Valve calls pirates 'underserved customers'

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wasn't trying to claim that a compromise would change the ethics. All I was saying is that the likely future is putting ethics on the back burner and putting alternatives that produce results up front.....

I don't know, what you've written here seems very different than what you stated earlier:

If the reality of the situation were both ethically and fundamentally as easy as you are claiming then the problems surrounding it wouldn't last this long or be as conflicting.

I think the ethics of piracy are pretty cut and dry, other factors like price do not change the morality of the issue, that piracy and stealing is fundamentally wrong.

Again, I don't see how price competing is a viable alternative to free. Sure lowering price may help some but free is always going to be a more attractive option to those who have no moral conflicts with stealing.

As an example, publishers do already offer significant discounts in price for high-piracy regions. One recent example was Steam I believe shutting down CD-keys from various regions because of illegal resales of SE Asia keys for dirt-cheap in the US. Keys for popular games at the time were being sold here for $20 or less and still making profit because they only cost something like $10 retail in those areas.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Ah, I see you're back to the old justification for piracy argument. Well since you failed to comprehend what I was saying the other five times when I specifically mentioned I wasn't arguing that point, i'll just let your ridiculous statement speak for itself .

No I just find it funny people like you continue attempting to make the distinction, when there is none, neither legally nor morally.

It looks like you might be right on this one. The crime I'm finding on google is called "conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement"

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wasn't trying to claim that a compromise would change the ethics. All I was saying is that the likely future is putting ethics on the back burner and putting alternatives that produce results up front.....

I don't know, what you've written here seems very different than what you stated earlier:

If the reality of the situation were both ethically and fundamentally as easy as you are claiming then the problems surrounding it wouldn't last this long or be as conflicting.

I think the ethics of piracy are pretty cut and dry, other factors like price do not change the morality of the issue, that piracy and stealing is fundamentally wrong.

Again, I don't see how price competing is a viable alternative to free. Sure lowering price may help some but free is always going to be a more attractive option to those who have no moral conflicts with stealing.

As an example, publishers do already offer significant discounts in price for high-piracy regions. One recent example was Steam I believe shutting down CD-keys from various regions because of illegal resales of SE Asia keys for dirt-cheap in the US. Keys for popular games at the time were being sold here for $20 or less and still making profit because they only cost something like $10 retail in those areas.

I thought you worked for EA or something... >_>

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555


I thought you worked for EA or something... >_>

yes, he's an EA shill that doesn't think games have nearly enough DRMs installe don them. not sure why people still bother wasting any time replying to him.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Ok, so point out where in the NET Act it specifically says that copyright infringement is the same exact thing as stealing physical goods.

Until you can point that out, or point to another ruling that specifically states that, then it can still be argued in court that there is a difference between the two.

I've already clearly pointed it out, as its clearly defined in the title of both the No Electronic Theft Act and Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act, backed by specific testimony from law makers deliberating over this legislation.

You can argue its not the same until you're blue in the face but the fact is both of these Acts and amendments will supercede Downling vs. US in a court of law. The specific cases cited by Goldberg also show this to be true, as all cases were succesfully tried by the DOJ, leading to guilty pleas or convictions. No loopholes like Dowling or LaMacchia where the defendants were acquitted due to semantics about physical theft, as the laws referenced above clearly redefine copyright infringement as a superset of theft.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555


I thought you worked for EA or something... >_>

yes, he's an EA shill that doesn't think games have nearly enough DRMs installe don them. not sure why people still bother wasting any time replying to him.

Rofl yep, and a Microsoft shill, and Nvidia shill, and Logitech shill, and Antec shill and um....oh yeah Creative shill too.

Or maybe I'm someone who is genuinely interested in protecting the interests of products I enjoy, to the point I'm not going to let various idiots post ignorantly about actions directly detrimental to their welfare without challenging what's being said.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: chizow

Or maybe I'm someone who is genuinely interested in protecting the interests of products I enjoy

except you also posted that you aren't a gamer, so fell free to exit to another forum.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: chizow

Or maybe I'm someone who is genuinely interested in protecting the interests of products I enjoy

except you also posted that you aren't a gamer, so fell free to exit to another forum.

Which was a sarcastic reply to the same idiot that claimed I was an EA employee. Speaking of which, why are you posting in this thread? You forfeited your right to post in piracy topics when you erroneously claimed Steam wasn't DRM.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555


I thought you worked for EA or something... >_>

yes, he's an EA shill that doesn't think games have nearly enough DRMs installe don them. not sure why people still bother wasting any time replying to him.

Agreed. There is really no point in arguing with him. Stupid me for falling into his trolling again.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: chizow
You forfeited your right to post in piracy topics when you erroneously claimed Steam wasn't DRM.

lol, thanks i needed that laugh.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wasn't trying to claim that a compromise would change the ethics. All I was saying is that the likely future is putting ethics on the back burner and putting alternatives that produce results up front.....

I don't know, what you've written here seems very different than what you stated earlier:

If the reality of the situation were both ethically and fundamentally as easy as you are claiming then the problems surrounding it wouldn't last this long or be as conflicting.

I think the ethics of piracy are pretty cut and dry, other factors like price do not change the morality of the issue, that piracy and stealing is fundamentally wrong.

Again, I don't see how price competing is a viable alternative to free. Sure lowering price may help some but free is always going to be a more attractive option to those who have no moral conflicts with stealing.

As an example, publishers do already offer significant discounts in price for high-piracy regions. One recent example was Steam I believe shutting down CD-keys from various regions because of illegal resales of SE Asia keys for dirt-cheap in the US. Keys for popular games at the time were being sold here for $20 or less and still making profit because they only cost something like $10 retail in those areas.

You are misinterpreting me or something. Not sure.

Both of those statements go along perfectly fine with each other. The situation is not easy to come to a consensus both ethically and fundamentally so my theory is that eventually businessmen are going to stop caring about the ethics (assuming they care at all right now) and strictly look at what they can do to try and profit more given the situation. There are various ways to do that, but the chances of them being able to have their cake and eat it too is unlikely.

I also clearly explained the price competing thing. The details are in my previous post but quite simply, you offer more incentive that doesn't come with the pirated copy and you lower the price for the students since they have tiny budgets and are the #1 pirates. If you don't lower the price and only offer the amount of incentive that it takes to convince these students to buy the game instead then you greatly increase the chances of them just pirating anyway and not purchasing the game. They do not make that choice because pirating is free. They want to buy the game for those incentives. Instead, they make their choice because they cannot afford to buy the game and the game without the incentives is better than no game at all. Likewise, if you only lower the price and do not add enough to the incentive then they will just continue to pirate because you cannot compete with a free alternative through price alone.

As a businessman, I would rather take a cut in profits while providing incentive for students to stay in school rather than getting no profit at all by going down the route of extremely strict security measures. The businessman will say to themselves, "Fuck the ethics. Just give me some of that sweet sweet money! That's the only reason why I cared about the ethics in the first place." That is the mind of your average businessman.

 

[NaOH]

I agree with the people arguing against chizow, and I buy my games.

It's like saying plagiarism is stealing....

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

I thought you worked for EA or something... >_>

Yeah i thought the same thing a while ago. EA edited wikipedia in their favour i wouldnt put it past them to stick a guy on a few forums with 150,000+ members to try and improve their image... Nvidia did it.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

I thought you worked for EA or something... >_>

Yeah i thought the same thing a while ago. EA edited wikipedia in their favour i wouldnt put it past them to stick a guy on a few forums with 150,000+ members to try and improve their image... Nvidia did it.

who was the person they put in forums from nvidia

 

[Red Storm]

Whatever you want to call piracy, "stealing" or "copyright infringement," it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that it's illegal, and that's the only distinction that really matters here (legal & illegal).

PC gaming has lost many developers to consoles, and rampant piracy is one of the major causes for that. Sure their games weren't perfect (or even good, in many cases), but with their departure there is less competition in the PC market, which leads to even less innovation and commitment to PC game development (The 10 years between Starcraft & Starcraft 2 is a great example of this).

Whether or not piracy is costing developers money (it is, just not quite the "100%" sales lost number that they like to tell us), facts are facts. And the fact is that piracy is one of the contributors to both increased DRM - which all of us here know is not the best solution, but most publishers who are dealing with millions of dollars at stake are anxious to consider an alternative - and a decline in the PC gaming market. Argue all you want over whether piracy is stealing or copyright infringement, but don't try and argue that it's not hurting the PC market.

Originally posted by: NaOH
who was the person they put in forums from nvidia

Keysplayer (a forum mod, and a recent nVidia Focus Group member) and nRollo (a Focus Group member back in the Secret Days). Both of them were posters here first, then they were hired by nVidia to act as their "viral marketing" team, only back then they didn't tell anyone they were being paid to post pro-nvidia. Nowadays they announce who they work for, but that doesn't make it any better IMHO.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Red Storm
Whatever you want to call piracy, "stealing" or "copyright infringement," it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that it's illegal, and that's the only distinction that really matters here (legal & illegal).

PC gaming has lost many developers to consoles, and rampant piracy is one of the major causes for that. Sure their games weren't perfect (or even good, in many cases), but with their departure there is less competition in the PC market, which leads to even less innovation and commitment to PC game development (The 10 years between Starcraft & Starcraft 2 is a great example of this).

Whether or not piracy is costing developers money (it is, just not quite the "100%" sales lost number that they like to tell us), facts are facts. And the fact is that piracy is one of the contributors to both increased DRM - which all of us here know is not the best solution, but most publishers who are dealing with millions of dollars at stake are anxious to consider an alternative - and a decline in the PC gaming market. Argue all you want over whether piracy is stealing or copyright infringement, but don't try and argue that it's not hurting the PC market.

Ya, I tend to agree with that at least to an extent. However, I am unconcerned with both the ethical side of this issue and nor am I concerned with the legal side. I am mostly interested in brainstorming and exploring ways that allow the devs and pubs to make more money despite piracy's existence in its current form without doing much if anything that pisses off the gaming community of consumers.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Red Storm
PC gaming has lost many developers to consoles, and rampant piracy is one of the major causes for that.

Developers make console games because they are profitable since the number of console gamers far exceeds the number of PC gamers. Despite crazy piracy, companies like Blizzard do not develop for consoles because their games would not be profitable on consoles.

As long as PC games make money, people will make PC games. It has nothing to do with them taking piracy as a person insult.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Agreed. There is really no point in arguing with him. Stupid me for falling into his trolling again.

Rofl trolling? I'm not the one trying to make a distinction between "stealing" and "copyright infringement" despite the fact they are both criminal offenses, while ignoring countless valid references to laws and legislation showing there is no distinction. Piracy is stealing in accordance with US law, a reality your trolling will not change.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: chizow
You forfeited your right to post in piracy topics when you erroneously claimed Steam wasn't DRM.

lol, thanks i needed that laugh.

Ah right, just wishful thinking I guess last time you ignorantly spoke on the topic. And I guess it was B.net, not Steam.

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: lupi
don't know why you all are still arguing with that tool. he's nothing more than a shill for the worst example for a softwaare publisher out there, although I have to admit not including the full cdkey in peoples package is an extremely effective drm.

And both SC2 and D3 will employ effective DRM whether they suck or not.

I wouldn't bet much on that statement if I were you.

I'll bet our rights to post on the topic of piracy on AT, how about that?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
You are misinterpreting me or something. Not sure.

Both of those statements go along perfectly fine with each other.

No they don't. You're confusing the ethics of piracy with economics, which are not the same. The ethics are very clear, the obvious conclusion is that people who are willing to steal do not have any ethics, which is why they have no moral issue with stealing to begin with.

There's certainly precedence for lowering costs for students, Microsoft has done it for years with student discounts for their OS and productivity suites, however, this has absolutely nothing to do with the morality or ethics of piracy, whatsoever.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: NaOH
I agree with the people arguing against chizow, and I buy my games.

It's like saying plagiarism is stealing....

Hey thanks for your opinion. Unfortunately there are no laws that support your simplistic claims, as plagiarism is a civil offense, not a criminal offense like stealing/piracy/copyright infringement.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Xavier434
You are misinterpreting me or something. Not sure.

Both of those statements go along perfectly fine with each other.

No they don't. You're confusing the ethics of piracy with economics, which are not the same. The ethics are very clear, the obvious conclusion is that people who are willing to steal do not have any ethics, which is why they have no moral issue with stealing to begin with.

There's certainly precedence for lowering costs for students, Microsoft has done it for years with student discounts for their OS and productivity suites, however, this has absolutely nothing to do with the morality or ethics of piracy, whatsoever.

How could I be confusing the two if I am only talking about the economics while continuously trying to repeat to you that I have no interest in the ethics regardless of how they are defined....which is subjective. You have an opinion and so do others. Laws do not define what is right and what is wrong. They define what you can and what you can't do without risking punishment. It just so happens that many laws fall into the category of what the majority of people in this country believe is right and wrong which is good. Therefore, you cannot use the law to universally define what is and what is not ethical. It is always purely subjective and subject to debate.

Anyways, I am not going to dive into an ethical battle about piracy with you. I don't care about it. I care about discussing economical solutions that are both acceptable according to business and the gaming community. Not just one or the other.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
How could I be confusing the two if I am only talking about the economics while continuously trying to repeat to you that I have no interest in the ethics regardless of how they are defined....which is subjective.

What? You said:

• If the reality of the situation were both ethically and fundamentally as easy as you are claiming then the problems surrounding it wouldn't last this long or be as conflicting.

There is no mention of economics at all. The economics of piracy do not have anything to do with the ethics of piracy, whatsoever.

You have an opinion and so do others. Laws do not define what is right and what is wrong. They define what you can and what you can't do without risking punishment. It just so happens that many laws fall into the category of what the majority of people in this country believe is right and wrong which is good. Therefore, you cannot use the law to universally define what is and what is not ethical. It is always purely subjective and subject to debate.

And in this case, there is no need for a law to define what is right and wrong as the majority of citizens in civilized societies find stealing to be morally reprehensible behavior. Laws only exist to enforce these commonly held views. If you don't subscribe to these views and common law that doesn't mean they're subjective, it just means you have a lower moral standard than the majority of the population.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Xavier434
How could I be confusing the two if I am only talking about the economics while continuously trying to repeat to you that I have no interest in the ethics regardless of how they are defined....which is subjective.

What? You said:

• If the reality of the situation were both ethically and fundamentally as easy as you are claiming then the problems surrounding it wouldn't last this long or be as conflicting.

There is no mention of economics at all. The economics of piracy do not have anything to do with the ethics of piracy, whatsoever.

Well of course it looks like that when you start cherry picking my posts. Let's take a look at the rest of the picture with these snippits from my various posts throughout this thread:


From my original post:

Originally posted by: Xavier434
We can all argue till the end of time about the ethics behind piracy, but let's face the facts. The only thing that is really going to benefit both devs and publishers when it comes to piracy is a solution that involves a clever way of profiting off of it.

Another which makes it pretty clear about my lack of interest in the ethical side:

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I spoke about the ethical side earlier in this thread regarding how useless it is to argue about it and I truly believe that what I said in some form is the future.

This one was followed by a large example chalked full of nothing but the economic side:

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wasn't trying to claim that a compromise would change the ethics. All I was saying is that the likely future is putting ethics on the back burner and putting alternatives that produce results up front.

I can keep going all day:

Originally posted by: Xavier434
As a businessman, I would rather take a cut in profits while providing incentive for students to stay in school rather than getting no profit at all by going down the route of extremely strict security measures. The businessman will say to themselves, "Fuck the ethics. Just give me some of that sweet sweet money! That's the only reason why I cared about the ethics in the first place." That is the mind of your average businessman.

...and for my grand finale of 100% clarity!

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Ya, I tend to agree with that at least to an extent. However, I am unconcerned with both the ethical side of this issue and nor am I concerned with the legal side. I am mostly interested in brainstorming and exploring ways that allow the devs and pubs to make more money despite piracy's existence in its current form without doing much if anything that pisses off the gaming community of consumers.

Come on man....how much more do you need?

Originally posted by: chizow
And in this case, there is no need for a law to define what is right and wrong as the majority of citizens in civilized societies find stealing to be morally reprehensible behavior. Laws only exist to enforce these commonly held views. If you don't subscribe to these views and common law that doesn't mean they're subjective, it just means you have a lower moral standard than the majority of the population.

Both the people and laws show that they do not universally agree that piracy and stealing are the same thing. You have different people sharing different views and you have different laws for each of them too. Now, comparing and contrasting the two...well, isn't that what most of the ethical debate revolves around?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Well of course it looks like that when you start cherry picking my posts. Let's take a look at the rest of the picture with these snippits from my various posts throughout this thread:

How am I cherry picking your posts when I am specifically citing the first time you injected your viewpoint that the ethics and fundamentals of piracy were somehow unclear or ambiguous? Correcting yourself later and claiming your real point was actually about the economics of piracy does not make your original statement about the ethics of piracy correct, because it simply is not true. Most citizens of civilized societies find stealing to be morally reprehensible behavior, and as such, most of these countries have laws against piracy, plain and simple.

Another which makes it pretty clear about my lack of interest in the ethical side:

...bunch of other stuff claiming you were really referring to "economics" and not "ethics"....

Come on man....how much more do you need?

Then don't make ignorant comments about topics you're not interested in? A good start would be acknowledging the following statement has absolutely nothing to do with the economics of piracy:

• If the reality of the situation were both ethically and fundamentally as easy as you are claiming then the problems surrounding it wouldn't last this long or be as conflicting.

So again, how do the economics of piracy back your claim above?

Both the people and laws show that they do not universally agree that piracy and stealing are the same thing. You have different people sharing different views and you have different laws for each of them too. Now, comparing and contrasting the two...well, isn't that what most of the ethical debate revolves around?

No, the majority of "the people" in the US do agree that piracy and stealing are the same thing, which is how legislation clearly defining piracy as such became law in the first place.