ANYONE on here defending piracy is an idiot. Case closed. I don't care if you would have bought the game or not. It is a product that you are stealing. I don't care if the product is not available to you. There are numerous reasons  for that including distribution issues that will never get solved if everyone simply steals the products. People can try to sound as noble as they want, but the fact is they are trying to justify their own theivery. Go into a Wal-Mart (or wherever) and try walking out with a video game without paying for it an d see what happens to you.

Originally posted by Requiamer

 

---

I'm sorry you just cannot caricature that concept that easily, it just doesn't work in practice.
I mean you can do just that if you want, that's what most people do anyway, but you might be confronted with serious disillusion if you think that way.

Ownership is not only what you decide it should be, 'im sorry, you need the consent of others too. Your ownership will be respected if that consensus is kept. If at anytime this consensus if broken you might loose what 'you' as a persona think is your in the favor of other people thinking it is not. And not only you need others to invalidate this, but others will also define what you can do or not do with or inside your possession.

Look at all the ways you might loose "your" house in matter of second because other people decide to stop this consensus. War, government needed your house for a military base, company finding a resource and getting support to kick you out, you wife divorcing...

There is a very strong notion of respect in what make yours or not. If other don't respect that for any reason, it might not be as much "yours" as you might think. But naturally you can keep leaving in your bubble all you want and ignore all this, i'm not the one who will fall if it explode, i hope for you it won't ever really, good luck with that. But you should keep somewhere behind you head that's its not as simple as that. I don't think courts and laws would have been so big in our societies if it was that simple.

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying. But simply put, at this moment in time, most of us live in a world that acknowledges copyright laws, terms of use, etc.

So until one's government and system of laws gets tossed out then I get to keep my house if a stranger decides take it.

If our police system is still in check then they'll toss them out.

this isn't hard to understand.

If our world goes the way of "mad max' then sure, we can start talking about might makes right and whatever one can fight for one can keep, but we aren't here yet. At least in the places we live.

I'm telling you right now, I take your car I don't get to keep your car with the blessing of the state.

---

Originally posted by Sovrath

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying. But simply put, at this moment in time, most of us live in a world that acknowledges copyright laws, terms of use, etc.
So until one's government and system of laws gets tossed out then I get to keep my house if a stranger decides take it.
If our police system is still in check then they'll toss them out.
this isn't hard to understand.
If our world goes the way of "mad max' then sure, we can start talking about might makes right and whatever one can fight for one can keep, but we aren't here yet. At least in the places we live.
I'm telling you right now, I take your car I don't get to keep your car with the blessing of the state.
 

---

Hey i fully understand what you are saying. But the thing is the thread isn't about my car or your house, sure laws about ownership of those are very clear, straightforward, and respected in most countries around the world.

But here we are talking about gaming, SOE mess with George Hotz and hacker movement that followed, gold farmer and botters, and Diablo 3 that legalize RMT in the gaming world. Pretty much all of those things have no laws, or are in greys areas even in the US, and even if they exist would probably not be respected (i don't think china will put gold farmer anytime soon in jail) in most countries. And RMT is a fucking mess, pushing gaming into the addictive and hacking corner of gaming, and this probably will stay like this for few years. Because you know games aren't really something of interest for courts, they have more serious work, if you know what i mean.

So all in all, if what you are saying is true, its still a bit "twisted" or at least too schematic for the OP post. Because it is clear that in mmo ownership is a pretty funny concept to say the least, you "own" a virtual toon, into a game world that you don't own, and so on and so on. I really wish ownership was that simple in mmo and had a clean relationship with virtuality, but it doesn't.

Eat a full testicle.

Originally posted by kingotnw

Go into a Wal-Mart (or wherever) and try walking out with a video game without paying for it an d see what happens to you.

What if I go in to a Walmart (or whatever) and take a picture of a picture that they are selling? I then go home, print it out and hang it on my wall. What happens to me then?

     An argument that something isn't a problem because not enough people can figure out how to do it is just...mind bogglingly horrible.  First of all, you're comparing two completely different population bases.  While yes, it's true that the 'average' consumer isn't tech savvy enough to do much of anything, major titles in gaming aren't being SOLD to the average consumer, they're being sold to gamers, and yes, the typical gamers knows how to torrent something. 

        Secondly, pirating only is as 'complicated' as it is because it's still semi-illegitmate.  You have to go to smaller websites that aren't making a profit and aren't interested in being the most user-friendly places on earth.  The more legitimized something on the intnernet becomes, the more likely a simple-effective service to deliver it becomes. 

     Thirdly, some people are saying "People who steal games are those who don't believe in paying that much for a game in the first place, and therefore it's not hurting sales" are missing the fact that the "willing to pay" and "not willing to pay" groups aren't static- they are subject to change.   And one of the BIG things that would make the 'not willing to pay' group larger is how easy it becomes to get something without paying!  Once I find a free pirate server for an MMO I like, and realize how easy it is to get into these things, who's to say I don't become one of those people that 'doesn't believe in' paying subscription fees?  While I agree it's a mistake to assume that every pirated game is a lost sale, it's equally a mistake to assume that there aren't people pirating that would have made a purchase if it wasn't so easy to steal instead. 

Last but not least, I think it's shameful that a staff person on this website would practically endorse taking money ouf of the hands of the industry that keeps him in his job. 

Originally posted by GreenHell

Originally posted by kingotnw

Go into a Wal-Mart (or wherever) and try walking out with a video game without paying for it an d see what happens to you.

What if I go in to a Walmart (or whatever) and take a picture of a picture that they are selling? I then go home, print it out and hang it on my wall. What happens to me then?

You'll be laughed at by your friends for being so cheap as to not even buy a picture at Walmart prices.They will then post a picture of you at walmart-people.com

---

Originally posted by GreenHell

---

Originally posted by kingotnw
Go into a Wal-Mart (or wherever) and try walking out with a video game without paying for it an d see what happens to you.

---

What if I go in to a Walmart (or whatever) and take a picture of a picture that they are selling? I then go home, print it out and hang it on my wall. What happens to me then?

---

This is actually a nearly perfect analogy.

Originally posted by GreenHell

Originally posted by kingotnw

Go into a Wal-Mart (or wherever) and try walking out with a video game without paying for it an d see what happens to you.

What if I go in to a Walmart (or whatever) and take a picture of a picture that they are selling? I then go home, print it out and hang it on my wall. What happens to me then?

 

Originally posted by GreenHell

Originally posted by kingotnw

Go into a Wal-Mart (or wherever) and try walking out with a video game without paying for it an d see what happens to you.

What if I go in to a Walmart (or whatever) and take a picture of a picture that they are selling? I then go home, print it out and hang it on my wall. What happens to me then?

 

     Then you're stuck with a low-res, grainy, crappy image of an image that would look retarded on your wall.

      if the technology to do this became common and cheap enough (compared to the price of just buying a poster) that everybody was doing this, you can bet your ass Wal-Mart would find away to package the picture to prevent it, as would be their right.

Originally posted by Requiamer

 

---

Originally posted by Sovrath

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying. But simply put, at this moment in time, most of us live in a world that acknowledges copyright laws, terms of use, etc.
So until one's government and system of laws gets tossed out then I get to keep my house if a stranger decides take it.
If our police system is still in check then they'll toss them out.
this isn't hard to understand.
If our world goes the way of "mad max' then sure, we can start talking about might makes right and whatever one can fight for one can keep, but we aren't here yet. At least in the places we live.
I'm telling you right now, I take your car I don't get to keep your car with the blessing of the state.
 

 

 

---

 

Hey i fully understand what you are saying. But the thing is the thread isn't about my car or your house, sure laws about ownership of those are very clear, straightforward, and respected in most countries around the world.

But here we are talking about gaming, SOE mess with George Hotz and hacker movement that followed, gold farmer and botters, and Diablo 3 that legalize RMT in the gaming world. Pretty much all of those things have no laws, or are in greys areas even in the US, and even if they exist would probably not be respected (i don't think china will put gold farmer anytime soon in jail) in most countries. And RMT is a fucking mess, pushing gaming into the addictive and hacking corner of gaming, and this probably will stay like this for few years. Because you know games aren't really something of interest for courts, they have more serious work, if you know what i mean.

So all in all, if what you are saying is true, its still a bit "twisted" or at least too schematic for the OP post. Because it is clear that in mmo ownership is a pretty funny concept to say the least, you "own" a virtual toon, into a game world that you don't own, and so on and so on. I really wish ownership was that simple in mmo and had a clean relationship with virtuality, but it doesn't.

It's perfectly in line with the original post.

Your idea of owning a virtual item being ridiculous doesn't hold up because you dont' "own that virtual item.

You are granted access to those virtual items. Of course if you want to talk about virtual items not really existing well "they do".

Just like our paper money is a representation of buying power the items, characters and world of a virtual game is representative of "something".

If people are paying money to access video games (that "something")  then those things have value. The game companies have put time, money and effort into creating those things. They aren't figments of our imagination.

And just as I said earlier, acquiring a video game is not stealing but it is acquiring access to something that a person has no right  to access without his/her paying what the game companies have asked.

What is essentially happening here is that some players feel they are entitled to access these things just because they can.

They make the argument that because it's out there and isn't somethign you can hold in their hand then it's their right to do so.

I do believe the laws say otherwise. The game companies are certainly selling you access to these things and stipulate how you can access them and use them.

Originally posted by Dubhlaith

 

---

Originally posted by GreenHell

---

Originally posted by kingotnw
Go into a Wal-Mart (or wherever) and try walking out with a video game without paying for it an d see what happens to you.

---

What if I go in to a Walmart (or whatever) and take a picture of a picture that they are selling? I then go home, print it out and hang it on my wall. What happens to me then?

---

 

This is actually a nearly perfect analogy.

I actually brought up this discusson at mu thursday night pub night and a friend of mine brought up the same analaogy with the idea that the "copy" is imperfect and not essentially sellable.

Essentially one is taking a poor image of something and using it for private use.

I imagine that the closer to perfect such images could be made the more they would start infringing on he creator's rights. Especially if one could take that near perfect image that the creator made and put it on the web for anyone to take.

This was essentially our discussion.

I think part of it is that law comes down to intent.

This is very evident in some cases, the most extreme being that if I kill someone one might say "the law is clear, you hang".

but if I kill someone because I was defending myself then that would be very different than killing someone because I found it fun.

Now, that is an EXTREME example. But the idea is to propose that intent has a large part in the law. At least it seems that way from my layman's point of view.

So if one was to take a grainy picture of somethign then no one might care. If one was to take a perfect picture of something then the creator might not like it but if it wasn't a "one off" type of event it might not be worth it to pursue legal actions.

If people were taking perfect photos of images that were created in order to sell and everyone was doing it then that would be incentive for the creator to pursue legal action.

It also might be incentive for the creator to "not" create images anymore as it was a bad business venture.

I'm a straight pirate -- no way in hell I'm going to invest my hard earned $49.99 ~ $59.99 on a game that potentially sucks. I'm gonna grab the torrent, and play through until I'm content that it's worth buying my own copy.

Is what I'm doing wrong? Most would say yes, but I've saved countless hundreds (thousands?) of dollars with this approach; if the game sucks, delete it and move on.

However, if there is a demo available, I'll usually grab that first. If I feel the demo is not complete enough, I'll find a full copy. When I'm satisfied, I fork over the money to get a box set.

I'm a firm believer that software developers should be suported *if* they have a worthy product. Asking consumers to pay fifty bucks for software on a leap of faith is simply wrong.

Honestly, how many of us have went and bought a game that we played for ten minutes before we were so pissed off? No way to get a refund since we opened the game, so we just got shafted.

No more.

Originally posted by XaeroDegreaz

evelopers should be suported *if* they have a worthy product. Asking consumers to pay fifty bucks for software on a leap of faith is simply wrong.

 

The problem is that what is considered 'worthy' of 59.95  when you have to pay it to play is completely different than what is considered 'worthy' of 59.95 when you can play whatever you want for free as long as you want. 

Imagine if you could eat all you wanted at a restaurant and only pay them if you decided the food was 'good enough'.  Well, we both know you're going to eat every day regardless...so obviously the typical person would be looking for any excuse they could possibly find to avoid giving up any cash. 

Have you BEEN on any video game forums? Every game, no matter how popular, how well-reviewed, or how high quality, has forums full of people saying how much it sucks. Without exception, all the time.  If the standard of 'when do you get paid' is 'when a gamer plays your game and doesn't find any excuse to complain afterwards', then no game company would make a cent. 

The blow it moment was insinuating that folks in general were too stupid to pirate anything.

It's a very bad argument that assumes class.

It also misses another point.

This may be about the fact that people may be willing to support something like a script game rather than "counterfit" if they feel part of something.

The "tithe" was an early tax for the community but an inovation came with the offering plate allowing the poor to tax themselves much like lottery tickets except with no payout in THIS life...

Oops... not railing... just pointing out that communities have to find ways to grow and fund themselves.

Having a (insert your fav game here) roof fund or whatnot isn't such a stupid analogy point by point.

I mean there's the la la land and then there's the real-world monies and procedures to enable the la la land.

The mechanics are VERY similar.

Just sayin...

Originally posted by Uccisore

Originally posted by XaeroDegreaz

evelopers should be suported *if* they have a worthy product. Asking consumers to pay fifty bucks for software on a leap of faith is simply wrong.

 

The problem is that what is considered 'worthy' of 59.95  when you have to pay it to play is completely different than what is considered 'worthy' of 59.95 when you can play whatever you want for free as long as you want. 

Imagine if you could eat all you wanted at a restaurant and only pay them if you decided the food was 'good enough'.  Well, we both know you're going to eat every day regardless...so obviously the typical person would be 

You are confused, when you pirate a product to make sure it isnt garbage because theres realistically no way to tell if you want to play a game until you've actually tryed it, you are not stealing any product from anyone. In your analogy you are eating the restraunts food which costs the restaurant money and uses their resources, downloading a digital copy of a game using someone elses bandwidth (obviously not the developers) costs them NOTHING, what you explained would only be true if you were actually stealing a boxed product. The company releasing a demo costs them more money than someone pirating a game because youre actually using their download servers.

The majority of people who pirate games would have not bought the product in the first place, making it not a loss of a sale, but possibly a gain of a sale if they feel like the game is good enough or if they need to buy it to access multiplayer.

Originally posted by Coman

The problem is not the pirate, but the publishers. While downloading game simply is wrong (by law. We could discuss if it really is morally wrong, especially if you would have payed for the product anyway)

 

 

Maybe in your country it is but here it's perfectly legal to download anything but child porn but that's pretty obvious.

As for the post; i gotta agree to the point that hackers/modders or w/e you wanna call them are probably much much much worse.

Something that i miss in your article though is that piracy has never been about the money (for the "scene" groups). It has always been about things like cracking security deemed worthless or unneccesary among others.

A lot of groups i know off also encourage people to actually BUY the game if people like it, hell half the time even they themselves buy the games before they crack them.

I can even say that when i download games like this i mostly end up buying them because i was allowed more freedom to see what the game was about.

To me "piracy" is more a form of providing a demo in the form of a whole game and helps me make the choice to buy it or not. Which is another point since demo's seem to have stopped coming out all together or they are very very very unpolished.

I actually brought up this discusson at mu thursday night pub night and a friend of mine brought up the same analaogy with the idea that the "copy" is imperfect and not essentially sellable.

Essentially one is taking a poor image of something and using it for private use.

I imagine that the closer to perfect such images could be made the more they would start infringing on he creator's rights. Especially if one could take that near perfect image that the creator made and put it on the web for anyone to take.

This was essentially our discussion.

 

Let us assume that the picture you took is of lower quality than the original. In many ways so are the pirated version of the games you download. They ususally do not have multi-player, there is no support, they may not run as good as the original, you can not buy DLC, a lot of times the game is not coming to you patched, and there is always the chance you will download a virus or the game just won't work at all. So essentially you are getting an inferior copy of the game.

I guess what I should have said in my post was..

That I take a picture of a picture at walmart and then I take it home, photoshop the hell out of it so it is basically of the same quality as the original, I then put it up on the internet so people can download it for free. If we take the quality out of the discussion does it change anything? The basic act is the same. I took the picture, modified it and then put it on the internet for people to download for free. Would walmart security run after me as I left? Would the cops be called? Would it be considered stealing to them?

You don't how hard is to live in Brazil. We have so many taxes on games that it costs three times the original price and in many cases you can only buy games from the publishers with an international credit car, what is also expensive to get and maintain, so you have to be rich to play an original game, so, the only option the most part of the gaming comunity has is to use pirated games, or else no one would be playing any games, I chalenge you to be a gamer in Brazil and then you will see how great is to use pirated games.

Loved this article.