Pirates moan about getting pirated

Discussion in 'Politics & Ethics of Technology' started by Billy Idol, Apr 29, 2013.

  1. Zaphod

    Zaphod Remember
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    120
    Because they're legally and technically different concepts. Copyrights extend beyond ownership in many instances and are limited in others.
    Oh, it's not so complicated. Every time something is distributed on the web it's probably copied and redistributed several time over. Oftentimes with slight or direct modifications. Proxy servers, adwords insertion, loads and loads of things. Google's webcache? The Internet Archive? Wholesale copyright violations. Hell, some jurisdictions even deemed hyperlinks themselves to be copyright violations if not explicitly sanctioned by the copyright holder.
     
  2. gkar1

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    7
    If they can find someone as qualified (highly doubt it, as surgical techs with 20+ years of experience in general, neuro, orthopedic, organ transplant and pre-natal surgery are pretty rare) they can try that, sure. Luckily I don't work in an industry largely funded by people's expendable money.

    Or you can download a small crack and not worry about Steam after you've bought the game.
    Steam is nothing more than a convenient direct download content delivery system to me and I do not intend to give up the option of divesting myself from it at my own convenience. It's my money and I (everyone should really) tailor my user experience how I see fit.
     
    #182 gkar1, May 2, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2013
  3. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    17,555
    Likes Received:
    7,455
    Those are interesting and I'm sure some people fall under those. But there are also people that...

    1. Think all digital product is too expensive since there is no physical product. As such charging more than a few pennies for them is outrageous. The same people that thought CD's were too expensive because the physical medium (the optical disk) could be bought for pennies per disk in bulk. Hence the price of the product should cost no more than the physical material used.
    2. People that think all corporations are inherently evil. Thus you should always steal/pirate from them whenever possible. The fact that they also steal/pirate from individuals and independent developers doesn't seem to bother them, however.
    3. People that figure since they can't easily steal alcohol, cigarettes, or any other physical good buy those and just steal anything that can be easily stolen. Digital goods are extremely easy to steal. They can easily afford the games they play, but they want to live above their level of income and piracy is a good way to facilitate that.

    Some of that falls under your "d. ideological reason" but that makes it sound nicer than it actually is.

    Convenience certainly plays a roll. I have some friends that did eventually stop pirating due to Steam (and DMCA notifications). Those are still in the relative minority, however. I have others that can easily afford games on Steam but still persist with pirating even when they complain vociferously that it's taking forever for the various "scene" groups to released a cracked version of the latest patch that fixes X bug they are encountering in a game they've been playing for over 20 hours. And then claim they would buy the game if they enjoyed it. Meanwhile they continue to play the pirated version that they constantly say they love the playing because they love the gameplay. ???

    iPhone certainly makes it more convenient to purchase rather than pirate. But people will still go to extraordinary measures in order to jailbreak their device in order to use pirated apps despite those apps being only 1 USD on average. But at least Apple makes it relatively difficult to maintain a jailbroken phone. On Android it's far easier to jailbreak and hence it's far easier to pirate. Also, no coincidence that far fewer people on Android (as a percentage of user base, last I saw it, I believe a software developer said it was somewhere around 10% compared to iOS sales) actually purchase apps. Hence, apps generally don't appear on Android or don't appear until a few months after being launched on iOS. If that 10% number is true, it tracks pretty well with the pirated rates for the title in this OP.

    In many ways it's human nature to choose the free alternative over the paid alternative unless there are some consequences to using the free alternative. Steal a physical product and get caught and you likely go to jail. Steal a digital product and chances are you'll never get caught if you use the right method. There's a reason pirates are moving away from bittorent to other methods of pirating despite bittorent still being the most convenient way to pirate. As many of them have gotten DMCA notices from their internet provider.

    Speaking of which. Those alternate methods of pirating require payment. As such people are paying money to pirate software with a system that is less convenient than just buying a game on Steam. But it's still closer to "free" than even a good Steam sale.

    What's amusing is that they'd rather pay X dollars a month to pirate games that are featured in a Humble Bundle than pay 1 USD to buy those games in a Humble Bundle. I'm always amazed at the lengths pirates will go to in order to pirate.

    Until people as a whole start to frown and look down upon pirating as a detestable and reprehensible thing, it'll never stop. As long as people continue to proclaim that pirating is a "good" thing as we see even on this forum, then pirating will continue.

    Or perhaps all countries in the world should have a national Pirate Month. During that Pirate Month, employers are allowed to not pay their employees if they feel they can't afford it, think their workers are being paid too much, feel that it's too inconvenient, or just for ideological reasons. But employees must still go in and work.

    Thinking about it that way, I guess sweatshops are OK. After all just like pirates can't afford the games they play but still choose to play those games, those sweatshops can't afford to pay their workers more but still choose to employ those workers.

    Regards,
    SB
     
  4. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    How so? Your argument is simply, "because they are." I'm interested in the basis of your statements.

    I disagree. It is extremely complicated.

    There are several key components of copyright law that would allow for this. There is the concept of an implied license. The transmission of information would be a clear instance of this. The owner, by the act of sending an email containing a protected work, being aware that for the requested action to be completed requires the copying of the work, gives an implied license for this to be done exclusively for that purpose and no other.

    The google issues are valid and on going. There are fair use provisions as I am sure you are aware that do support most of what google does, but not all.

    There are plenty of examples of on going litigation with regards to Google's news services for example.

    To bring this back to the topic, none of these issues change the fact that original works should be protected. I'm not sure what your objection to this simple principle is.

    Explain to me why I should not own the results of my own work?
     
  5. Zaphod

    Zaphod Remember
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    120
    Oh, I don't think it can, or will ever be, stopped. Or, if it can; the tradeoffs that will have to be made won't be worth it. In the advent of digital piracy, I would probably have preferred to go down this avenue again rather than what was ultimately chosen. The ones having profited the most from digital piracy are probably telcos and hardware manufacturers. :)
     
  6. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    17,555
    Likes Received:
    7,455
    I don't because then you're encouraged to release a crappy game just to get in on the money stream. There is no reward for making a good game that is bug free or to fix a game that is buggy if you get revenue regardless of the state of your game.

    And then, if you start to put in government regulations to regulate the quality of games then the government then starts to be able to exert control of what games are produced, how they are produced, how much can ultimately be spent on developing a game, what content is allowed in game, what hardware the game is allowed to run on, etc.

    And, of course, to support that legislation and enforce it will require another governmental body which means more dollars allocated to that rather than game development, etc.

    No, it's definitely not a road I'd like to go down even thought it "sounds" good. We already see how much of a mess the copyright system can become even with the best of intentions (making sure creator's are rewarded and thus encouraging creation of new product and ideas). And that doesn't even get into the government determining HOW a copyright holder is rewarded for his copyright which is what would happen if there was a tax put into place to compensate developers and publishers for piracy.

    Add to that in an all digital age, how are you going to tax it? Based on bandwidth consumption? And that doesn't even go into the monetary punishment to people for legitimate uses of the blank media or internet bandwidth. Granted that already happens to an extent due to pirates as goods and service prices must go up in order to compensate for the rampant stealing/piracy or quality go down or just developers going out of business as is happening in the games industry.

    Regards,
    SB
     
  7. Zaphod

    Zaphod Remember
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    120
    I don't get where you think I have stated such an objection.
    Because culture is an aggregate endeavor. Your work stands on the shoulders of an unbound heritage; to which it owes it's very existence and in all likelihood contributes very very little of significance. Thus it's only fair that you should, after an appropriate time, feed it back into the same pool as it was drawn from.

    The original intention of copyrights is to promote this feedback loop and encourage the creation and development of more culture.

    That it has been misappropriated into some sort of eternal right of ownership by you and others is a real shame.
     
  8. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    There are plenty of crimes the complete prevention of which would require undesirable legislation and enforcement. It doesn't mean we give up altogether.

    I wonder if any crime in the history of law has ever been eradicated.

    In regards to copyright infringement it would be a huge step forward if we got it down to a minority of people infringing :)
     
  9. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Your resolve to weaken an already poorly enforced law.

    I suspect you know full well that copyright does not cover ideas, just the manifestation of them. To further assist in this area I have already stated I would be happy for there to be a sunset on the prohibition of derivative works.

    With this in place, I see no reason why the complete and whole original work can not continue to be protected.

    With the provisions I mention above, why?'
     
  10. Zaphod

    Zaphod Remember
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    120
    Never said that either. I believe that the technological changes that have allowed new modes of copyright violations have been good for society. And I believe that the harm from draconian copyright enforcement would and will far outweigh its benefits. Current copyright initiatives seem more geared to address the problems of yesterday rather than embrace the opportunities of tomorrow.
    Because culture at its very core is iterative and derivative rather than original. And if your work, either by chance or by the sheer virtues of your talent, should prove to be culturally significant; society has a greater interest in ensuring that it's spread and consumed than it has in your descendants profiting from it.
     
    #190 Zaphod, May 2, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2013
  11. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    And it can. How is my ownership of the original work preventing it being a part of culture? If derivative works are permitted iteration is possible, and in fact encouraged. The ideas (including new ones) are not protected by copyright anyway, so no issue there. The only way the original work would not continue to be a part of that culture is if I decide to horde it. I've previously mentioned that an exploitation clause would help here. Essentially keep it available or lose it.

    For the record, this is a side issue for me. When the discussion on copyright terms comes up, I'd be far happier getting people to universally accept 1 month terms than push for perpetual rights even under the conditions above.
     
  12. orangpelupa

    orangpelupa Elite Bug Hunter
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    9,025
    Likes Received:
    2,377
    Yups. The pirate version used to skip the lengthy download

    Not all city have a mall that sell original legal copy game.
    Its also a lot harder to get a gameshop that sell original PC game (original legal PS3 and 3DS game are hard to get but still easier to buy than PC or Xbox 360 game).

    There's also the problem of limited stock. If you want to get latest game, you need to pre-order it fullprice beforehand. If did not pre order, usually there will be a few things that happens:

    1. Game instantly sold out
    2. Game did not sold out but the price increasing.
    3. Forced to buy 2nd hand but no one selling it at reasonable price for months.

    btw a photo

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Daozang

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    409
    Location:
    Athens
    There are countries in the word, that this happens. It has to do with something called an unemployment rate of 30%.
    There are also countries in the word where stealing physical goods is part of day to day survival.
    In all those countries, this discussion sounds really pointless.

    Apply these rules to the western world, and everything is fine. But don't make it universal.
    Ofcourse, it's luxury goods we are talking about.
    I'm certain that someone from these countries, will reply with a cold,"So what".
     
  14. orangpelupa

    orangpelupa Elite Bug Hunter
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    9,025
    Likes Received:
    2,377
    btw out of topic. Steam sure love to make their "connecting to steam account" pop up that appear when you run Steam staying as long as possible :/ It took MINUTES just to start steam. Origin just took secs. And GoG games is instant launch :D

    back to topic

    a photo of pirated PlayStation 1 game that sponsored by gaming magazine, game guide :
    [​IMG]

    Piracy are really deep. Original game publishers need to levelup their game availability, penetration, communication.
     
  15. (((interference)))

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    70
    Copying a game is not as bad as say stealing a car, or stealing a physical copy of that game.

    Stealing a car deprives the owner of its use - which they paid for, wheras copying a game only deprives the rightsholder of a sale.
    Similarly, stealing a physical game deprives the owner of its use (or the retailer of stock they can sell) - which is something they paid for and so is a loss to them.

    So it would seem that copying a game is not identical with stealing some physical good - if we go by the impacts of each act.

    I myself am not a proponent of draconian enforcement of copyright, for example a few months ago I wanted to try Prison Architect, which is a $30 game without a demo. So I downloaded a cracked copy, played it for an hour or so, decided it wasn't for me and so deleted it.

    Now, was that a morally reprehensible thing to do?
    Would the situation have been better in a world where piracy was eradicated and I would have to pay $30 for a game I didn't like and could not return or onsell? Or say chose not to take the risk of spending $30 and not liking it, depriving the creator of a sale if I had ended up liking it?
     
  16. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    But you are depriving the owner of it's copyrights. Copyright is the *EXCLUSIVE* right to the content. By copying it, you are imposing your own rights on the product and therefore HAVE deprived the owner.

    If you want to play a game of moral equivalence, then sure, your example is not as bad as someone copying and redistributing it, who has completely and irrevocably deprived the owner of the exclusive rights to the content. However where did you copy it from?

    Since we are playing moral equivalence: "Sure, you didn't club the baby seal to death, you just wear it's fur around on special occasions."


    Pirates do worse than preventing a sale of a game. By removing the exclusivity of the rights to the content, they effectively devalue the content itself.
     
  17. (((interference)))

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    70
    Yes of course, that it is by definition.

    Of course, copying and redistributing it, especially for profit is worse than copying a work for your own use.

    Say your friend made a copy from the copy he bought.

    But they're not morally equivalent, you might well want to wear fur but think it's ethically farmed, humanely killed etc, while the fur traders are only motivated by profit etc so club baby seals to death, poach animals or keep animals in terrible conditions to increase their bottom line.


    How so?

    I'd argue the converse, copyright infringement might create a buzz around content - for example, at school everyone always used to share music with each other, whether lending normal audio CDs or USBs/CDs with MP3s on them, transferring MP3s via MSN Messenger/email etc.

    Now, if my friends were like you should really listen to Band X, and I had to go and buy their albums, would I be inclined to listen to them? Not really.

    However, because they'd just share a copy of the music with you, I'd more likely than not have a listen and perhaps I'd like their music and become a fan.

    And I can safely say, that directly because of sharing music in this way I have ended up buying records from quite a few bands or spending $100 on tickets to their shows that I would otherwise never have done, were I forced to pay money to do exploratory listening to their music.
     
    #197 (((interference))), May 7, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2013
  18. Zaphod

    Zaphod Remember
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    120
    Are you not just being difficult here? It's blatantly obvious that ownership and copyrights are both de jure and de facto different concepts. If not, we wouldn't need copyright law at all; and all that shelf space dedicated to it amongst law scholars across jurisdictions would be utterly wasted.

    On the one hand it provides things that ownership does not. For example if I have two books, one public domain and the other copyrighted by you; your copyright limits what I'm allowed to do with parts of my physical property. On the other hand, they expire; while property rights do not. I'll still own my book, even after the limitations your copyright put on it are gone.
    Fair enough. What time limit would you suggest for a sunset on the right to limit derivative works? More or less than the current copyright provisions?

    As for a "use it or loose it"-clause, I don't think you could possibly manage such a system without an insurmountable mountain of logistical challenges. How do we decide that a work is available or not? Do we need universal FRAND rules for copyrights? Who decides when a work is not exploited and as such shall be returned to the public domain? Is there an appeals process? Etc, etc...
     
  19. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    And this is why moral equivalence games are useless. In my mind, the idea that they should be ethically farmed, humanely killed is the equivalent of paying for the product from the copyright owner.


    1) By removing the exclusive component, the value of the property is reduced. Are you saying exclusivity has no value?

    2) In simple supply - demand economics, increasing the supply reduces the equilibrium price. Torrenting massively increases the supply to effectively unlimited.

    The counter argument is purely business model argument which is irrelevant. Whether creating a "buzz" by pirating software helps the copyright owner or not, using it as an argument to pirate is ridiculous. You don't have that right. You can't steal money from someone, invest it for them, return more than you took and expect it not to be considered theft.


    I understand this argument to death, as it's the most commonly spouted. This is also a specious argument. Why couldn't you just borrow the CD for a while. That's completely legal and is covered by the license to use the content. If it's digitally distributed, you can listen to/play it at your friends home. That used to be quite the occasion, heading over to a mates house to listen to a new LP or play a new 2600 game. Damn kids these days! and while you're at it, get off my lawn!
     
  20. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    There are many forms of ownership. Copyright ownership is but one of them.

     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...