Piracy Discussion - Discuss!

[nomask7]

everyone with a pet peeve against IP laws wouldn't have the same opinion if it were their property at stake.

I would, and many do.

The point of copyright laws used to be to adequately reward work. That was before malevolent corporations took control of these things, and they became a way to get rich and stay rich.

Once work has been adequately rewarded, the thing that becomes of primary concern is what is beneficial to humans as a whole. Obviously, keeping valuable products unavailable and therefore impossible to enjoy is contrary to sanity and greater justice.

There's also the consideration that making artists unduly rich, or allowing them to become unduly rich, will make them lazier and perhaps completely unproductive as members of society, because then they already have all the riches they'll ever need.

Unduly long copyrights also tend to decrease the quality of products in the sense that there is only a single corporation responsible for producing a certain game or book so that there is no competition -- no patches are being made for example, or no hardcover books, because the monopoly holder is happy with the current state of affairs and people have to buy what is available if they want the game, book or whatever at all.

These are all arguments that were mentioned by intelligent people in political hearings and such when selfish and destructive extensions to copyright laws were for the first time being pushed in the distant past. Their arguments were good enough for the politicians back then, but corruption has since won. And all of their dystopian predictions have become true.

 

[Metro]

 

[Telengard]

Laws change over time. Legally speaking, the definition of piracy will be whatever the suits can convince the public it is. If they can convince the public that it is loaning your game to your friend (as they almost have done), then that will be piracy. If they can convince the public that piracy is anything more than a one-time install on one computer, than doing anything else will be piracy. The only trick is getting the public to swallow. The bigger the dicking, the harder it is to go down.

Speaking generally though, kids pirate, just as they have always done from way back when. From sneaking into movie theatres to ducking under a tent flap at a circus. It's what kids do, and it's not going to change, because people don't change. But usually, this is behavior that people grow out of by the time they reach their 20s or 30s.* It doesn't matter how many folk the suits get to repeat their mantras, people are people.

*Unless they're poor, of course. Then back of the boot sales and blanket merchants are considered something like a god-given right.

 

[FeelTheRads]

[

Horrible analogies.

But why are they horrible? Even if obviously games can't be as useful as penicillin, why can't the inventor of penicillin "do whatever the fuck they want with their property"? If it's property, it's property, right?

 

[Wise Emperor]

I don't have time to try every new game, but because with declining quality of games, I'm even more reluctant to buy new stuff. Another reason is why publishers think the only feasible way of advertising their games, is paying for nice reviews and bombard me with AWESOME trailers and commercials. Where are demos or shareware, for fuck sake? Pirating modern games is good way for me to save my hard earned cash from throwing it at total shit. Only games which I bought recently are Sleeping Dogs, Shadowrun, Hotline Miami, CK2 and EU4. All of them "demoed" before buying. Other that I tried, I deleted after 2 hours of playing.

Not counting couple of Kickstarters.

 

[Metro]

[

Horrible analogies.

But why are they horrible? Even if obviously games can't be as useful as penicillin, why can't the inventor of penicillin "do whatever the fuck they want with their property"? If it's property, it's property, right?

Right! And actually I believe the guy who discovered Penicillin didn't patent it because he wasn't aware of its antibacterial properties in humans. Funny enough it's development and widespread application was due to the military forcing scientists to cooperate because of its value in World War 2.

 

[Outlander]

Let's not forget the DRM angle, which is becoming worse over time. Nowadays you have to wait to connect to a server to play single player or use a shitty software. A few years ago it was a matter of getting a nocd patch to avoid inserting the CD each time you wanted to play or to avoid some truly horrid copy protection software such as Starforce, which ironically serves only to make things harder and frustrating for the people who bought the game.

Ideally one should 'demo' the game, then pay for it if it's any good, and then continue to use the 'demo version' to avoid stupid DRM. Unless you're interested in multiplayer and acheesements, that is.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Right!

Ah, so they weren't horrible analogies after all? Why didn't you just say that you want to pay royalties for penicillin in the first place, then?

 

[Damned Registrations]

Metro believe someone who discovers the cure for cancer should have the right to sell it to a pharma company that will never use it, destroy the research, and let everyone continue to suffer and die because prolonged treatment is more profitable.

Would rather be a communist than Cruella De Vil, personally.

 

[baturinsky]

I think IP has outlived it's usefulness.

IP was necessary incentive when creating and distributing of information was expensive, and market for it was small. It is no longer so. We can drop IP completely and still have generated more than enough information for any practical needs.

 

[Gord]

Piracy isn't really a "moral" problem though, it's a service problem as many have identified - whether that's a poor quality game, restrictive terms of use/DRM, lack of convenience in being able to purchase it, the game leaks early and people want to try it out, etc. The people who are pirating most games likely would not buy it otherwise, because the people who are buying your game want to buy your game, and those who do resort to piracy are usually either not potential customers, or they're people who have resorted to piracy for what they see as deficiencies in the publisher service.

Some good points. I think a large percentage, if not most people who resort to piracy are doing it because they don't want or can not spend the money on it, though, while the DRM/bad publisher practices argument is often not much more but an excuse raised to justify it.
E.g. World of Goo was pirated A LOT despite being indie, DRM free, having a demo, being a good game and relatively cheap. Yet many people decided that not spending money on it is still better than spending the relatively small amount to buy it.
Personally I prefer to ignore games that come with DRM/service issues, either completely or until said problems are resolved.

The question is, how many people will stop pirating when it stops being convenient?

There are also plenty of logical arguments for why the current copyright model doesn't work for games:

I agree that we need a better model that takes changed technological/social realities into account.
I'm not so sure though if complete removal of all copyright/IP would be the right thing, though. We still need a model that makes sure that the people behind a "product" get compensated by it. Relying on your customers good will might work for small non-profit/hobby projects/undertakings, but I'm not so sure about larger ones.

 

[Cromwell]

Metro believe someone who discovers the cure for cancer should have the right to sell it to a pharma company that will never use it, destroy the research, and let everyone continue to suffer and die because prolonged treatment is more profitable.

Would rather be a communist than Cruella De Vil, personally.

Yes because the newest Bioware RPg is of the same benefit to the public as the cure for cancer. So of course if he speaks of Ips he has to mean all of them and so that makes him a murderer. Because he enables cancer deaths!

 

[IDtenT]

I pirate because digital entertainment is not a product, but a service. That is I pirate when the scene provides me with more value than legit avenues.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Because he enables cancer deaths!

Check his reply to me. A property is a property. So, the guy who invented penicillin could just go "hey, fuck you, starting tomorrow nobody is gonna use penicillin anymore". And that would be perfectly fine according to Metro's world. Because hey, lol at communism, we all know some guy getting rich because he invented something is more important than the whole of humanity.

 

[Cromwell]

Because he enables cancer deaths!

Check his reply to me. A property is a property. So, the guy who invented penicillin could just go "hey, fuck you, starting tomorrow nobody is gonna use penicillin anymore". And that would be perfectly fine according to Metro's world. Because hey, lol at communism, we all know some guy getting rich because he invented something is more important than the whole of humanity.

The Guy who invented the kalaschnikov? got nothing for his neverending service to humanity. I still believe one should not compare Ips of Games to copyrights on something like medicine.

 

[Gord]

Right!

Ah, so they weren't horrible analogies after all? Why didn't you just say that you want to pay royalties for penicillin in the first place, then?

Uh, you don't really understand how patents work, do you?
The idea behind them is exactly that it gives inventors a reason to publish their findings so that all can profit from them.
You make a patent, you get an exclusive right to use it as you see fit for a limited amount of time, yet you need to make the information publicly available. After the time has passed, everyone can use the documents to make their own version.
Exact laws may vary from country to country, but usually such periods are, max. 20 years I think?
Also e.g. in german law there's the possibility to force a patent holder to give out licences for their invention if it is in the public interest.

 

[Damned Registrations]

20 years, ROFL. 'Happy Birthday to You' is still under copyright. In the UK it's 70 years after death of the original owner. In the US... may as well be forever, they just lobby to extend it another decade every 10 years. And retards like Metro support it.

 

[IDtenT]

We still need a model that makes sure that the people behind a "product" get compensated by it. Relying on your customers good will might work for small non-profit/hobby projects/undertakings, but I'm not so sure about larger ones.

Kickstarter-esque commissioning schemes. That is, if you're not willing to provide an ongoing service post-release.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Uh, you don't really understand how patents work, do you?

Yes, I do. Metro doesn't agree, though. Patent holders should keep the rights forever and not let anyone use them if they don't want to.

I still believe one should not compare Ips of Games to copyrights on something like medicine.

Agreed. And yet, when they were compared, you get Metro who says "a property is a property". I'm really arguing with him not that games = medicines.
But, I don't see Damned Registration's analogies as umm.. a direct comparison. It's just a simple question... why shouldn't everybody, no matter how useful their invention is, be able to hold the rights indefinitely? Just because some assholes decide that's in "public interest"? Well, at some point some assholes might decide that ALL entertainment is in "public interest".
Why would you even work for something that you are eventually forced to let go? Everybody should stick to the entertainment industry, imo.

 

[sea]

I pirate because digital entertainment is not a product, but a service. That is I pirate when the scene provides me with more value than legit avenues.

The scene always wins because it's always free, and obtaining the service is not difficult. Therefore it's kind of a fallacious argument, it's like saying "well of course I can just rob a convenience store, it's easier than getting a job and paying with my hard-earned money!"

 

[IDtenT]

some assholes might decide that ALL entertainment is in "public interest".

It probably is. That is because it is free information and information should always be free.

 

[sea]

It probably is. That is because it is free information and information should always be free.

Why?

Also, "public interest" entertainment = everything is free = no incentive to produce entertainment products, no innovation in technology, economics, or anything else. People can't be expected to spend thousands upon thousands of working hours simply out of the goodness of their own hearts.

 

[Gord]

20 years, ROFL. 'Happy Birthday to You' is still under copyright. In the UK it's 70 years after death of the original owner. In the US... may as well be forever, they just lobby to extend it another decade every 10 years. And retards like Metro support it.

Yes, I do. Metro doesn't agree, though. Patent holders should keep the rights forever and not let anyone use them if they don't want to.

You are confusing patents and copyright. There are very important differences between the two.
You can't patent "Happy Birthday", neither can you copyright the formula of penicillin.

 

[IDtenT]

The scene always wins because it's always free, and obtaining the service is not difficult. Therefore it's kind of a fallacious argument, it's like saying "well of course I can just rob a convenience store, it's easier than getting a job and paying with my hard-earned money!"

No. The scene does not always offer the more valuable service. Slower downloads. Longer times to find the downloads. Unpatched errors. Patches that don't work. Copy protection omissions. Pirate MMO world servers. I can go on and on.

It is not like robbing a convenience store. A convenience store does offer a service and they do charge me for it - but they also give me a unique material product when I buy something at it. Something that online stores like Steam cannot provide me. Steam can only provide me with a service and that service needs to be better than what I get from the pirate bay.

 

[IDtenT]

It probably is. That is because it is free information and information should always be free.

Why?

Also, "public interest" entertainment = everything is free = no incentive to produce entertainment products, no innovation in technology, economics, or anything else. People can't be expected to spend thousands upon thousands of working hours simply out of the goodness of their own hearts.

Things that are in the public interest gets funded all the fucking time. The creation of the information just needs to be commissioned in some way or another. Hardly a shocking new way of procuring a service.