thread, I was kind of hoping it involved actual pirates getting attacked by trolls. :smallfrown:

I have to admit, I've yet to encounter that. Hmm. Sounds like a potential encounter for that naval campaign I was tinkering with.

[Sholos]

Everyone should watch this. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/piracy)

[Tebryn]

They didn't buy anything the first time.

Some good points. Some bad points. Over all...doesn't change my opinion much.

[Starwulf]

What a good way to lose customers forever. Also, pirated games have higher sales than those which try to stop pirates.

Just have to ask: Are you the kind of person who pirates stuff? Because you are really coming off as someone who does. I mean, it's not like they had a draconian DRM that people wanted to bypass. All the company did was simply test how many would pirate a game, by releasing a flawed version of the game on torrent sites. Then thought it was hilarious when the people who did pirate the game started complaining. What right does anyone have to complain about SOMETHING THEY STOLE? That's like me going to rob a bank, the teller slipping a paint packet that explodes shortly after I leave it, and then me going back and whining "Why did you put the paint packet in the money I stole from you?! Now I can't use it!"

[crayzz]

Copyright reduces sales.

Assuming you mean copyright enforcement, there doesn't seem to be much. Releasing a screwy version of the game for pirates does nothing to hurt the people who bought the game.

Though, you'd think the devs would avoid this after what happened to THQ's "Titan Quest".

[Mutant Sheep]

I remember a similar thing with Arkham Asylum too, where Batmans cape didn't work. The dev response to the complaints were rather hilarious.:smallbiggrin:

[thubby]

BY all means, post one of these laws you are refering to. Burden of proof is upon the one making the claim.

But if what you say is true, EA would be facing massive fines. How many of their games had to fail before their recent CEO stepped down? Is he going to be facing fines for the failure that was Sim City? Doubtful.

the law isn't "must make profit" it's "can't deliberately damage profit". tanked sales can be made on good faith.

anarion might know the particulars off the top of his head.
wiki "Directors' duties"

the basic idea is to prevent certain business maneuvers that would allow someone to take a corporation and ride it into the ground by lining their own pockets.
like everything else, people have twisted it into a means by which to justify morally reprehensible acts.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think this is hilarious.

[Talanic]

In my opinion, eventually releasing your own work onto torrent sites will be the equivalent of letting critics view it pre-release. Not mandatory, but failing to do so constitutes a vote of no confidence in your own work.

Studies have indicated that the people who pirate most also purchase the most (http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-30-more-music-than-non-p2p-peers-121015/), and it appears that relatively few internet users refrain from piracy entirely - including members of organizations (http://www.vice.com/read/lamar-smith-sopa-copyright-whoops) that are supposed (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/17275016947/anti-piracy-group-caught-pirating-song-anti-piracy-ad-corruption-scandal-erupts-response.shtml) to combat piracy (http://www.geekosystem.com/pirate-bay-sues-anti-piracy-group-for-piracy/).

I released my own novel onto Pirate Bay and a few other torrent sites last month, and had my best sales in months right after. This doesn't work as well for everyone, obviously - I'm self-published and need exposure more than anything else. But I wouldn't be surprised if this allegedly fringe activity becomes the established and accepted mainstream within a decade or two.

[JoshL]

You might want to stop linking that study. It's based on a telephone survey and chock full of bad math. Particularly once you get into the age demographic breakdowns. I'm not saying they're wrong because I don't know, other than personal observations, which hold even less weight. But that study is filled with confirmation bias.

Anyway, piracy. You are of course free to release your book/music/game/movie/whatever on to torrent sites and to share it freely. I support that. But if you do not CHOOSE to do that, everyone with an internet connection is not somehow entitled to have it. I believe in creator control. Maybe you could have made more sales by giving everything away, but it should still be your choice as to what happens to your stuff.

Pre-releasing on torrent sites also can come across that you feel your work has no value. And if you don't think it does, how will anyone else?

Touchy subject.

[Grinner]

The confounding factors in their experiment should be examined:


Being an indie outfit, I'm going to guess that they didn't have much to invest in advertising.
Being an indie startup, I'm also going to guess that they didn't have much of a reputation, and therefore the game had no hype preceding it.
They released it in a private store rather than releasing it on a well-known platform like Steam or Desura, but they released the "hacked" version on PirateBay, arguably the most popular piracy site. The disparity of attention that each site receives is going to skew those results.
It costs nothing to pirate, and asking someone to fork over cash before they've even seen the product is asking a lot.
They gave the experiment only a day to run. That's hardly representative of any game's total sales.

[Talanic]

Anyway, piracy. You are of course free to release your book/music/game/movie/whatever on to torrent sites and to share it freely. I support that. But if you do not CHOOSE to do that, everyone with an internet connection is not somehow entitled to have it. I believe in creator control. Maybe you could have made more sales by giving everything away, but it should still be your choice as to what happens to your stuff.

Agreed. I don't believe that piracy harms the sales of anything that delivers value commensurate with its price, and I believe that file-sharing is the way of the future, but I don't share files that I don't have the right to share.


Pre-releasing on torrent sites also can come across that you feel your work has no value. And if you don't think it does, how will anyone else?

I'm new to the field and have no established reputation, and demanding $10 up front (or even $3) before someone gets to read my book seems unreasonable these days. Instead, I believe that if you read my book for free, you'll see the quality of the writing and be more inclined to buy it. Same as if you'd checked it out from a library.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I used to buy all the games I wanted to play (it wasn't a lot, but I bought most of the major ones). Then, after the massive failure that was Dragon Age II that set me back 67 bucks for a game I didn't even finish, I pirate stuff first, if only to try it. Saved me from a giant money waste that was Crysis II (not good for much beyond benchmarking your computer). On the other hand, made me go out and buy SCII (and Heart of the Swarm literally a few days after it came out), which I wouldn't have otherwise as I don't like Blizzard's overall atmosphere inside games and their business practices.

[shadow_archmagi]

I see this claimed all the time. Is there anything to back it up? Because it seems a little dodgy to me.

This doesn't actually answer your question regarding whether piracy boosts sales, but common sense would indicate that everyone playing a stolen game will be talking about it, and 'buzz' as the marketing gurus call it is always a good gig.

It's important to remember that not every piracy is a lost sale. Not everyone who downloads a game would buy it. In fact, almost everyone who downloads a game wouldn't buy it. Imagine:

A street vendor makes his living selling lamb-and-coconut sandwiches. Suddenly, a passing quantum rift puts an identical lamb-and-coconut sandwich in the refrigerator of every home of everyone in his city. The vendor claims to have lost over a million sales. Obviously, not everyone in the city would've purchased a sandwich. Some of them because lamb-and-coconut just doesn't sound pleasant to them. Others because, although they want such a food, they're trying to conserve their income and can't spend it on exotic sandwiches.

With videogames, then, the important thing to keep in mind is that object has two prices- The actual price, and the price the customer thinks it should have. Which number is higher determines whether a sale is made. This phenomenon is best demonstrated by the outstanding success of the Steam sales: Left 4 Dead enjoyed great success at release. A few years later, it went on sale for 75% off, and it enjoyed an even greater success- Not just in terms of units sold, but in actual dollars.

This is a really neat event, not just because everyone loves low prices, but because it demonstrates in a very real and very financial way that for every person out there who thinks a game is worth 50 dollars, there are a bunch of people who think the game is worth 40, or 30, or 20. It's this second group that pirates, mostly. Making piracy impossible doesn't boost sales significantly because the majority of pirates simply shrug and say "If I can't get it for less than [MY PERSONAL ASSESSMENT OF ITS VALUE] then I guess I just won't get it"



What right does anyone have to complain about SOMETHING THEY STOLE?

An interesting question, philosophically speaking, but the wrong question in terms of resolving the issue.

[lesser_minion]

Copyright reduces sales.

You're going from a bunch of reasonable propositions like "not every pirated copy is a lost sale" and "cack-handed attempts to enforce copyright can backfire" to "copyright is bad, period", and you have not backed your claims up with actual evidence.

On films, you've linked to an article that expressly calls out its own conclusion as being wishful thinking: the study quoted found a small and statistically insignificant reduction in sales. It can't be used to prove anything -- and in any event, the study in question is not into what copyright does, it was into what one particular action did.

On books, you've linked to an article that discusses what books are made available to buy. It doesn't discuss whether or not copyright affects sales.

And on music, you've linked to an article that discusses how individual buyers (claim to) behave. It isn't actually a study into overall sales, and so does nothing to support your point.

And as for "corporations have a legal requirement to maximise their profits", that's a gross oversimplification. Directors do have a number of duties that basically boil down to acting in their companies's interests and promoting the success of their companies, but it's quite a bit more nuanced than "profits uber alles".

[GnomeFighter]

What a good way to lose customers forever. Also, pirated games have higher sales than those which try to stop pirates.

Or possibly, just possibly, people pirate games that are popular. I think that your putting the cart before the horse there.

This thing about "piracy boosts sales" is nonsense and self justification. Yes, people who pirate games go talk about them and other people buy them. These people do not go out and buy them out of kindness, they buy them because they fell that piracy is wrong. If there was no copyright law they would not buy them.

Yes, not every person who pirates is a lost sale. Many will not have got the game in the pre-internet days, but that dose not make them pirating the game/book/music right.

[Teddy]

I personally find this to be brilliant. In and on itself, it's a great prank to laugh at, and it's quite a statement as well, but it's also a great way of getting publicity. Will it insult and scare away potential customers who pirated the game? Definitely. Will some pirates appreciate the joke and buy the game because of this stunt? Definitely as well. Will it attract new customers? A third definitely, and hopefully even enough for him to stay in business...


This thing about "piracy boosts sales" is nonsense and self justification. Yes, people who pirate games go talk about them and other people buy them. These people do not go out and buy them out of kindness, they buy them because they fell that piracy is wrong. If there was no copyright law they would not buy them.

That said, even without copyright laws, there are those who would buy them anyway as many consider and artist's sole right to his own work a human right regardless of whether it's written in the laws or not. This is also one of my main beefs with many pro-piracy arguers, namely that they seem to believe that money is all that matters to a game developer, and that they shouldn't care about what happens their works as long as they're getting money.

I'm a hobby artist and intend to release my own hand-crafted game sometime in the future, and I do not plan to release it on ThePirateBay or any similar sites, even if doing so could potentially boost my sales (and even though it invariably will end up there anyway as I neither intend to include Internet requirements nor DRM), because I want to be able to decide myself what you can and can't do with my games, and if you don't think my game is worth paying for, I fail to see why I should give it away to you for free. I will of course keep a demo availible for those who don't want to pay without knowing what they'll get.

[shadow_archmagi]

If there was no copyright law they would not buy them.


Patently untrue. Copyright law already acts as a deterrent in more or less no way shape or form; legal repercussions are so few and so far between that they may as well not happen. Yet people still buy games. Pirates buy games, in fact. I've pirated plenty of stuff, but there are still 210 games on my steam account, and countless others in their official boxes around the house. There's no strict dichotomy between "Honest consumers" and "Parasites." I don't know anyone who pirates games exclusively, can't imagine such an individual. Rewarding others for their industry is part of the human condition; the question is how often and how much. Saying "These People" as if the group (or indeed, any group of size) was even vaguely monoform is an extremely foolish and unhelpful move.



Yes, not every person who pirates is a lost sale. Many will not have got the game in the pre-internet days, but that dose not make them pirating the game/book/music right.

Perhaps I'm simply more utilitarian, but it seems to me that it does. If there isn't a sale lost, then no one is being harmed. The artist goes home at the end of the day with the exact amount of money he would've had anyway. (Possibly more, if the pirate manages to generate a sale via positive reviews and generating buzz.) If something makes one person happy, without hurting another, it seems to me that that something may very well be righteous.

[Teddy]

Perhaps I'm simply more utilitarian, but it seems to me that it does. If there isn't a sale lost, then no one is being harmed. The artist goes home at the end of the day with the exact amount of money he would've had anyway. (Possibly more, if the pirate manages to generate a sale via positive reviews and generating buzz.) If something makes one person happy, without hurting another, it seems to me that that something may very well be righteous.

First of all, see my previous post. Many artists probably care less about whether they lose or gain income than the fact that you're bereaving them of their sole right to their work, which very well may make them unhappy.

[Traab]

Why would I buy the "official" version of a game if I already have my free copy with everything included? Thats the real question here. Yeah, MAYBE enough pirates chatting about how awesome this game they stole is would convince others to get it. Equally maybe they might even go to the store and buy it instead of just pirating their own copy as well. That doesnt make it ok. If I shoplift a hershey bar and tell everyone around me that this is the best chocolate ever, so they go out and get their own, does that somehow change the fact that I am a thief? No, I am still a thief, I am still doing something wrong. And all the theoretical boosted sales in the world doesnt change that fact. So you got burned on bad games in the past. That doesnt give you the right to steal any game made in the future and piously claim, "oh yeah, I am totally going to blow 60+ bucks on a game I already got for free"

[Don Julio Anejo]

If I shoplift a hershey bar and tell everyone around me that this is the best chocolate ever, so they go out and get their own, does that somehow change the fact that I am a thief?
There's a big distinction. When you steal a candy bar, that's one less candy bar a store can sell, as well as the fact that they paid to buy the candy bar in the first place.

When you download a game, the publisher still has exactly the same number of physical copies. And digital copies are essentially free for them, the only thing paid for is Internet bandwidth.

So the publisher still has all their games: in essence, they do not lose anything. If they make something that's so bad people don't feel like paying for it, it's their problem; not mine, and I should not be under any obligation to pay for it - with anything else, I have the option of returning it to the store, should I choose not to like it or if it doesn't work.

With a game, I have no such option. I'm stuck with XX number of dollars I paid for it, even if it wouldn't start at all (a common thing with many games with over-restrictive DRM... I had a friend who couldn't get Gears of War I or Prototype to work because of his PC configuration, in the end gave up and pirated it, after which it worked perfectly).

Hence, piracy.

[shadow_archmagi]

If they make something that's so bad people don't feel like paying for it, it's their problem; not mine, and I should not be under any obligation to pay for it

Strongly disagree with this attitude. Of course you're under an obligation to pay for things you enjoy. Whether or not you choose to do so, and the conditions under which that choice is made, and the appropriate repercussions of that choice- these are the things worth discussing.

Admittedly, I strongly suspect that a "Pay what you want" system for every game wouldn't collapse the market if handled correctly.


you're bereaving them of their sole right to their work, which very well may make them unhappy.

Could you elaborate on the principals of an artists sole right to their work? I have a vague notion of what you mean, but if you could define it in precise terms the discussion might proceed with greater clarity.

[Finlam]

There's a big distinction. When you steal a candy bar, that's one less candy bar a store can sell, as well as the fact that they paid to buy the candy bar in the first place.

When you download a game, the publisher still has exactly the same number of physical copies. And digital copies are essentially free for them, the only thing paid for is Internet bandwidth.


So the difference is that they have an effectively infinite supply of digital copies? Wierd. I didn't think supply could affect an action being right or wrong. I guess the more there is of something the less wrong it is for me to steal it.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Strongly disagree with this attitude. Of course you're under an obligation to pay for things you enjoy. Whether or not you choose to do so, and the conditions under which that choice is made, and the appropriate repercussions of that choice- these are the things worth discussing.
Not what I meant. I compared games to buying physical goods: when you steal a physical product, you steal the product and the manufacturer/seller lost some resources. When you pirate a game (book, song, movie), the publisher loses nothing except opportunity cost.

However, when you buy a physical product, you have the option of returning it for a refund if a) you don't like it or b) it doesn't work. You're not paying money for something you're not using.

[Squark]

So the difference is that they have an effectively infinite supply of digital copies? Wierd. I didn't think supply could affect an action being right or wrong. I guess the more there is of something the less wrong it is for me to steal it.

I could see an argument that digital piracy is less harmful than physical theft, but that's as far as I'd go.


Personally, my personal stance on why I don't pirate content is because, aside from concerns about potential repercussions, I feel that piracy is encouraging companies to take increasingly draconian measures to combat it, and I don't want to be part of indirectly harming the experience of future legitimate customers.

[Traab]

There's a big distinction. When you steal a candy bar, that's one less candy bar a store can sell, as well as the fact that they paid to buy the candy bar in the first place.

When you download a game, the publisher still has exactly the same number of physical copies. And digital copies are essentially free for them, the only thing paid for is Internet bandwidth.

So the publisher still has all their games: in essence, they do not lose anything. If they make something that's so bad people don't feel like paying for it, it's their problem; not mine, and I should not be under any obligation to pay for it - with anything else, I have the option of returning it to the store, should I choose not to like it or if it doesn't work.

With a game, I have no such option. I'm stuck with XX number of dollars I paid for it, even if it wouldn't start at all (a common thing with many games with over-restrictive DRM... I had a friend who couldn't get Gears of War I or Prototype to work because of his PC configuration, in the end gave up and pirated it, after which it worked perfectly).

Hence, piracy.

There is an even bigger distinction. In both cases you are taking something that isnt yours without paying for it. In other words, its still theft. I am pretty sure that if I take a scanner into a book store and copy a book into my laptop, I am going to be stopped before I can get very far, even though I am leaving the physical item behind.

[Squark]

There is an even bigger distinction. In both cases you are taking something that isnt yours without paying for it. In other words, its still theft. I am pretty sure that if I take a scanner into a book store and copy a book into my laptop, I am going to be stopped before I can get very far, even though I am leaving the physical item behind.

Well, you are denting the spine and taking up space customer's could have in the book store

Of course, even if that wasn't the case, the store owner would still be furious.

[Don Julio Anejo]

There is an even bigger distinction. In both cases you are taking something that isnt yours without paying for it. In other words, its still theft. I am pretty sure that if I take a scanner into a book store and copy a book into my laptop, I am going to be stopped before I can get very far, even though I am leaving the physical item behind.
You can do it in a library, so the point is moot. You can also buy the book, scan it, then come back and return it.

Theft by definition requires me to take something away; if I don't it's no longer theft, it becomes digital piracy as we've been discussing.

[Frozen_Feet]

I recall a time when releasing a "flawed" copy of a game for free to try out was standard practice. It was called "shareware". :smalltongue:

Personally, I pirate very few things. Games, when they are not freeware or abandonware, I always buy. Music, I buy on CD if possible, otherwise I use Youtube or Spotify - I haven't downloaded music since Napster was a thing. As far as "people who pirate things tend to buy them if they like them" argument goes, it applies to me to the extent that if I loan a CD from a library (which is free here) and like it, I tend to buy it later. There are dozens of CDs I first loaned, then bought. But, I'm pretty exceptional in this regard. I know more people who pirate their music exclusively than people like me. So I don't think that argument holds much water. People who'd pay money for something regardless are a minority.

[Frozen_Feet]

You can do it in a library, so the point is moot. You can also buy the book, scan it, then come back and return it.

Both of those are illegal where I live. But so is digital piracy, for that matter. They are all comparable to theft in law. :smalltongue:

[Traab]

You can do it in a library, so the point is moot. You can also buy the book, scan it, then come back and return it.

Theft by definition requires me to take something away; if I don't it's no longer theft, it becomes digital piracy as we've been discussing.

Digital piracy is just another form of theft. Just like how there is a distinction between shoplifting and robbery. You can try to justify it by talking about how since a physical object isnt being taken its not theft but you are still taking something that doesnt belong to you without paying for it. I dont see how this isnt obvious.

As for buying the book, scanning it, then returning it. Im pretty sure thats still theft, although not exactly something that can be easily proved, because you are still taking a permanent copy of an item for all intents and purposes, without paying for it.

[Worira]

You are using fun new definitions (http://nimmo.freeservers.com/redefining.html)

[Karoht]

When you download a game, the publisher still has exactly the same number of physical copies. And digital copies are essentially free for them, the only thing paid for is Internet bandwidth.Why do people seem to think that game development costs are low/negligable in this arguement? Even getting away from the Triple A titles, game development is not cheap in the slightest. People-hours of coding and testing alone is expensive as is, programmers don't make all that great of money, testers get paid squat if they get paid at all.



With a game, I have no such option. I'm stuck with XX number of dollars I paid for it, even if it wouldn't start at all (a common thing with many games with over-restrictive DRM... I had a friend who couldn't get Gears of War I or Prototype to work because of his PC configuration, in the end gave up and pirated it, after which it worked perfectly).
Hence, piracy.
I'll completely agree that if you pay for a product it should work. If it doesn't you should have the right to return it or get it resolved in some way. Completely agree, that is a basic customer right for a paid for product.

[endoperez]

Copyright reduces sales. It reduces book sales (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-missing-20th-century-how-copyright-protection-makes-books-vanish/255282/), music sales (http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-pirates-are-bigger-music-fans-than-average-consumers-121113/), and movies sales (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121125/23542621140/new-study-megaupload-shutdown-may-have-hurt-box-office-smaller-movies.shtml).

Pissing off potential customers means they will never buy anything from you again.


You should check your facts.

Almost everything done for the last hundred years (dunno about the exact number) has been copyrighted. Even Open-Source software is copyrighted. You probably mean DRM. And the game in question has no DRM at all.


Also, think about this. This thread exists because pirates posted funny questions ("how can I stop piracy? do I have to research DRM or something?"). Asking a question implies you're interested in the answer. That means the pirates this thread is about were interested in it, and get told what amounts to "since you enjoyed your trial, maybe you could buy the game now?"

[Finlam]

You are using fun new definitions (http://nimmo.freeservers.com/redefining.html)
Let's look at this article for a second.


The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, defines theft as follows:

theft 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.


Interesting. I just checked the AHD 5th edition (http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=theft&submit.x=59&submit.y=16) and it seems the definition of theft has been updated since 1994:


theft (thĕft)
n.
1.
a. The unlawful taking of the property of another; larceny: the prevention of theft.
b. An instance of such taking: several car thefts.
2. Obsolete Something stolen.

Strange that there is no longer a mention of intent (as though that ever had anything to do with theft). Either that article is nearly 15 years old or someone is having just as much fun with words as the RIAA. You don't have to defend the RIAA to point out that piracy is still theft.

The rest of the article is some garbage about sharing. Sharing is great if done willingly. If the artists/dev team/author is not willing to share their work for free, you are not entitled to their work for free. They created the work, it belongs to them, taking it from them in every way goes against the spirit of sharing. At the end of the day theft is still theft.

[Traab]

You are using fun new definitions (http://nimmo.freeservers.com/redefining.html)

Bull. The company owns that game. They own the right to sell it or give it away, and pirates are taking their product and using it themselves illegally. There is a reason its called pirating.

[thubby]

Why do people seem to think that game development costs are low/negligable in this arguement? Even getting away from the Triple A titles, game development is not cheap in the slightest. People-hours of coding and testing alone is expensive as is, programmers don't make all that great of money, testers get paid squat if they get paid at all.


it doesn't actually matter how much money is thrown into it. the supply is INFINITE.

there is no price that isn't above equilibrium. people are literally never going to pay due to market forces.


Bull. The company owns that game. They own the right to sell it or give it away, and pirates are taking their product and using it themselves illegally. There is a reason its called pirating.
yes, pirating. not theft

[Traab]

it doesn't actually matter how much money is thrown into it. the supply is INFINITE.

there is no price that isn't above equilibrium. people are literally never going to pay due to market forces.


yes, pirating. not theft

You are taking something you have no legal right to have. YOU ARE STEALING. Trying to use the limitless supply argument is no different than trying to claim its ok to take office supplies because "I didnt take much" It doesnt matter if it was a paperclip or a brick of gold, you are still taking something that doesnt belong to you and no matter how much you try to twist it around, that is theft.

[Frozen_Feet]

You are using fun new definitions (http://nimmo.freeservers.com/redefining.html)

Objection! In Finnish, the direct translation for "theft" is "varastaminen", defined as "taking of propertu that doesn't belong to you without permission" ("ottaa luvatta omaisuutta, joka ei kuulu itselle "). :smalltongue:

Also, piracy used to mean "robbery at sea". Robbery is just another form of thievery, so the only distinction to ordinary theft was the circumstances it was done in. In the same manner, modern use of "piracy" to describe unlawful file-sharing only means "theft on the web".

Nothing more. Nothing less. The pro-piracy folks here are the ones using fun new definitions of words if you ask me.

[Erloas]

Some of this reminds me of the old Simpsons episode where he decides to steal cable. It is almost the same thing since you aren't really "taking" anything from anyone. It used a lot of the same arguments in fact and was from 1991 when the internet was still new and hardly used and internet connections so slow it would take forever to steal a single MP3 if you could even find it.

I personally gave up stealing games and music at about the time I decided I was really an adult. Now if I don't think something is worth my money I simply go without it or wait for a sale, I don't just say "well I'll just steal this until it gets to a price I'm willing to pay." Sometimes that means I wait 1-2 years after a game comes out and sometimes it means I don't ever try a game.

I also have never *actually* seen anyone that goes out and buys a program once they have acquired a copy for free. They might later buy another program from the same company, partially because of the quality of the first, but even then is only if the new one is so much better that the old one just doesn't cut it any more (more the case with non-games, with games the sequel has value of its own).

And if pirating does increase the number of people willing to buy from them later then any highly pirated game that has a sequel that sequel should sell considerably better then the original. I don't have the numbers on that, but I don't think that is usually the case. It would be hard to really judge though because any good "IP brand" is likely to grow on its own between releases even from people that never played the original. I guess the better judge would be do sequels get pirated at a higher or lower rate then the originals and does that correlate positively or negatively with the general reception of the original.
You can of course still "get burned" as a consumer on a sequel, but for the "pirating increases sales" theory to even start to work then players need to assume that they won't be. Because if the quality of game 1 doesn't greatly help influence your perception of the quality and value of game 2 then pirating game 1 isn't going to help game 2 at all.

The irony of the story was of course that people that were pirating the game were complaining about pirates in the game stealing their game. Whether or not piracy helps "in the long term," it is still ironic.

[Don Julio Anejo]

You are taking something you have no legal right to have. YOU ARE STEALING. Trying to use the limitless supply argument is no different than trying to claim its ok to take office supplies because "I didnt take much" It doesnt matter if it was a paperclip or a brick of gold, you are still taking something that doesnt belong to you and no matter how much you try to twist it around, that is theft.
There is such a thing called "fair use." Short version: it usually allows many kinds of alteration or copying of individual product as long as its meant for individual use and you're not making any money doing it. By law, when you bought a physical product, you bought a physical product and were free to do anything you wanted with it short of showing a movie for money.

Then, with the advent of broadband internet, the paradigm changed and it became extremely easy to copy product left and right. Started with music and games and moved to everything else. Hence, RIAA and MPAA's attack on any form of file sharing, or copyright in general.

File sharing was legal under this definition; any copyright violations by definition are a civil matter and not a criminal one. In Canada, file sharing was actually explicitly made legal by this definition (wiki entry (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada)).

The basic problem I have with DRM and anti-piracy is that companies are trying to circumvent fair use laws to the point where doing something like loaning a book to a friend would be considered illegal ("after all, he didn't pay for a license to read it."); although this argument is inherently political so I won't address it further.

And finally, the creator/author typically has the copyright of the contents, but not physical media. I.e., the writer has the copyright to the text of his book, but no control over physical copies. Scanning a book is explicitly legal in US/Canada (illegal in Australia) unless I'm doing it to make a profit or intentionally distributing it to a large number of people (defined by law by jurisdiction). Copying a movie is also legal as long as I'm not publicly showing it (or again, making money from doing so).
Wiki on fair use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Fair_use_and_fair_dealing)

Can't comment more as I think my post is borderline politics.

[Finlam]

Don, is the irony of someone advocating piracy and complaining about companies trying to circumvent the law completely lost on you?

[Karoht]

it doesn't actually matter how much money is thrown into it. the supply is INFINITE.The supply may be infinite. The work to bring that infinite supply into existance still has a cost. Or are you suggesting that software companies shouldn't pay their programers, pay for equipment for their programmers to use, shouldn't pay rent on the building they work out of, shouldn't pay for distribution of their game, etc? Or are you arguing that those costs to create the product are zero?

[Friv]

Going to sidestep the inevitable "is it theft" morass, in favor of a different angle:


Why would I buy the "official" version of a game if I already have my free copy with everything included? Thats the real question here.

You want to get a sequel?

Alternately, you have enough money now.

This is not a theoretical case. I've known a lot of people who have paid full price to buy something that they had previously pirated. I've known a lot of other people who have paid partial price to buy something they had previously pirated when it went on sale. I've known even more people who pirated partial versions of things and then bought full copies later.

(I don't particularly mind this case - I think it's a great system, actually, as it lets people play a game for a while and then gradually shuts them off to egg them to play it properly.)

[Don Julio Anejo]

Don, is the irony of someone advocating piracy and complaining about companies trying to circumvent the law completely lost on you?
Not really, considering companies tried to circumvent the law as far back as 1910/20's by trying to ban record players because recorded music meant lost profits for composers' union selling sheet music. The only difference is that now it's commonplace enough and there are enough companies throwing money around that it's possible for them to change the laws.

The reason is quite simple and has nothing with ethics one way or the other: it's easier for companies to throw money at lawyers and lobbyists than change their business model. I.e. thanks to Internet music artists don't need to sign onto a major label or even a label at all, just look at Lindsey Stirling. Instead, they could be selling digital music records a-la iTunes, but it's too much of an infrustructure shift for many companies to manage. It's simpler to just do what they did before and sue anyone who doesn't agree.

The supply may be infinite. The work to bring that infinite supply into existance still has a cost. Or are you suggesting that software companies shouldn't pay their programers, pay for equipment for their programmers to use, shouldn't pay rent on the building they work out of, shouldn't pay for distribution of their game, etc? Or are you arguing that those costs to create the product are zero?
Triple-A titles often have money thrown at them with no regard to actual game quality; it goes to make shiny cinematics and hire expensive voice actors. Yet when bad but expensive games fail (and again, Dragon Age II), somehow pirates are to blame.

[Traab]

There is such a thing called "fair use." Short version: it usually allows many kinds of alteration or copying of individual product as long as its meant for individual use and you're not making any money doing it. By law, when you bought a physical product, you bought a physical product and were free to do anything you wanted with it short of showing a movie for money.

Then, with the advent of broadband internet, the paradigm changed and it became extremely easy to copy product left and right. Started with music and games and moved to everything else. Hence, RIAA and MPAA's attack on any form of file sharing, or copyright in general.

File sharing was legal under this definition; any copyright violations by definition are a civil matter and not a criminal one. In Canada, file sharing was actually explicitly made legal by this definition (wiki entry (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada)).

The basic problem I have with DRM and anti-piracy is that companies are trying to circumvent fair use laws to the point where doing something like loaning a book to a friend would be considered illegal ("after all, he didn't pay for a license to read it."); although this argument is inherently political so I won't address it further.

And finally, the creator/author typically has the copyright of the contents, but not physical media. I.e., the writer has the copyright to the text of his book, but no control over physical copies. Scanning a book is explicitly legal in US/Canada (illegal in Australia) unless I'm doing it to make a profit or intentionally distributing it to a large number of people (defined by law by jurisdiction). Copying a movie is also legal as long as I'm not publicly showing it (or again, making money from doing so).
Wiki on fair use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Fair_use_and_fair_dealing)

Can't comment more as I think my post is borderline politics.

You make it sound like its somehow unreasonable that they wouldnt want free copies of their property being distributed around the world. Laws have to change with the times, and while it used to be considered fair use if say, I let my neighbor come in and play my mortal combat game, it still wasnt ok for me to arrange for him to get a copy for free. You cant say "fair use" and think that makes it ok to take whatever book, movie, or video game you want. Piracy is theft. It is taking something you dont own without paying for it from a site that doesnt have the right to distribute it.

[Don Julio Anejo]

You make it sound like its somehow unreasonable that they wouldnt want free copies of their property being distributed around the world. Laws have to change with the times, and while it used to be considered fair use if say, I let my neighbor come in and play my mortal combat game, it still wasnt ok for me to arrange for him to get a copy for free.
It was, actually. Still is. Taking something from a site? Illegal, since the site is publicly distributing it. Downloading from a random user somewhere on the globe? Quite legal in many places.

You're basically arguing to screw the end user in favour of large corporations; individual artists (again, like say Lindsey Sterling) don't have the legal power to go against individual pirates, nor do they want to: exposure to quality stuff makes people want to buy it. Forcing people to pay for mediocre crap in a shiny package? Just makes them angrier (look at this thread for many examples). Point is, quality sells by itself as long as it gets enough exposure. If an artist can't get people to pay for his work despite a lot of exposure, chances are it's either bad work, or he values it higher than people are willing to pay.

[Traab]

Going to sidestep the inevitable "is it theft" morass, in favor of a different angle:



You want to get a sequel?

Alternately, you have enough money now.

This is not a theoretical case. I've known a lot of people who have paid full price to buy something that they had previously pirated. I've known a lot of other people who have paid partial price to buy something they had previously pirated when it went on sale. I've known even more people who pirated partial versions of things and then bought full copies later.

(I don't particularly mind this case - I think it's a great system, actually, as it lets people play a game for a while and then gradually shuts them off to egg them to play it properly.)



Ok, let me put it another way. A new book series comes out. I take the first book without paying for it, then decide I like it so I buy the other two. Did i commit a crime? Of course I did! You cant justify theft by claiming if you like the product you will buy future products in that line.

[Scuzzball]

I also have never *actually* seen anyone that goes out and buys a program once they have acquired a copy for free.

Bioshock Infinite.
I pirated it, to avoid spoilers in the first weeks.
After finals, I am buying it. Becaus it was a great game, and I want to support the devs.
Burnout Paradise.
I played a pirated version for a few months, and then bought it because it was a great game.
Crysis. Audiosurf. The entire half life series. Ass creed II. Psychonauts.
These are all games I pirated, then bought because I liked them.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Scuzzball555/games?tab=all
I own LOTS of games.(Lots of indie bundles account for a lot of them, but I have still invested serious money in games)
DVA:
Pirated their music, liked it, bought it.
Examples of me buying music are far more rare, as most artists don't run their own store, and I'm not buying music except directly from the artists. I have looked for donation buttons on their sites, and they too, are distressingly rare. I'm not going to support the RIAA and such, but I will support the artists. Someone earlier poined out how the RIAA is not nice <i>at all</i> to their artists. I will not support them, or anyone else who is taking a large cut from an artist just to sell their music. Distrobution is not a problem anymore, unless you want to sell exculsively on physical media, which is pretty silly.
There are other examples, but I can't look throuhg my music collection right now.

[Finlam]

Triple-A titles often have money thrown at them with no regard to actual game quality; it goes to make shiny cinematics and hire expensive voice actors. Yet when bad but expensive games fail (and again, Dragon Age II), somehow pirates are to blame.
If I understand you correctly: it's A-OK to pirate just in case the game is crap, that way you're not out the money and you'll buy it if you like it.

Man it's too bad you can't rent a game to see if you like it before you try it....

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: This is not an appropriate forum to be getting or giving legal advice. Nor is it an appropriate place to be saying "I pirate stuff!" Thread locked.