Indie Developer Conducts Piracy Poll

[Walkin' Dude]

Oh I see, you pirate so you can give your money to poor people. So video games are more than the sum of their parts, they also help the poor communities.

Way to miss the point, or are you just being obtuse?

If you copy data to your hard drive, does it not exist as property on your hard drive? You've taken the right to use said property without permission.

The hard drive is physically altered, but nothing has been taken. In fact, you are essentially claiming that I do not have the right to alter my property in a certain manner because someone has already claimed that pattern. In other words, your claim of IP infringes on my right to use my property.

Your conclusions are illogical because you choose not to acknowledge the meaning of the word property in the right context.

There is no valid justification for ideas as property, regardless of what the dictionary says. IP only exists by violating real property rights.

 

[Kraszu]

Xi it is simple you either can say what bad happens when something is copied illegal, or not, and then you position is illogic, and please no stories about Micky Mouse to show your point. Saying that every copied product would be brought otherwise is claiming that product for 0$ would sell as good as the same product for 60$.

Did I ever say this? Stop using fallacy to support your illogical conclusions about things that I have not even said.

If none loses then nothing immoral had happen. So what is wrong if nobody loses becouse of specific illegal copying?

 

[Xi]

There is no valid justification for ideas as property, regardless of what the dictionary says. IP only exists by violating real property rights.

Wow, you're absolutely stupid. Let me point this out to you. Data is an absolute set of binary digits that when lined up in the proper order equal a functional program, or video game in this case. So, when you pretend that you can use the data because it is an "idea" you are wrong. You are copying the exact same sequence of binary code that the developers made. This is no different than copying a book. You sir, are a fucking moron!

 

[Walkin' Dude]

But I have a gun loaded with intellectual bullets and their brains are bleeding from all the intellectual damage that has been done!

You are firing blanks.

Wow, you're absolutely stupid. Let me point this out to you. Data is an absolute set of binary digits that when lined up in the proper order equal a functional program, or video game in this case. So, when you pretend that you can use the data because it is an "idea" you are wrong. You are copying the exact same sequence of binary code that the developers made. This is no different than copying a book. You sir, are a fucking moron!

You are right. There is no difference. I never said copying a book was immoral, though, did I?

If I sing Enter Sandman, am I stealing from Metallica? Am I stealing from you when I quote your posts?

Answer my earlier questions. Is it immoral to buy a secondhand game on eBay, since the developer does not get money? What about giving a copy to a friend after uninstalling it?

You are claiming that I cannot use a certain arrangement of binary digits just because someone else did it first, but you say I am stupid?

 

[Xi]

If none loses then nothing immoral had happen. So what is wrong if nobody loses becouse of specific illegal copying?

This is, again, perceived loss. You don't perceive any type of loss and therefore it must be ok. Yet, this is the entire reason laws exist. The real issue is enforcement. If these laws were easily enforced, we would not be having this conversation because there would be a perceived consequence and suddenly it would all make sense to someone as daft as yourself. You are violating the terms for using this specific property by not paying the set price.

Now if we look at it morally, piracy as a whole does affect the industries. When you pirate you become a fraction of the total problem, and just because you cannot perceive this problem does not mean it isn't immoral. It is. Thus my analogy of a physical theft not causing any harm if it you were to steal candy. The problem is that there's always more than one thief and this amounts to massive damages. It's no different than piracy, just as you say a single act causes no harm(and you're probably right), and this is why it is morally wrong. Pretty simple.

 

[Xi]

But I have a gun loaded with intellectual bullets and their brains are bleeding from all the intellectual damage that has been done!

You are firing blanks.

No, there are just too many holes in your head and they are passing right through!

Wow, you're absolutely stupid. Let me point this out to you. Data is an absolute set of binary digits that when lined up in the proper order equal a functional program, or video game in this case. So, when you pretend that you can use the data because it is an "idea" you are wrong. You are copying the exact same sequence of binary code that the developers made. This is no different than copying a book. You sir, are a fucking moron!

You are right. There is no difference. I never said copying a book was immoral, though, did I?

Shall we start talking about the concept of a double standard now, or is it beyond you? I'm going with the later.

If I sing Enter Sandman, am I stealing from Metallica? Am I stealing from you when I quote your posts?

Yes, this is why you get permission, and under reasonable terms generally permission is just a given. For instance, many bands do covers of Metallica and even earn money to do so. Yet, this isn't video games, and the context is completely different. I'm sorry it's so muddied inside your head. There is no single absolute answer that applies to everything. This is why you have a brain that is designed to think about these things individually. Try using it now, it can be pretty amazing! Hell, maybe you can write better songs than Metallica and not need to sing their shit in the first place?

Answer my earlier questions. Is it immoral to buy a secondhand game on eBay, since the developer does not get money?

Nothing wrong with this.

Edit: Someone selling the "property" they've already purchased on Ebay is ok because the developer already got money for that specific property. Maybe if One game was sold numerous times and went through numerous hands it could create a problem, but I see nothing legally or morally wrong with this. Yet, when they sell you the product they are selling you the legal right to use the specific binary code that amounts to a functional game. They, however, can no longer use this product because they sold of their right to do so.

What about giving a copy to a friend after uninstalling it?

This is technically piracy, but I see it as less of a problem than say mass distribution via bittorent. I would think developers would encourage this type of word of mouth exchanging of a product. Maybe we can agree on this?

You are claiming that I cannot use a certain arrangement of binary digits just because someone else did it first, but you say I am stupid?

Yes, all a video game is, in terms of property, is a specific set of binary digits that equate to a functional program that took millions of dollars and years to develop. You are paying for this specific code. You can create all the code you want on your own, but when you copy a specific code, it's no different than going down to barns and noble and asking them if you can photo copy an entire book. Books are also a specific set of code in a specific language much like binary.

 

[Walkin' Dude]

Oh and I'm tired of seeing this stupid bullshit about how no money is lost! If I go into a store and steal some candy, the loss is so trivial that it amounts to nothing anyway right? Oh wait, I see, if lots of people are doing it then it is a problem. Ahh, so the whole no money was lost thing doesn't work eh? No it doesn't and stop fucking using it. It's a worthless argument!

Suppose I own a candy store. I sell candy at a certain price. Now suppose someone opens a store nearby selling the same candy. I have to lower my price or lose sales to the competition. Either way, my revenue suffers, therefore the owner of the new candy store is stealing from me, since you have made it clear that lost potential revenue=stolen revenue. It should be illegal for anyone to open up a candy store near mine, because they would be stealing from me.

 

[Kraszu]

Now if we look at it morally, piracy as a whole does affect the industries.

Now we are backing to statistics against specific example that had already covered in some previous post.

This is, again, perceived loss. You don't perceive any type of loss and therefore it must be ok. Yet, this is the entire reason laws exist. The real issue is enforcement. If these laws were easily enforced, we would not be having this conversation because there would be a perceived consequence and suddenly it would all make sense to someone as daft as yourself. You are violating the terms for using this specific property by not paying the set price.

No it would not, it just would be enforcement. Just becouse something is against the law it does not mean that it immoral.

 

[Xi]

Suppose I own a candy store. I sell candy at a certain price. Now suppose someone opens a store nearby selling the same candy. I have to lower my price or lose sales to the competition. Either way, my revenue suffers, therefore the owner of the new candy store is stealing from me, since you have made it clear that lost potential revenue=stolen revenue. It should be illegal for anyone to open up a candy store near mine, because they would be stealing from me.

Now you're just being stupid. Maybe someone else wants to respond to this? I'll make it short and sweet. This is the difference between competition and theft.

This is, again, perceived loss. You don't perceive any type of loss and therefore it must be ok. Yet, this is the entire reason laws exist. The real issue is enforcement. If these laws were easily enforced, we would not be having this conversation because there would be a perceived consequence and suddenly it would all make sense to someone as daft as yourself. You are violating the terms for using this specific property by not paying the set price.

No it would not, it just would be enforcement. Just becouse something is against the law it does not mean that it immoral.

Please read the quote and ask yourself if it says anything about morality in it? This is why I used a second paragraph. I figured you might want me to separate my thoughts so I could help you understand. Next time I will just cluster-fuck it and piss all over my grammar too.

 

[Kraszu]

Please read the quote and ask yourself if it says anything about morality in it? This is why I used a second paragraph. I figured you might want me to separate my thoughts so I could help you understand. Next time I will just cluster-fuck it and piss all over my grammar too.

You had said that it would made sense to me then, if so in what way? You understand that to behave in x you don't have to agree whit x, right?

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

While I don't think I personally agree with Plato, justice is simply a tool to get to the unjust desires, it mirrors piracy in the exact same way.

Before we go on, I must ask: "justice is simply a tool to get to the unjust desires" -- is this Plato's point of view (the one you disagree with), or your own?

 

[Walkin' Dude]

Shall we start talking about the concept of a double standard now, or is it beyond you? I'm going with the later.

I understand a double standard. It would imply that I hold different views about books than I do about video games. I do not. I do not think it is immoral to copy books or video games. That is not a double standard. Is that concept beyond you?

Yes, this is why you get permission, and under reasonable terms generally permission is just a given.

So I have to get permission before using certain words in a certain order? Like I said before, IP only exists by violating other rights.

For instance, many bands do covers of Metallica and even earn money to do so. Yet, this isn't video games, and the context is completely different. I'm sorry it's so muddied inside your head. There is no single absolute answer that applies to everything.

So you just pick and choose how it should be applied. How logical.

This is why you have a brain that is designed to think about these things individually. Try using it now, it can be pretty amazing! Hell, maybe you can write better songs than Metallica and not need to sing their shit in the first place?

I do use it. That is why it is so easy to see the inconsistencies in your position.

Answer my earlier questions. Is it immoral to buy a secondhand game on eBay, since the developer does not get money?

Nothing wrong with this.

But the developer gets no money. Instead, someone else does. How is that not stealing?

What about giving a copy to a friend after uninstalling it?

This is technically piracy, but I see it as less of a problem than say mass distribution via bittorent. I would think developers would encourage this type of word of mouth exchanging of a product. Maybe we can agree on this?

So something is only immoral if a lot of people do it. I see.

Yes, all a video game is, in terms of property, is a specific set of binary digits that equate to a functional program that took millions of dollars and years to develop. You are paying for this specific code. You can create all the code you want on your own, but when you copy a specific code, it's no different than going down to barns and noble and asking them if you can photo copy an entire book. Books are also a specific set of code in a specific language much like binary.

Barnes and Nobles would be under no obligation to let me copy their book. However, if I purchase a book, I should be free to do just that.

Now you're just being stupid. Maybe someone else wants to respond to this? I'll make it short and sweet. This is the difference between competition and theft.

There is a difference between copying and theft, too. You say the problem is lost revenues. If so, then competition should be illegal. If not, then find another justification for "piracy is wrong" than "the developers do not get paid".

Please read the quote and ask yourself if it says anything about morality in it? This is why I used a second paragraph. I figured you might want me to separate my thoughts so I could help you understand. Next time I will just cluster-fuck it and piss all over my grammar too.

So you support immoral laws?

 

[Xi]

Please provide a better, more functional system oh great "Ubermensch!" I'm pretty sure Zarathustra would be ashamed at the weakness of his "overman" anyway.

If I am to understand you correctly, it seems like you would prefer anarchy, no? A system without any rules, morals, etc. Dog eat dog. Oh that's so much better, or at least it sounded good in high school eh?

Futile Rhetoric:

Yes, that's how I'm interpreting it, but it is open to interpretation and many answer could probably be drawn.

Edit: I was saying that I disagree with the "justice is simply a tool to get to the unjust desires" as it was, i believe, a point one of his characters was trying to get across in "The Republic."

 

[Xi]

So you just pick and choose how it should be applied. How logical.

Are we talking about music/covers or video games? And are we talking about legalities or morality? I'm confused now because you keep providing examples and analogies that are completely out of context.

 

[Grandpa Gamer]

Time is money, they say. But as you grow older, you realise that time is your most valuable asset. You can always make more money. Not so with time. If you spend hours upon hours playing a game, you might as well spend the money. It’s the right thing to do, and comparatively cheap too.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Buying games nowadays is just incredibly risky. There aren't any safe bets anymore, it's not like the old days where if I bought a D&D rpg with isometric combat I was essentially assured a fun time. I hated the NWN games.

If I buy a game theres probably an 85% or higher chance that I'll get bored with a game and quit playing after a few hours.

For this I'd have paid 50 bucks. And I don't get my money back if I stop playing 3 hours in.

Gaming has changed, and become worse. I've changed, and become more bitter and picky.

Because of this, I'd be pretty much retarded to actually buy games instead of pirating them, as there is an 85% or higher chance that I'd just waste my money.

(plus I like free stuff)

 

[Jeff Graw]

Well, I went to his site and bought Starship Tycoon for 10 bucks just because, and it was a simplistic, buggy, horribly flawed piece of shit. Maybe that's why people decide not to buy his games?

 

[St. Toxic]

You're all filthy pirates, as reading and writing are trade secrets of the ancient scribe profession, which amoral applications ( such as education, now used to distribute copies of knowledge to unworthy applicants ) have starved to death. Have you no shame, exchanging this forbidden knowledge among yourselves?

 

[sportforredneck]

You're all filthy pirates

Yes.

 

[RGE]

Steal:

1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force.

No physical thing need be taken for theft to have occurred, by definition. Again, it's just more excuses to continue chasing unjust desires without consequence. The very crux of law, crime, and interaction of the two.

Property:

9. a written work, play, movie, etc., bought or optioned for commercial production or distribution.

I wish I could steal the Fallout property from Bethesda. But I can't. According to you though, not only would I be able to do so, but there would (most likely) also be no consequences! :shock:

I equate software piracy with sneaking in to see a show for free, or even more appropriate; watching a show from a nearby tree or window. Not quite stealing, but it does remove potential business.

 

[Helton]

Or watching a pay-per-view in a bar.

 

[Xi]

I wish I could steal the Fallout property from Bethesda. But I can't. According to you though, not only would I be able to do so, but there would (most likely) also be no consequences! :shock:

Well, you could steal the binary code in the functional executable game format, as far as the game's development assests, well this would require more than a simple connection to your local bittorrent client. This is also why no one is doing it! Plus, stealing something like this would bring more scrutiny by the owning company and they would no doubt pursue criminal charges against you. The difference here is that on one side you take a mass distributed piece of property at extremely minimal risk. On the other side you are hacking into Bethesda headquarters in an attempt to locate, download, and then play with the original code, art assets, etc. Both are theft, but one is simply more traceable/enforceable.

I equate software piracy with sneaking in to see a show for free, or even more appropriate; watching a show from a nearby tree or window. Not quite stealing, but it does remove potential business.

Yeah, the impact is so negligible in terms of individual abuse, but you are still a slice in the entire pie of software piracy and the effects do compound as more people do it. Maybe we don't know the exact statistics for losses/gains(and there may even be gains), but we know that something is happening and I'm leaning toward the "bad" side myself. How bad is still in question, and it may be no worse than watching a show from a near by tree.

 

[RGE]

Well, you could steal the binary code in the functional executable game format, as far as the game's development assests, well this would require more than a simple connection to your local bittorrent client.

That is not the "property" though, that's just what they've done with it. The property is all the games and the setting and the name and so on. It's not so much the data itself as the recognised legal rights that come with owning it. The only way to 'steal' that would be to somehow remove those rights from Bethesda Softworks and give them to me (or whoever).

 

[St. Toxic]

I equate software piracy with sneaking in to see a show for free, or even more appropriate; watching a show from a nearby tree or window. Not quite stealing, but it does remove potential business.

So does holding your own show for free, or telling people that the show isn't worth money. Removing 'potential business' from a show is equal to removing 'magic' from a magic act; the only one who'll know the 'magic' has been removed, is the magician himself, or at least that's what he'll say has happened, when in reality we all know there is no such thing as magic.

There is no sneaking, or peeking in from trees / windows needed to make a proper reflection on piracy. The more appropriate analogy would be that a 100 people went and saw the show, and after the show they went on to the streets to mingle with a 100 people each about the show they saw, but their description of the show was so vivid and lifelike that there was no real need for these other people to go and see the show for themselves. Even so a percentage went and saw it anyway, and this percentage will always be X, in no way reflecting either positive or negative influence.

Well, you could steal the binary code in the functional executable game format, as far as the game's development assests, well this would require more than a simple connection to your local bittorrent client. This is also why no one is doing it!

Correction: Why no one has done it so far. Obviously plenty of games have 'leaked out' and surfaced on the internet, available to the public, before their release or completion.

The difference here is that on one side you take a mass distributed piece of property at extremely minimal risk. On the other side you are hacking into Bethesda headquarters in an attempt to locate, download, and then play with the original code, art assets, etc. Both are theft, but one is simply more traceable/enforceable.

The actual difference is the break-in, not the data stolen. Breaking into private database servers is much what it sounds like and common law is applicable to such endevours. Numerous pieces of computer identification leave a trace of themselves in communication packets with target servers, allowing authorities to trace them back to the hacker with relative ease, if he has been sloppy.

Having an illegal copy of game source code is, however, no more inflammatory than having an illegal copy of a compiled game; actions taken against such perpatrators occur nearly always as a result of idiotic direct distribution methods or equally idiotic moneymaking schemes.

Yeah, the impact is so negligible in terms of individual abuse, but you are still a slice in the entire pie of software piracy and the effects do compound as more people do it.

Naturally, but the assumption that it is a resoundingly negative impact is alarmist and illogical. Piracy is, historically, one of many near identical movements heading the cause for a global liberation of information distribution, and while obviously the largest bulk of it's contributers does not realize that this is the case, they contribute to the cause nontheless and as these numbers grow constantly at a very high rate, the idea of putting a lid on piracy once and for all is as futile as it is stupid.

The obvious solution (which will only become obvious to the people in charge through a long period of these futile attempts of supression) is for companies to, not only co-exist alongside of piracy and accept that there in fact is such a thing, but also attempt to work together with pirates in re-forming the market. There is, for instance, a major distribution cost one could factor out with releases over a bit-torrent system, which in theory could allow smaller companies to prosper without needing to rely on distribution giants.

Just as an addition; if you were interested in acquiring, say, a bible or a leaflet of news in the 1500's, being a man of some education and submoderate wealth, you might find what you are looking for in the hands of a street reseller. The small sum you would pay, would put a minor profit in the resellers purse, while the residue went to fight a war against the government over the rights of all free men to purchase a copy of a literary work; essentially a piece of information. Police, or standing armies, in the event that they discovered any such reprint in your possession would likely as not have you shot you down on site.

I'm talking, of course, about the printing press, being the symbol of piracy for that era, just as bittorent is today, and the resoundingly positive results it has had on humanity as a whole; a high number of scribes were out of a job, and human population became harder for the government to control, but just think of books as a means to entertain ourselves, made more easily available, and news travelling far and wide, reaching a much broader percentage of the population, all thanks to newspapers. If you really fear for the games and developers of the current generation (of which a mere fraction deserves any real praise) just imagine the leap we are likely to make, when we've moved past this bickering and into a more united future.

That is not the "property" though, that's just what they've done with it. The property is all the games and the setting and the name and so on. It's not so much the data itself as the recognised legal rights that come with owning it. The only way to 'steal' that would be to somehow remove those rights from Bethesda Softworks and give them to me (or whoever).

To "remove" intellectual property, at least as it is right now, you would either have to purchase the property or prove that Bethesda (and I would assume, in this particular case, Interplay as well) had no right to the Fallout 3 property, or that they have somehow broken these rights and that all rights should therefore be removed. (What these actual rights are is probably made public somewhere, but I would not know where to start looking, or, for that matter, why.)

To act within your legal rights on the property basicly means that:
1) You cannot distribute selfmade/stolen property which adheres to the Fallout 3 trademark/universe/artset etc, and this goes double if you are accepting money for the distribution of this property.

2) Free distribution of self-made property which is similar, or even a total rip-off of Fallout 3, is unlawful based on random variables, such as, for instance, the judge assigned to your case should it happen that Beth takes you to court. As you make absolutely no money in ripping off a franchize, there's seldom any hostility from 'sane' development companies. Mods, revamps and tc's are usually o.k'd for instance, simply because they may attract more customers.

Fyi.

 

[Helton]

No I think his analogy was better. Your's is shit. Utter shit.