How much do you think piracy is affecting the PC Gaming market?

[ImpulsE69]

Do you also find it hilarious when people call embezzlement theft? When your local legislature defines it as 'shoplifting', does the 'stealing' from walmart also rate an lol?

Does the whole affair merit an LOL because we're talking about definitions of legal terms with absolutely no mention of what legal framework we're actually referencing, and thus hilariously believing the laws are all the same everywhere?

Or is this legal pedantry only funny when it serves an agenda?

no, but law is law, and what's good enough for corporations/government and their lawyers is good enough for the rest of us. Law terminology is everything. You can argue right or wrong all you want, but it doesn't change the law. Murder is murder, and vehicular manslaughter is vehicular manslaughter even if they both end up with someone dead.

None of the stealing or not has any bearing on if people think it's right or wrong. But if you are going to come into a converstation where all you can say is "it's stealing" then do you blame anyone for correcting you?

 

[blackened23]

no, but law is law, and what's good enough for corporations/government and their lawyers is good enough for the rest of us. Law terminology is everything. You can argue right or wrong all you want, but it doesn't change the law. Murder is murder, and vehicular manslaughter is vehicular manslaughter even if they both end up with someone dead.

None of the stealing or not has any bearing on if people think it's right or wrong. But if you are going to come into a converstation where all you can say is "it's stealing" then do you blame anyone for correcting you?

You're trying to justify your use of piracy through semantics and dictionary thumbing and it's ridiculous. Furthermore, piracy is still illegal regardless of your silly game of stating "OH HEY IM NOT STEALING SO ITS OKAY GUYS". I mean that argument is so mind blowing I can't believe people use this as a basis of justifying their actions.

There are laws specifically pertaining to piracy and copyrighted/intellectual property. So no matter how utterly stupid you want to be about defining what the word "stealing" means and then trying to argue what you're doing is FINE because "STEALING IS ONLY FOR PHYSICAL GOODS" it is still against the law. There are laws regarding copyrighted material and intellectual property. There are multi billion dollar lawsuits in all corners of America and Europe because of this, but by all means continue to state that digital property isn't physical property and that gives you free reigns to take everything you want with no repercussions - In the end no matter how you slice it you are wrong. It is illegal. So stop your silly games of word play and semantics. I mean you must really think everyone here is stupid because we're supposed to believe piracy is a-okay due to the dictionary definition of "stealing", I can't believe i'm reading this here.

By all means, continue your piracy. There is no way to talk sense into someone that lies to themselves so much that they start to believe their own silliness.

 

[mindcycle]

Do you also find it hilarious when people call embezzlement theft? When your local legislature defines it as 'shoplifting', does the 'stealing' from walmart also rate an lol?

I'm not sure I understand the question or how your example has to do with copyright infringement. You may want to do yourself a favor and do a little research on copyright infringement vs theft. Here, i'll make it easy for you..

1: Go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

2: Read through section 1.

Or is this legal pedantry only funny when it serves an agenda?

Nope, no agenda, it's just funny when people start using terminology to "call out" or "expose" pirates when they don't even understand the actual meaning of the terminology they are using. Especially when they start calling out people who don't agree with their essentially made up definitions.

So what's your agenda?

 

[Subyman]

These arguments remind me of the marriage debates. Gays can't be married, but they can have "civil unions." Copyright infringement, stealing, theft, on and on, people are getting to wrapped up in the specifics of each without asking the bigger question: whats the end result of each? Person that copies, steals, what-have-you gets a product without paying the producer/creator/inventor of said product. Same outcome. Both sides need to not be so worried about the semantics and instead debate the process and outcome, because they are tightly coupled.

Annisman, I think you are targeting the wrong point. I seems you keep trying to say pirating is stealing, but why does that definition matter so much? Duplicating a protected product without paying for it is still wrong, so argue that directly. Then the pirates can't wiggle out of the "stealing" argument. However, I do not think one person on this forum can straight up say that pirating is not wrong. If you notice they just keep saying its not "stealing."

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Yes, actually, I can blame them,. You go into a discussion like this with no reference to what legal framework you're referencing, you lose all claims to specific legal definitions because you are not actually using them.

We're using the vernacular because there are no specifics, and the vernacular usage of theft is quite broad, and certainly broad enough to cover piracy.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I'm not sure I understand the question or how your example has to do with copyright infringement. You may want to do yourself a favor and do a little research on copyright infringement vs theft. Here, i'll make it easy for you..

1: Go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

2: Read through section 1.

Nope, no agenda, it's just funny when people start using terminology to "call out" or "expose" pirates when they don't even understand the actual meaning of the terminology they are using. Especially when they start calling out people who don't agree with their essentially made up definitions.

So what's your agenda?

Simple response: Those terms are defined by the particular legal frameworks of the land. By failing to specify the legal framework you're using, you've given everyone an undefined term, and now you're pretending it has a specific meaning, when in fact it does *not*.

Your definitions are as made up as the rest of them. Either you're using the vernacular - in which case your point is moot, because the vernacular is purposefully vague - or you're not, in which case you have no definition whatsoever.

 

[mindcycle]

We're using the vernacular because there are no specifics, and the vernacular usage of theft is quite broad, and certainly broad enough to cover piracy.

Nope, incorrect. Read through the Wikipedia article I posted.

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization. Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft holding. For instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985), bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead, "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

The difference between copyright infringement and theft is integral to a discussion on software piracy because you can't go around saying piracy is the same thing as stealing from a store (or theft of a product) because it simply is not the same thing, period. Once you start going down that route you start clouding the issue.

Is piracy wrong? IMO, yes it is. However, the impact from a dude stealing a video game at Walmart is fundamentally different from a dude downloading that same video game from the net. The two actions have two totally different monetary losses, one can be measured directly because its a physical product, the other can't be measured that same way so it's harder to directly measure, thus, they can't be lumped together as the same thing.

 

[mindcycle]

Your definitions are as made up as the rest of them. Either you're using the vernacular - in which case your point is moot, because the vernacular is purposefully vague - or you're not, in which case you have no definition whatsoever.

Oh yeah? Well go ahead and provide me with a reputable link that says theft is the same thing as copyright infringement and we'll talk more..

 

[Childs]

By all means, continue your piracy. There is no way to talk sense into someone that lies to themselves so much that they start to believe their own silliness.

I dont believe Impluse69 is justifying his use of piracy, unless he lied earlier when he said why he did it and he longer does it. I would assume most people who had computers in the 90/early 00s, and had a reasonable amount of experience using computers, did it here and there. Copying is fundamental to computers. At the time it was no different than copying a tape for a friend, or even lending a book to someone. Downloading a copy was just an extension of that. People shared everything on the internet long before they knew or cared about copyright laws. Anyways, he stated earlier he longer does it. There is no point to lying on an anonymous forum. Or at least lie about something better, like how much money you make, dick size, number of women conquered, having an M3, etc.

The assumption that anyone who doesnt think the same as you is a pirate, and therefore has no argument, doesnt help the discussion.

 

[Ricochet]

And falsities like this are yet another reason the myth perpetuates. While piracy played a SMALL role, it was nowhere near the reason the Dreamcast died. Keep in mind at this time dialup was still the main internet connection and cd burners while more common were not in everyones hands. You might wanna Google a bit. This is right up there with blaming the closing of the record shops on piracy.

I've read many of those articles of years past and agree that piracy is not the main culprit but it is a contributing factor nonetheless, but I'm not going to downplay it like most people. So NO, there's no need for me to google it. My opinion does stem from the abundant of pirates I come across with abundant of pen labelled CD/DVDs. It's not limited to college students with high speed access but also moms who want something on the cheap (ie free). It's only anecdotal but it's powerful enough since it's actual evidence right in front of your face instead of just another biased internet article. It's a slap in the face to those who actually create content for a living.

However people spin that piracy is not that bad, there's no way for me to see them as the Robin Hood against the big bad corporation. In the middle of the pompous CEOs who exaggerate figures and the smug pirates are the actual honest consumers who run into an ever increasingly complex DRM scheme.

You can win the semantics game, but nothing will convince me that piracy is not wrong. It has a huge negative impact on gaming. It lead publishers to take an extreme stance (ie Securom) that negatively affected us gamers. It lead to an industry which does not allow us to play single player campaign without being connected online.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Wikipedia's definitions are just as made up as yours, and everybody else's.

And no, I don't buy the "It's not the same as Walmart" because, as a pointed out above, "Theft of Services" is a real thing. Legally defined in my home state of PA. Theft, as it turns out, doesn't actually require a physical product or the "They no longer have it" effect.

The big "They aren't the same thing!" doesn't hold water.

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.039.026.000.html

There's the PA state code on theft of services. Withdraw all claims that theft requires physical goods to be taken.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Copyright infringement, stealing, theft, on and on, people are getting to wrapped up in the specifics of each without asking the bigger question: whats the end result of each? Person that copies, steals, what-have-you gets a product without paying the producer/creator/inventor of said product. Same outcome. Both sides need to not be so worried about the semantics and instead debate the process and outcome, because they are tightly coupled.

So buying used is also stealing? It is not as easy as you think. IP law is contract law, not criminal law. There is a lot of factors that have to be considered, and one of them is the rights of the public.

 

[mindcycle]

Wikipedia's definitions are just as made up as yours, and everybody else's.

Wikipedia's article is based on Supreme Court rulings. So those are just made up hu?

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.039.026.000.html

There's the PA state code on theft of services. Withdraw all claims that theft requires physical goods to be taken.

Did you actually read through that link? Lol That statue is talking about theft of cable TV and phone services, it has nothing to do with software piracy or copyright infringement.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You're trying to justify your use of piracy through semantics and dictionary thumbing and it's ridiculous. Furthermore, piracy is still illegal regardless of your silly game of stating "OH HEY IM NOT STEALING SO ITS OKAY GUYS". I mean that argument is so mind blowing I can't believe people use this as a basis of justifying their actions.

There are laws specifically pertaining to piracy and copyrighted/intellectual property. So no matter how utterly stupid you want to be about defining what the word "stealing" means and then trying to argue what you're doing is FINE because "STEALING IS ONLY FOR PHYSICAL GOODS" it is still against the law. There are laws regarding copyrighted material and intellectual property. There are multi billion dollar lawsuits in all corners of America and Europe because of this, but by all means continue to state that digital property isn't physical property and that gives you free reigns to take everything you want with no repercussions - In the end no matter how you slice it you are wrong. It is illegal. So stop your silly games of word play and semantics. I mean you must really think everyone here is stupid because we're supposed to believe piracy is a-okay due to the dictionary definition of "stealing", I can't believe i'm reading this here.

By all means, continue your piracy. There is no way to talk sense into someone that lies to themselves so much that they start to believe their own silliness.

There you go again, trying to back your statement saying I'm justifying my pirating..except I didn't say I was pirating. I'm not justifying anything. It's law. I didn't say pirating was a good thing. I didn't say it wasn't illegal. I just said by law, it's not stealing. Why must we have this conversation every time? We aren't wrong. You are.

 

[mindcycle]

There you go again, trying to back your statement saying I'm justifying my pirating..except I didn't say I was pirating. I'm not justifying anything. It's law. I didn't say pirating was a good thing. I didn't say it wasn't illegal. I just said by law, it's not stealing. Why must we have this conversation every time? We aren't wrong. You are.

Yeah man, exactly. It's people's bizarre fixation on what's essentially a incorrect comparison that hinders any real discussion on the actual issue. No wonder there are so many retarded DRM schemes, CEO's/developers blaming piracy for their own failings, etc. As is evident in the thread alone, there are a good chunk of people that can't even correctly define software piracy for what it actually is.. copyright infringement.

Lol, I wish I would have never looked at this now..

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Wikipedia's article is based on Supreme Court rulings. So those are just made up hu?

The central problem is that claims are being made about specific definitions, when the thread has by it's very general nature necessarily disposed of those in favor of an overarching view.

Why should we use that definition instead of the EU one? Or the Canadian definition? Or the Chinese one? Or the one in Sharia law?

Did you actually read through that link? Lol That statue is talking about theft of cable TV and phone services, it has nothing to do with software piracy or copyright infringement.

Yes, cable TV and phone services. Neither of which are physical goods. This disproves the oft-repeated notion that software piracy cannot be theft, as theft by definition requires taking physical goods. That particular claim has been made several times in this thread, and I've presented a counterexample.

 

[Childs]

Yes, cable TV and phone services. Neither of which are physical goods. This disproves the oft-repeated notion that software piracy cannot be theft, as theft by definition requires taking physical goods. That particular claim has been made several times in this thread, and I've presented a counterexample.

But they are services. You are accessing their network and receiving their service without paying. I think the closest thing would be somehow hacking a 360 Gold account, Hulu, Netflix, etc. Not really the same thing.

 

[mindcycle]

The central problem is that claims are being made about specific definitions, when the thread has by it's very general nature necessarily disposed of those in favor of an overarching view.

Yes, by specific individuals in this thread who's definitions are wrong and only help to hinder legitimate discussion because of that.

Why should we use that definition instead of the EU one? Or the Canadian definition? Or the Chinese one? Or the one in Sharia law?

Because there aren't huge differences. The US Supreme Court has simply defined piracy more concretely through various rulings which is why most people refer to piracy as copyright infringement. Only those unaware of these ruling still refer to it as stealing or theft.

Yes, cable TV and phone services. Neither of which are physical goods. This disproves the oft-repeated notion that software piracy cannot be theft, as theft by definition requires taking physical goods. That particular claim has been made several times in this thread, and I've presented a counterexample.

Whatever helps you sleep at night bro.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Call it stealing and they get up in arms. Call it piracy, which is by definition attacking boats at sea and robbing them, and everyone's OK with that.

The irony is razor sharp.



At any rate, the answer to the question the thread asks is that piracy severely affects the entire industry on every level. The reality that a vast number of the people who play any particular game won't pay for it gets into everything. How do I expect that would affect the industry? Just a matter of asking myself what I would do in that situation.

Titles with less main stream appeal don't get greenlighted at major studios because you need massive sales to recoup development costs, and only a portion of players will actually pay for it. Titles that do get greenlit will rely on anything they can to get more people to play - a heavy focus on difficult to pirate portions of the game. Additionally you'll see a focus on getting more money out of the people who actually will pay for a title. Experimental and niche will necessarily have smaller budgets and lower production values, and be mostly marginalized. Developers with genuine passion will try other models, like getting people to pay before the game is developed, so as to not end up in debt.

And I look around at the industry....and that's pretty much what I see. Kickstarter, very conservative selection of triple A titles, marginal genres largely limited to indie development and the poor production values that brings. Heavy focus on multiplayer, microtransactions in everything, always-online games.

Everything that I would reasonably expect widespread piracy to do to the industry....is right in my face.

 

[AFurryReptile]

Youtube and Steam killed piracy for me.

I don't have to spend three hours downloading a game, then patching it, then testing it to see if I'll like it. I can watch a three minute gameplay video on Youtube.

If I like it, I'll put it on my list of "games to buy." My backlog of Steam games will keep me busy in the meantime.

And if the game looks good, I'm more than happy to pay real money to support a good developer.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Youtube and Steam killed piracy for me.

I don't have to spend three hours downloading a game, then patching it, then testing it to see if I'll like it. I can watch a three minute gameplay video on Youtube.

If I like it, I'll put it on my list of "games to buy." My backlog of Steam games will keep me busy in the meantime.

And if the game looks good, I'm more than happy to pay real money to support a good developer.

Yep. Now I don't have to waste my time OR my money. So when they finally get their wish fulfilled and no one pirates, they'll be scratching their heads wondering why still no one is buying their garbage. Let's take Aliens, Diablo 3, and Dark Space 3 just for a few examples where the internet pretty much shut them down before they had a chance (more or less). Of course, history will say it was because pirates did it. Those review blackouts? Only going to harm them in the end. Sadly, there will always still be those morons who pre-order every fricken game.

 

[BoberFett]

If only people who were pirating ever wrote a line of commercial software code, they would feel pretty sick to their stomach every time they saw their hard work available for download for free. :\

Anyway, the effects are clear. You get Diablo III, you get SimCity, you get Assassin's Creed II on PC, and it's only going to get worse.

I was a developer once upon a time. I'm quite certain my software was installed on more computers than I knew about. It never made me sick to my stomach. Maybe some of you people need to get a grip.

 

[BoberFett]

Also, just to continue mocking some of you black and white thinkers...

The uninformed opinion that you have about piracy, whether it's stealing or not, is still illegal... That's comically simpleminded of you.

The kind of copyright infringement consumers take part in is typically not illegal. It's most frequently a civil matter, not criminal. Criminal copyright infringement is pressing counterfeit CDs by the thousands and trying to pass them off as the real thing.

Some of you wallow in ignorance like a pig in mud.

 

[BoberFett]

These arguments remind me of the marriage debates. Gays can't be married, but they can have "civil unions." Copyright infringement, stealing, theft, on and on, people are getting to wrapped up in the specifics of each without asking the bigger question: whats the end result of each? Person that copies, steals, what-have-you gets a product without paying the producer/creator/inventor of said product. Same outcome. Both sides need to not be so worried about the semantics and instead debate the process and outcome, because they are tightly coupled.

Annisman, I think you are targeting the wrong point. I seems you keep trying to say pirating is stealing, but why does that definition matter so much? Duplicating a protected product without paying for it is still wrong, so argue that directly. Then the pirates can't wiggle out of the "stealing" argument. However, I do not think one person on this forum can straight up say that pirating is not wrong. If you notice they just keep saying its not "stealing."

And another one misses the point. The point is that one pirated copy does not equal one lost sale. Unless we're too assume that every pirate has unlimited funds, then the ratio is not 1:1. And if it's not 1:1, what is it?

 

[blackened23]

edit:dp