Pirates and WAREZers - you suck!

[Smoove_B]

All I can say for sure is this:

If I find out that Chris Grenard is in ANY way responsible for my inability to purchase future games by Oleg and the IL-2 Sturmovik crew, I will personally fly out to Colorado and kick him in the Jimmy.

[ChrisGrenard]

All I can say for sure is this:

If I find out that Chris Grenard is in ANY way responsible for my inability to purchase future games by Oleg and the IL-2 Sturmovik crew, I will personally fly out to Colorado and kick him in the Jimmy.

I don't even know *what* those games are, so you probably don't need to worry. If they are realistic flight sims, you DEFINITALLY don't need to worry. Those games make my pants catch on fire. You can only have so many crotch fires before you stop playing those games

[CeeKay]

I'll occasionally get a pirated version of a game from a friend but more often than not it's a game I'm unsure of (and I'm not a big fan of demos, most of the time they don't do a good representation of the game) but once I play it some I'll end up buying it. Then there's the games that me and my friends buy and hand off to one another when we're done with them. They are not pirated, they are the originals that someone is done playing and why should they just sit around gathering dust. I've played through dozens of games that way. And again if I really like the game I'll buy myself a copy, but there have been some that have been passed on to me that the suckage is so Universal, Combating the urge to smash the CD is a feat.

And then there are the games that are so horrible they deserved to be pirated so the developer cannot release another abomination upon the public.....

[Blackhawk]

Wait.... Kael, did your analogy there just basically state that it is bad because it is illegal?

To be entirely honest, I don't think that legal/illegal has anything to do with what is right and wrong.

Nor do I, just for the record. I think it's wrong because it directly causes a material loss to another individual, and because it secondarily has an effect on the people that enjoy other products from that individual/company.

(Note - I am inventing numbers here by way of example)

In Chris's case, he buys, say, three games a month when he pirates. He buys three games a month if he doesn't. If Chris buys three games and spends $150 a month either way, then exactly what effect does his pirating have on the industry?

The only difference I can see is that some months it might affect which games get the money, but it doesn't affect overall sales or money going into the industry in the slightest. It doesn't cost the industry a single sale, a single dollar, or a single CD.

[The Mad Hatter]

Wait.... Kael, did your analogy there just basically state that it is bad because it is illegal?

To be entirely honest, I don't think that legal/illegal has anything to do with what is right and wrong.

Nor do I, just for the record. I think it's wrong because it directly causes a material loss to another individual, and because it secondarily has an effect on the people that enjoy other products from that individual/company.

If that's your perspective, then I assume you feel the same way about used games. Buying used also causes a "material loss" to the company that made the game, since they don't get a dime when the game is resold. If material loss is your criteria, then the only difference between piracy and buying used is the legality.

[The Mad Hatter]

I think a bigger problem for them is the nature of their games. First, you have the tiny market share that flight sims occupy. Second, you have a game geared towards a section of the market that's dominated by piracy (eastern Europe and Russia). People complain about piracy here, but imagine what it would be like if salaries were 1/20th their current average, games were still priced the same in retail but there was a guy down the block selling them for $1. Who wouldn't pirate then?

[Ranulf]

I think a bigger problem for them is the nature of their games. First, you have the tiny market share that flight sims occupy. Second, you have a game geared towards a section of the market that's dominated by piracy (eastern Europe and Russia). People complain about piracy here, but imagine what it would be like if salaries were 1/20th their current average, games were still priced the same in retail but there was a guy down the block selling them for $1. Who wouldn't pirate then?

Exactly. You gotta be nuts as a developer to seriously think you're going to get decent legit sales in asia, especially in a niche market such as flight sims.

[LordMortis]

Gotta love the world we live in and the lessons we teach each other. As long as you can take something, it's OK. If you can take and no one can ever demonstrate that it was lost, then you can feel some sort of pride. Leeches may not be evil, but the action is definately bad and enough bad actions lead to a bad character and a bad enough character makes one a bad person IMO.

[Kadoth Nodens]

Wait.... Kael, did your analogy there just basically state that it is bad because it is illegal?

To be entirely honest, I don't think that legal/illegal has anything to do with what is right and wrong.

Nor do I, just for the record. I think it's wrong because it directly causes a material loss to another individual, and because it secondarily has an effect on the people that enjoy other products from that individual/company.

(Note - I am inventing numbers here by way of example)

In Chris's case, he buys, say, three games a month when he pirates. He buys three games a month if he doesn't. If Chris buys three games and spends $150 a month either way, then exactly what effect does his pirating have on the industry?

The only difference I can see is that some months it might affect which games get the money, but it doesn't affect overall sales or money going into the industry in the slightest. It doesn't cost the industry a single sale, a single dollar, or a single CD.

The 3 game limit is an artifical one. If Gamer X (lets leave Chris alone) has a 3 game/month limit due to other expenses, what if he decides to increase his leisure spending in other areas and decrease the amonunt of $$ he spends on games. Then his limit magically becomes 2 games. Is he hurting the indusrty yet? What if he goes nuts and spends all his spare cash on beer and porno? Now he has no money for games. Is he still entitled to free games that month? Lets say the money is gone because of something less "selfish" than booze and porn. Say he had medical expenses. How many games is it OK for him to get for free this month?

On the flipside, what if Granma X gives him 50 bucks for his B-Day. Does the 3 game limit go up to 4 this month? Or does that go towards the Cleopatra 2525 super deluxe boxed DVD set, season 1.

That's the problem with all the "the money wouldn't be in the system, anyway!" type arguments, at least when we're discussing 1st world folks that pirate games. Maybe it wouldn't, but maybe it would. I know I've (foolishly) given up relatively essential crap before so I could spend it on entertainment. Would X do the same if it weren't for the free alternative?

Plus the whole concept of someone having a right to free entertaiment product because they don't have spare cash still seems a little odd to me. It's like saying you have a right to sneak into movie theaters if there are spare seats or hijack cable if you're cash-disadvantaged.

Have I done those things? Yep. But I never thought it was right or I was entitled. I was just greedy.

[ChrisGrenard]

Firstly, I don't think I ever claimed I have the "right" to this. I just do it anyway because I know that there is almost no chance of me getting in trouble for it.

"On the flipside, what if Granma X gives him 50 bucks for his B-Day. Does the 3 game limit go up to 4 this month? "

In my case, indeed it does.

Also, I really don't spend money on anything except food, games and books and DVDs. It is sorta my family rule that my parents (I love 'em!) pay for all my real expenses (housing, college. I love you guys!) and if I make any money by fixing computers or whatnot, I get to spend it on fun stuff.

This used to work out perfectly in high school, because I ran an after-school business where I would go around fixing people's computers. I made enough that I cannot remember anything I pirated during that time.

Now however, I am in college and I know very few people in town, and I don't charge college students for computer help (I would consider it rude) so my source of income has declined greatly. Thus, since college, my piracy rate has gone up. Not saying it is good or right, but just that it has. I still put as much money towards games as I can (particularly if the game is from a smaller studio, or hasn't sold well) but it isn't really enough to keep me at the "Gaming level" that I want to be at. Therefore, I pirate about a game or maybe 2 every month.

And to be entirely honest, I do not feel bad about it at all. If, by some chance, I pirate a game and then the publisher fires everybody because the game sold poorly, I'd feel bad about it. But that hasn't happened.

Oh, and everybody remember Anachronox? I purchased that game and then the publisher fired everybody anyway. It sucked knowing I had done little more than help a greedy and evil publisher on that one. I really wish that there was some way I could pirate the game and then send 40 bucks directly to the developers. Same with music. Publishers often seem to do very evil things.

[geezer]

...and I don't charge college students for computer help (I would consider it rude)

I am having a major, major disconnect here...

But at least we've managed to advance to PC Pirate Justification Number 3 (tm) "The greedy publishers deserve it anyway"

You know, IMHO, Ford makes a crappy car. Plus they're worth billions. I'll be back soon as I go fetch me a freebie Taurus, K? Serves em right - if they'd build a cra that made me want to buy it, I wouldn't steal it.

[Blackhawk]

Wait.... Kael, did your analogy there just basically state that it is bad because it is illegal?

To be entirely honest, I don't think that legal/illegal has anything to do with what is right and wrong.

Nor do I, just for the record. I think it's wrong because it directly causes a material loss to another individual, and because it secondarily has an effect on the people that enjoy other products from that individual/company.

(Note - I am inventing numbers here by way of example)

In Chris's case, he buys, say, three games a month when he pirates. He buys three games a month if he doesn't. If Chris buys three games and spends $150 a month either way, then exactly what effect does his pirating have on the industry?

The only difference I can see is that some months it might affect which games get the money, but it doesn't affect overall sales or money going into the industry in the slightest. It doesn't cost the industry a single sale, a single dollar, or a single CD.

[snip] Say he had medical expenses. How many games is it OK for him to get for free this month?

[snip]
Plus the whole concept of someone having a right to free entertaiment product because they don't have spare cash still seems a little odd to me.[snip].

Don't add to my arguments. I didn't say a single word about 'Ok', 'legal', 'moral', 'ethical', or 'has a right to'. People said that such things were hurting the industry regardless of the circumstances. I then said that Gamer X wouldn't be hurting the industry in the example I gave.

[Kadoth Nodens]

Firstly, I don't think I ever claimed I have the "right" to this. I just do it anyway because I know that there is almost no chance of me getting in trouble for it.

That's why I said "lets leave Chris alone" and used a hyptothetical. Why would I want to make this personal? Why would I care? It's no $$$ out of my pocket, either way.

My point is the "no money in the system/I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument is flawed. And it is.

. I really wish that there was some way I could pirate the game and then send 40 bucks directly to the developers. Same with music. Publishers often seem to do very evil things.

I know jack and squat about profit/loss margins for the computer game industry, but if your criteria for "evil"= a person who profits from the work of others, then gives less (or nothing) back than was promised, then I agree.

[Eduardo X]

Chris, there is a way to make sure the musical artists you like don't get too screwed by their labels: support independent labels and boycott major labels!
As for pir8ing games, it would be great if we could just give the money straight to the developers, but with the business model the way it is now, I do not see this working unless people start taking into account that art (if you consider a game art) and money don't neccesarilly go hand in hand. Poets don't expect to make money at their art, perhaps developers should not either?
I am not sure this is a valid argument, because everybody deserves to have a living working at what they enjoy.

[The Meal]

I can understand the "But does this hurt the *industry*?" question, as that one is often raised when discussing piracy. Often times, I've been on the side of things saying that piracy does, actually, hurt the industry (usually that's refuted with claims of it being in lieu of demoing a game or that it'd only be used for games the pirate wouldn't purchase anyway...).

So Chris is out there clearly paying for more games at top-dollar (right-out-of-the-gate-prices) than I'll pay for in a year. He's also, at the same time, snagging free copies of games that he doesn't have budgeted. Does this hurt the industry?

Well, I think that's shifting the issue. Does this behavior hurt the specific companies who's games are being pirated? Of course it does. People spend their time making games. These people are paid for what they do by other folks who think the end product has value. If you want to play that end-product, then it must hold value to you. And if you're utilizing something that holds some value, then guess what? You don't deserve to use that item without paying for it.

The question as to how this sort of behavior affects the industry is, to me, a red herring. The real question to me, is whether this behavior is defensible as being right. In my mind it is not. Other people have no trouble sleeping at night while knowingly depriving content-creators of their deserved compensation. It's not up to me to judge those people -- I only get to judge myself and try to raise a child who behaves morally.

~Neal

[Kadoth Nodens]

Don't add to my arguments. I didn't say a single word about 'Ok', 'legal', 'moral', 'ethical', or 'has a right to'. People said that such things were hurting the industry regardless of the circumstances. I then said that Gamer X wouldn't be hurting the industry in the example I gave.

Right. And I'm saying that your argument is flawed, since there's no way you can say X isn't subtracting money from the industry based on an artifically imposed spending limit based on numbers X came up with. If the argument was valid, it should still hold up if everyone set their spending limit to zero.

On the flipside, its just as incorrect for a game publisher to say every game pirated = the cover price of the game subtracted from their budget, and for almost the exact same reason. Some folks really wouldn't buy the game without the free alternative. But some would.

The whole "Plus" section was an aside and not directly related to your argument. That seemed pretty clear to me, but apologies if you thought I was trying to counter a point you weren't making.

(edit fer typoz)

[LordMortis]

I am so becoming that guy. How the hell did it happen? When the hell did it happen?

I only get to judge myself and try to raise a child who behaves morally.

That's what makes me sad. That's what irks my about corporate fraud, pro and college sports and entertainment industry criminimal immunity, presidential extra marital blow jobs, MTV, leeches, blowing through red lights, unstoppable abusive language in the classroom, and people who cry about "disrepecting me", (leave lights on, drop bombs, keep people as pets, race dogs, chase rats, but never let them see you sweat at all...) You can raise your child to behave morally and you can't and you shouldn't shield them from the entire big bad world, and you can't and you shouldn't watch them every minute by the time they are 13. But as they hit that age of finding self, we are now affirming to them that they are single the most important person in the world and that if you can rationalize it, even if you instinctively that something is wrong, it's OK and even when it's not forgiveness is better than permission. This is the coming of a generation that takes what it can when it believes it can not be held accountable, and it's learned it's trade from the best that our business world and governmental agencies have to offer.

How do you even give your child a chance? A footing?

[Victoria Raverna]

I bet Chris spend more on games each month than majority of honest non pirating members of this board. I am sure he spend more each month on games than people who wait for games to fall to under $20.

Does that mean pirating is right thing to do? Of course not, but to claim that it single-handedly destroy the gaming industry is just ignorant.

The followings are partial list of things that hurt gaming industry:

1. Piracy.
2. Buggy releases.
3. Game trading.
4. Big budget flops and Mismanagement.

So piracy hurt a bit. Buggy releases make potential games lost word-of-mouth sales and by the time the bugs are fixed in later patches, it is already too late.

Game trading, while people have been claiming that game trading doesn't hurt at all since you need to buy games to be able to trade and all other non game entertainment are tradeable. Games are special case that some of them are short and have low replay value. Those are the titles that are traded soon after the initial releases and that practically steal revenues from publisher/developer just like piracy does, but unlike pirates, traders don't break any laws so they won't change their practice even when they can afford to buy instead of trade while a pirate might change since some pirates feel guilty about pirating.

If you follow the industry history, most company that went bankrupt or in serious financial troubles were those that bet on the wrong horse.

[LordMortis]

I don't think anyone believes there is some sort of protection the gaming industry should have against being hurt.

Specifically, with buggy releases and big budgeted crap games that is is in their hands to deal with and with game trading if the industry doesn't like it, then they ought to come up with a different model for their games. (I am not a game trader BTW).

Support a company, don't support a company I don't care. Kill them with supply and demand, that's your business. Stealing, however crosses a line that has little to do with the whether or not a company should succeed or not.

If leeching isn't viewed as theft, but rather some notion of the free exchange of ideas or personal media, then we don't even start on the same page. That change in world view that many use is sad for our lifetime IMO.

[Blackhawk]

Don't add to my arguments. I didn't say a single word about 'Ok', 'legal', 'moral', 'ethical', or 'has a right to'. People said that such things were hurting the industry regardless of the circumstances. I then said that Gamer X wouldn't be hurting the industry in the example I gave.

Right. And I'm saying that your argument is flawed, since there's no way you can say X isn't subtracting money from the industry based on an artifically imposed spending limit based on numbers X came up with. If the argument was valid, it should still hold up if everyone set their spending limit to zero.

Actually, I think it does stand up. If there was a person with zero money who would be unable to buy any games regardless of piracy, and that person pirated, then the industry would still remain unaffected. No lost sales, no lost product. Of course, this depends on the person in question being an honest one, and not just using this argument as an excuse to spend their money elsewhere.

The issue early in this thread was whether piracy is affecting a certain developer the way they say it is. The issue at some point became 'People who pirate hurt the industry regardless of the circumstances'. Pirates are bad, mmkay? Piracy hurts the industry, some portions of it more than others, and exact figures on just how much it hurts are impossible to determine - any facts you read on the issue are going to be very heavily weighted in one side's favor.

Piracy, as a concept, on the whole, hurts the industry, but that doesn't mean that each individual person who pirates games, taken seperately, necessarily adds to that whole. Most do, yes - that whole is composed of those parts. Some, however, simply don't factor in to that equation.

The penniless guy who couldn't buy a game if his life depended on it, or who invests his entire 'recreation' budget into a computer, and could never buy a game if he didn't pirate simply doesn't affect the 'whole' one way or another. They are an irrelevant statistic.

People spend their time making games. These people are paid for what they do by other folks who think the end product has value. If you want to play that end-product, then it must hold value to you. And if you're utilizing something that holds some value, then guess what? You don't deserve to use that item without paying for it... ... Other people have no trouble sleeping at night while knowingly depriving content-creators of their deserved compensation. It's not up to me to judge those people -- I only get to judge myself and try to raise a child who behaves morally.

I am not sure I agree with this. By that reasoning, checking a book out of the library is immoral. In high school, I read probably two dozen Piers Anthony novels. I didn't pay for a single one of them. I enjoyed them, I valued them, and the author didn't receive a single cent of deserved compensation for it. Carl Sagan didn't get paid for my reading and loving Cosmos. I could list thousands of other authors.

I am not defending piracy or saying that it is right - I am just saying that there has to be more of a reason for it being wrong than the one described there.

[Kadoth Nodens]

Actually, I think it does stand up. If there was a person with zero money who would be unable to buy any games regardless of piracy, and that person pirated, then the industry would still remain unaffected. No lost sales, no lost product. Of course, this depends on the person in question being an honest one, and not just using this argument as an excuse to spend their money elsewhere.

And I agree, in cases where the actual amount of money a person has is 0. If you have no money & it's impossible for you to get money, you can't add funds to the industry, therefore you can't hurt or help it. The same applies if you can't actually acquire the product in your nation. It's an external limitation, not one you set yourself. I'd say this is a relatively common reason for piracy in certain "3rd world" (I hate that term) countries, but pretty rare in the richer nations.

The penniless guy who couldn't buy a game if his life depended on it, or who invests his entire 'recreation' budget into a computer, and could never buy a game if he didn't pirate simply doesn't affect the 'whole' one way or another. They are an irrelevant statistic.

Here I disagree. I can see circumstances where someone would be able to save up the grand (or whatever) for a computer, then suddenly & completely lose the ability to acquire more funds. But how often does that actually happen? In your example, if he knew his entire entertainment budget was going to be blown on the computer, he essentially planned to pirate games in advance. He made a voluntary decision to pick up a hobby he couldn't afford. He could have bought a cheaper computer. He could have saved more money before buying the computer. He could have realized that spending all your money on a machine to play games he can't afford aint the best idea. He has artificially set his budget to zero by spending the money elsewhere (by blowing it all on the computer).

[Dirt]

Corporations screw us by gouging us with high prices that give them fat margins. Corporations get screwed by people pirating their stuff. Coporations do what's best for themselves, the consumer (or non-consumer) does the same.

It's all about 'me'.

[Blackadar]

I don't pirate software. I don't condone the practice.

But in this case, I think the IL guys are off-base. I tried IL-2 - I'm sure there's a great game there. I never found it. The hard-core nature of the game turned me off. I didn't even look at the expansions nor the sequel. Hardcore sims don't sell very well. Especially when you produce essentially a hard-core sim, an expansion, another game just like the first, an expansion, etc.

[Odin]

Corporations screw us by gouging us with high prices that give them fat margins. Corporations get screwed by people pirating their stuff. Coporations do what's best for themselves, the consumer (or non-consumer) does the same.

It's all about 'me'.

Well, that's certainly an effective rationalization. You left out the part wherein one act violates the law and the other does not, unless by gouging you're actually referring to companies that take advantage of consumers by inflating prices during a crisis. Doesn't seem to apply to games, though.

Sith

[The Meal]

I don't think the library comparison holds, but I may be mistaken. If Piers Anthony wanted his creation to not be available to the public, does he have the option to *opt out* of the library system? Is there a manner in which one could dole out one's own IP controlled solely by the original content creator? If not in book form, then in some other media distribution? Would it have been legal for a library user to check out a book, photocopy that book for their own use in a 100% pristine format, then make that book available for other library users to check out and repeat the process?

I fear that last bit shows me shifting arguments. My original argument was that content has value and content-creators deserve to control the distribution of that content such that they receive compensation. I've (slightly?) perverted that stance in the library bit (at the end of that paragraph, above) by bringing in the possibility that its the 100% perfect copy in pristine format that makes piracy unpallatable. Let me toss that (as it's a side issue), and stick to my original question, can an author opt-out of the library distribuation format? Is it possible that someone could create a story and then (legally) 100% control the manner in which that story is distributed, such that they receive compensation for authoring that story?

Is there something about the inconvenience of the library system (only can use physically used and thus devalued property, for short periods of time) which makes that distribution fundamentally different than piracy (which obviously occurs in a manner in which the content creators/providers do not get a say in its distribution)?

I will say this, if I wrote a book and wanted to sell it, and if I were forced to allow libraries to allow uncompensated distribution of my book, I'd be pretty upset with the system. Do libraries, like radio stations, give royalties to their content providers?

The library example is an excellent sidenote regarding the immoral vs. illegal discussion.

~Neal

[Kschang77]

Specific exceptions were made for them in the copyright laws.

Of course, there's also a bunch of limits on them too.

[Odin]

Neal, I think the "pristine copy" part of your analysis is key.

Library - buys (usually) one copy. Loans that copy for a short period of time to ONE individual. All other individuals must wait until that copy is returned before the next individual may peruse it, and so on. Pristine copies are impractical, as the expense would typically outweigh the cost of the book.

Warez - buys (hopefullY0 one copy. Makes (essentially) infinite perfect (more or less) duplicates for a negligable cost. Provides those duplicates free of charge to (essentially) infinite recipients. The copies do not expire and can be used simultaneously by all recipients.

Regardless of whether either of these systems results in more or less lost revenue for the publisher, the point is that they're fundamentally different.

Sith

[Kadoth Nodens]

Do libraries, like radio stations, give royalties to their content providers?

Not in the US or Japan (last I checked). Pretty sure some countries in the EU do give royalties, but it's capped. You get like a dime every time somebody takes out your book, but there's a limit on the total amount you can get.

Many librarians would stop you from making a copy of an entire book. Usually they are big on copyright laws. University librarians have people that spend most of their time clearing copyrights for course packs and such.

This isn't my area, but I think librarians and book publishers have a semi-good relationship. They're a steady customer. Big companies have departments that focus on selling to libraries and I think there is a book club that only has libraries as customers as well. I heard the major bone of contention is that the inter-library loan system is too good now, so less books are purchased overall.

I'd say the library system is more akin to the used game market than piracy. The author is getting paid, plus he's getting exposure (which I'd bet is more valuable to an author than your average game developer). The publisher makes some cash on the initial sale, too.

[Blackhawk]

It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison - there are obviously differences. I meant it to say that using a person's work without compensating them is not, by itself, enough reason to say that an act is 'wrong'. There may be more factors - some of which we are discussing in this thread (does the original product continue to exist? Does it damage the industry? Does it take away from the artists?).

[Odin]

I'm not just arguing the point, I want to be sure I understand. When you speak in terms of using someone's work without compensation being "wrong" do you mean outside the instances wherein it's against the law? That is to say, should it be against the law? As obviously anything illegal is by definition "wrong" in terms of whether or not it's "right" for you to do it. Society (in the form of their elected representatives) have deemed it wrong and imposed penalties for doing it.

Sith

[Kael]

Wait.... Kael, did your analogy there just basically state that it is bad because it is illegal?

To be entirely honest, I don't think that legal/illegal has anything to do with what is right and wrong.

Thats a fair question. Personally I don't believe in moral relativism in regards to social behavior. Being part of a just society (and being just is required, these rules don't apply if the society itself is unjust) means being willing to obey the laws/structures of that society. I will seek out change to those laws through legal means (or be willing to accept the punishment for my act such as in minor crimes like speeding), but I won't ignore those laws because I disagree with them.

But more directly I believe that those games/music whatever belong to the creator, they determine what I am allowed to do with it and I respect that right. I expect the same when I allow people to use or have access to the things I own. Abstracting the relationship from a one on one interaction with someone I know to someone across the internet who I will never meet does not change my beliefs in a persons ability to control what he owns.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

All I have to add to this discussion is that every time someone starts a piracy thread, Thomas Covenant kills a kitten. Think of the kittens!!!

[LordMortis]

Libraries loan out software too. My guess is that if you did not want you publication to be loaned out, you would then have to license that publication and put terms in that licensing...Kind of like they do with most software.

But all that is beside the point. I don't hear authors and publishing companies attacking libraries for theft of the work. If I did then we would have to examine if the nature of our libraries has to be changed.

It is interesting how leeches defend their actions and change their justifications. One of my associates is very, very bad leech. It is an addiction for him, finding and warehousing media. I am sure he ends up with many times the value of his annual salary in leeched media every year. Watching his rationalizations change over the years has been humorous to say the least. He started with the whole: "try it before you buy it" thing, moved to the "I was never going to buy it anyway" litany. He's moved through several more phases, such as the "most of it is junk anyway" stage, the "it's a small percentage of theft" stage, and the "actually gives exposure to the artists and developers" stage (oh and there were more). He has now has hit this truly bizarre self-righteousness thing. He has convinced himself that stealing media encourages the free flow of ideas and only by everyone getting together stealing media will we destroy the publishing companies and truly gain informational freedom. He has vowed to never purchase another piece of media ever again. Yes, theft is the only way to true justice in this world.



Sorry guys. I know you're not looking for my approval. But I can't imagine a thought process that makes it OK to take the fruit of someone else's labor, simply because it's there and you can do it and no one will notice. It's stealing that tenth of a cent interest on ten thousand accounts a month. When you think of it, it's pretty disgusting, the regard you hold for the people providing you with your entertainment.

[Blackhawk]

LM - your friend is delusional. I don't think anyone here has attempted to make a case that it is right, although we have been discussion exactly why it is wrong. Rejecting an argument against something isn't an endorsement of that thing.

[LordMortis]

LM - your friend is delusional. I don't think anyone here has attempted to make a case that it is right, although we have been discussion exactly why it is wrong. Rejecting an argument against something isn't an endorsement of that thing.

I concur. My "friend" is delusional. It's something I thought was fascinating to watch happen over the last 15 years, though. He's also pretty obsessive about his leeching too. It's to the point where when we talk and I say things like "get help," I'm only half joking. He used to be a gamer, but for him now the game is a game of aquisition. Getting the stuff is more amusement to him than playing, watching, reading, listening, utilizing, etc...

I do think that in subtle ways people are trying to make the case that leeching is the right thing to do, though. That leeching is not improper, which makes it acceptable and implies that it is a form of legitamate aquisition and then a proper action. Then it gets all twisted and turned around.

For instance, thought the point of this thread originally was to lament the closing of a development because they simply didn't want to waste their effort on the leeches of the world. They have, in essence, said they won't be slaves to people who steal their product. (And good for them, BTW)

Whereas it got turned quickly to a leeching offensive.

The issue early in this thread was whether piracy is affecting a certain developer the way they say it is. The issue at some point became 'People who pirate hurt the industry regardless of the circumstances'. Pirates are bad, mmkay? Piracy hurts the industry, some portions of it more than others, and exact figures on just how much it hurts are impossible to determine - any facts you read on the issue are going to be very heavily weighted in one side's favor.

'

Why do you suppose it is that leeches jump to the offensive, and ask the developer, publisher, artist, author, creative talent, whatever to show that they are somehow hurt by a leech taking their the fruits of the creative talents labor against their wishes? To me it all looks like a shell game.

[Victoria Raverna]

Why do you suppose it is that leeches jump to the offensive, and ask the developer, publisher, artist, author, creative talent, whatever to show that they are somehow hurt by a leech taking their the fruits of the creative talents labor against their wishes? To me it all looks like a shell game.

I am not sure I see much case of leeches jump to the offensive. I see more of the publishers(game, music, movie) blame piracy for their losses and quote a large dollar amount about what they lost to piracy. Then I see people questioning how they came up with the dollar amount.

Other than a few delusional pirates like your friend, most pirates that live in US and Europe know that it is wrong to pirate stuff.

[Buatha]

I've just returned from Kuala Lumpur and you'd be surprised at the professionalism of the piracy there.

While I don't necessarily condone piracy, I did pick up a few professional software packages that no normal consumer could afford since they're priced for corporate purchase. I did limit myself to only games I didn't intend to buy and wanted to see if the full game would be worth buying (ie Painkiller, Halo PC). I drew some funny looks from people there when I said I didn't care to purchase copies of games since it's my hobby and I support the industry. If Painkiller or Halo PC don't suck, I'll pick them up when they hit the bargain bin.

However, you must realize that most people over there earn about 1/10th of our salaries. To put it into perspective, 1 dollar is equal to almost 4 RM (Malaysian Ringett). A nice dinner entree would be 12 RM. One legit computer game would cost them 160 RM. I would say that is a pretty large margin of difference. They don't even charge by the software package. It's all on a per cd basis, regardless of monetary value.

One other point I always take issue with is abandonware. You can hit me with a pirate stick all you want, but if it isn't on a store shelf/online retailer anymore, no one is losing except a gamer who wants to play the game. On Ebay, FFVII is going for $50 due to rarity. Screw that, I picked it up in KL for $5.

[Giles Habibula]

But I can't imagine a thought process that makes it OK to take the fruit of someone else's labor, simply because it's there and you can do it and no one will notice.

Which makes me wonder:
Chris--If you were attending a party being thrown by someone you didn't know--let's say you crashed it--and this party was held in a very nice house--and while wandering around the house you stumbled upon a large room; a library; of computer games. You stand there staring in awe at this massive collection. A fellow partygoer passes by and tells you that he has it on good authority that the homeowner merely has this collection merely to posess these games--that the owner has no actual interest in playing them, and that he doesn't even remember which games he has anymore--only that he's proud of his collection and that they are valuable to him.

Would you then filch a few of these games, knowing the homeowner would never miss them?

Edit: Or maybe a better example would be: Let's say this homeowner had two or three identical boxed retail copies of each game that he paid $40 apiece of his hard-earned money for. Let's say yeah, sure he's eccentric and wants to have multiple copies because he's paranoid about deterioration of the ocassional CD over the years and wants to cover his bases.

Now, you know full well this guy is paranoid as hell and has absolutely no reason to have two or three of everything. Would you filch a couple games even knowing he paid full price for them, simply because you know better than he does what he needs?

[Giles Habibula]

Wait.... Kael, did your analogy there just basically state that it is bad because it is illegal?

To be entirely honest, I don't think that legal/illegal has anything to do with what is right and wrong.

Nor do I, just for the record. I think it's wrong because it directly causes a material loss to another individual, and because it secondarily has an effect on the people that enjoy other products from that individual/company.

If that's your perspective, then I assume you feel the same way about used games. Buying used also causes a "material loss" to the company that made the game, since they don't get a dime when the game is resold. If material loss is your criteria, then the only difference between piracy and buying used is the legality.

Well, that, and the number of copies available. A pub/dev knows some percentage will be re-sold used--same with used cars for that matter.

But a pirate manufacturing unlimited copies -- completely skews the statistics.

[Spike]

And to be entirely honest, I do not feel bad about it at all. If, by some chance, I pirate a game and then the publisher fires everybody because the game sold poorly, I'd feel bad about it. But that hasn't happened.

Quite simply, this isn't about Chris or Gamer X: the above may well have happened but you're unaware of it. How? Due to the thousands or tens of thousands of people doing the same thing. "Everybody's doing it" is the most common justification, but doesn't make the individual any less personally responsible for the effects.