The Internet is Doomed

[Dragon Zachski]

Nov 20, 2011 18:02:43 GMT -5 syaoranvee said:

By your logic, I can steal a game from Target, then come back the next day and buy a copy of the game and that somehow makes it all better. No, that just means you have a stolen copy of a game and a legit copy of a game and it's still against the law.

No, that's not even anywhere close to my logic.

In my example, a digital copy is obtained at no actual cost to the company. The only cost involved is the potentially lost customer, and even then, that's not a certainty.

In your example, a copy is outright stolen, which denies the company any chance to make money off of that. So, money is actually lost because a potential copy is certainly gone. A copy that will never be sold to another customer because of the fact that it was stolen. In this case, buying another copy doesn't make things better because now the potential profit is permanently gone, unless the stolen copy is returned.

That is the difference between piracy and theft, and why I believe they should be classified as two different crimes.

Now, bearing in mind, I am not saying piracy is good, or just in any sense. That being said, your logic is not sound, and I will not allow misinformation to be spread, even if it's about criminals.

[Paimun]

I think we are going the wrong way around about piracy. The biggest complaint I hear when people pirate is "well I can get the game for free why would I pay for it?" Of course, there are people like me who just like owning a physical copy of the product, especially with CDs and vinyls. But perhaps we could convert some future pirates by giving them incentive to buy the game. Something they won't get if they pirate it. This seems like a better strategy than alienating people and giving them an outright excuse to pirate. Cases like Spore are a great example of how anti-piracy can backfire bigtime. Meanwhile, things like the Humble Indie Bundle that are DRM free and are a huge success in the indie game market prove that sometimes, trusting people pays off.

It's a very radical move, but I can't see it having too many consequences, really. Some people will still crack and pirate the game/music etc, but that is never going to change. The best we can do is try as hard as we can to convince people they SHOULD buy the product, rather than treating people like criminals from the outset.

And don't even get me started on the used game market. I have nothing but contempt for people who stand against it. Game companies should not be allowed to dictate what people do with their product after it has been legally sold by them. If I want to trade in a game and then someone wants to buy that game for a lower price pre-owned? That's none of Sony or EA's business. Their profits are not being cut into because it's not their game to sell again. They already sold it once for full price. Imagine if Nike wanted me to give them money for buying shoes at the Salvation Army, or Ford wanted money from me for buying a used car at a local dealer. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect people to be okay with killing the used game market so some company can make extra money they don't deserve. Not to mention the blow it will deal to some people who can only afford used games, or people who want to pass on games to friends/siblings.

[Vene]

This argument is a red herring, the legality/morality of pirating is not at question. What is at question is if this law is overkill.

[Dragon Zachski]

Nov 20, 2011 18:17:20 GMT -5 Paimun said:

I think we are going the wrong way around about piracy. The biggest complaint I hear when people pirate is "well I can get the game for free why would I pay for it?" Of course, there are people like me who just like owning a physical copy of the product, especially with CDs and vinyls. But perhaps we could convert some future pirates by giving them incentive to buy the game. Something they won't get if they pirate it. This seems like a better strategy than alienating people and giving them an outright excuse to pirate. Cases like Spore are a great example of how anti-piracy can backfire bigtime. Meanwhile, things like the Humble Indie Bundle that are DRM free and are a huge success in the indie game market prove that sometimes, trusting people pays off.

Minecraft is another example. I know of several people who admitted they pirated the game, and then turned around and bought it because it was just that fantastic and they felt bad for not owning the game and supporting the developers that made it.

One of the many problems with piracy reports is that it assumes people, by and large, don't have a conscience.

It's a very radical move, but I can't see it having too many consequences, really. Some people will still crack and pirate the game/music etc, but that is never going to change. The best we can do is try as hard as we can to convince people they SHOULD buy the product, rather than treating people like criminals from the outset.

I do believe several gaming companies are already doing this.

And don't even get me started on the used game market. I have nothing but contempt for people who stand against it. Game companies should not be allowed to dictate what people do with their product after it has been legally sold by them. If I want to trade in a game and then someone wants to buy that game for a lower price pre-owned? That's none of Sony or EA's business. Their profits are not being cut into because it's not their game to sell again. They already sold it once for full price. Imagine if Nike wanted me to give them money for buying shoes at the Salvation Army, or Ford wanted money from me for buying a used car at a local dealer. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect people to be okay with killing the used game market so some company can make extra money they don't deserve. Not to mention the blow it will deal to some people who can only afford used games, or people who want to pass on games to friends/siblings.

I like you.

I don't understand the logic of "They should have the right to tell you what to do with what they sold to you."

That means I can sell someone a couch and can tell them that they can only put it at the north wall. I can sell someone a dish and tell them they can only eat peanuts on it. I can sell someone pizza and tell them that they can only feed it to a dog. It gets ridiculous.

Nov 20, 2011 18:20:40 GMT -5 Vene said:

This argument is a red herring, the legality/morality of pirating is not at question. What is at question is if this law is overkill.

Oh, I don't think the legality of piracy is at question at all. It's illegal. Simple as that.

However, the amount of harm caused by piracy IS at question, and is relevant because apparently some people think it justifies bills like this.

And then some bullshit statistics got thrown around and now the argument is about piracy for some reason.

[ltfred]

If the actual artist in question actually made even a tiny profit from the sale of their work, as opposed to the record company (and their offspring decades later), I'd be much less happy with piracy. As it is, virtually all Australian bands make a loss on their records if they do it through a company (while the company always makes vast profits).

[DarkfireTaimatsu]

[The Lazy One]

Vee, the difference is that Bill Gates hasn't ever tried to sue anyone for more money than exists. And piracy isn't theft, per se. Theft removes something. Piracy makes a copy of it. It's still illegal, but it's not like walking into Target, putting a DVD in your pocket, and sneaking out. There's a HUGE difference. It's intellectually dishonest to say that pirating a movie is the same thing as stealing Bill Gates' wallet.

[Dragon Zachski]

Nov 20, 2011 19:10:12 GMT -5 The Lazy One said:

Vee, the difference is that Bill Gates hasn't ever tried to sue anyone for more money than exists. And piracy isn't theft, per se. Theft removes something. Piracy makes a copy of it. It's still illegal, but it's not like walking into Target, putting a DVD in your pocket, and sneaking out. There's a HUGE difference. It's intellectually dishonest to say that pirating a movie is the same thing as stealing Bill Gates' wallet.

It would be more like walking into Target, cloning the DVD using magic/science powers, and walking out with the cloned DVD and leaving the original DVD in its place. No resources are lost by the original company, and the original DVD can still be made a profit off of.

Piracy's costs lie in the loss of potential customers. And the funny thing is, sometimes it results in a gain of profit rather than a loss of profit (somebody likes a song on a CD, so they go out and buy the CD)

And sometimes there isn't any potential money lost because there was never a market to begin with. Like Mother 3. It wasn't going to be released in America, so people put together a non-profit project to translate the game as a ROM and distribute it online here. And most of the people clamoring for the game to be released here are the people who have already pirated and beaten the game themselves.

In a sense, piracy created the demand for the game. And perhaps it will be released here some day. Same for Seiken Densetsu 3 on virtual console.

[syaoranvee]

Wrong person. Kit made the Bill Gates analogy, not me.

[VirtualStranger]

Nov 20, 2011 19:15:55 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

Nov 20, 2011 19:10:12 GMT -5 The Lazy One said:

Vee, the difference is that Bill Gates hasn't ever tried to sue anyone for more money than exists. And piracy isn't theft, per se. Theft removes something. Piracy makes a copy of it. It's still illegal, but it's not like walking into Target, putting a DVD in your pocket, and sneaking out. There's a HUGE difference. It's intellectually dishonest to say that pirating a movie is the same thing as stealing Bill Gates' wallet.

It would be more like walking into Target, cloning the DVD using magic/science powers, and walking out with the cloned DVD and leaving the original DVD in its place. No resources are lost by the original company, and the original DVD can still be made a profit off of.

Piracy's costs lie in the loss of potential customers. And the funny thing is, sometimes it results in a gain of profit rather than a loss of profit (somebody likes a song on a CD, so they go out and buy the CD)

And sometimes there isn't any potential money lost because there was never a market to begin with. Like Mother 3. It wasn't going to be released in America, so people put together a non-profit project to translate the game as a ROM and distribute it online here. And most of the people clamoring for the game to be released here are the people who have already pirated and beaten the game themselves.

In a sense, piracy created the demand for the game. And perhaps it will be released here some day. Same for Seiken Densetsu 3 on virtual console.

On that note, piracy is almost single-handedly responsible for the explosive popularity of anime in the west during the late 90's. The copying and distributing of fan-subs and translations is what caused distributors to recognize that potential market in the first place.

[Kit Walker]

You might be right that people use piracy as a preview for buying video games. Doesn't make it right, but it would not be removing as many sales.

But what about movies, music, comic books, or TV shows? What you get illegally is, from what I've seen of my friends stuff, exactly the same as what you can buy legally. Why would you buy a DVD or Blu-Ray of a flick you already own?

[The Lazy One]

Nov 20, 2011 19:31:34 GMT -5 syaoranvee said:

Wrong person. Kit made the Bill Gates analogy, not me.

My bad, you guys have similar user icons (at a glance, anyway) and arguments. Sorry for confusing you. But my argument still stands. Piracy is not analogous to theft, since you're not removing the original.

[lexikon]

Nov 20, 2011 20:54:10 GMT -5 The Lazy One said:

Nov 20, 2011 19:31:34 GMT -5 syaoranvee said:

Wrong person. Kit made the Bill Gates analogy, not me.

My bad, you guys have similar user icons (at a glance, anyway) and arguments. Sorry for confusing you. But my argument still stands. Piracy is not analogous to theft, since you're not removing the original.

Emo zombie vs. man in purple skinsuit. Reaaallly similar.

I think it is a sort of theft, but a different kind. They aren't losing the original but they aren't making money. Maybe it can be counted as some kind of fraud?

[itachirumon]

On that note, piracy is almost single-handedly responsible for the explosive popularity of anime in the west during the late 90's. The copying and distributing of fan-subs and translations is what caused distributors to recognize that potential market in the first place.

Damn right - I'd be tempted to buy loveless manga (well, before tokyopop went under), soul eater, etc, all because I saw both the anime and the manga online first and love them enough that I'd buy them. I'd do the same thing for Naruto if it wasn't for the outrageous price and the fact that there's about 30 of them so it'd take me a long time and I have nowhere to store them. Another example kinda - reading Gravitation inspired me to try strawberry pocky, I found I liked it and now I'll eat it by the truckload if I can find it.

[sadhuman]

Nov 20, 2011 19:45:24 GMT -5 Kit Walker said:

You might be right that people use piracy as a preview for buying video games. Doesn't make it right, but it would not be removing as many sales.

But what about movies, music, comic books, or TV shows? What you get illegally is, from what I've seen of my friends stuff, exactly the same as what you can buy legally. Why would you buy a DVD or Blu-Ray of a flick you already own?

I have a collection of movies and old cartoon series most of them have small extras that you just don't normally get if you pirate them. Commentaries and special videos and documentaries about the show/movie. The extras are what led me to buying them, not the actual movie or show. Some of the movies I have brought for my son take 15 to 20 minutes to get to the menu (You can skip or fastforward some of the content but even then that is 5 to 10 minutes still). He doesn't mind cause he is 3 and it is still playing and making sounds but to me it is unacceptable, we moved from VHS partly to get rid of fast forwarding through previews and here they are back again and at times they are control locked.

Once again it comes down to making people WANT to give you money for your product. If all you are going to do is give people the bare bones, lock what they can do with the product or try and control it once they own it then you are only driving people away from you. If you give people extra content, trust them to use your product properly and treat them liked a valued customer and not a pirate then you are going to draw people back into buying from you.