KG

report

More generally on the subject of copywright infringement; I think it is a problem but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as morally clear cut as some make it out to be. Comparing it to theft of physical property is especially inaccurate since the main problem with theft of physical propery isn’t that someone got something for free, or that the person whose property was stolen was denied compensation. The problem is that the person actually lost something and is now worse of then he would have been if the theft hadn’t occured. That isn’t the case with copywright infringement, and if it were, say if downloading a game on P2P resulted in you actually stealing another persons copy of the game, I don’t think illegal downloading would be anywhere near as common as it is.

To make an analogy where the morality of copywright infringement doesn’t seem so clear cut, imagine an artist, who’s house is pretty remotely located, erecting a statue in his backyard and inviting people to come and view it for a fee. The problem is that the statue is visible from a public road nearby and word of mouth have led to people gathering there and getting a view of the statue without paying. Does the artist have a moral right to demand payment from these people? As far as I can see there’s no fundamental difference between this scenario and copywright infringement in general.

report

I generally only pirate those things which I wouldn’t or couldn’t go out and buy. So, either I get it free or don’t get it at all. The man hasn’t lost a sale, because I wouldn’t have bought it if piracy weren’t an option.

Not to mention the fact that the kind of games my laptop will even run aren’t even in production anymore. Hell, half of the games I’ve pirated are made by companies that no longer exist.

That’s what I’d say if I were a pirate. Which I am not.

report

report

The games available on P2P/IRC/etc (with exception of leaked alphas/betas and cracked trials etc) stem from a legit purchased copy that was then manipulated for distribution. Clearly they impact more installations without revenue then a secondhand store who may see the same box come through half a dozen times, but it does tie into who exactly piracy may be losing money for the most, the developer or the resellers.

report

i think that’s a perfectly reasonable stance.

report

Yeah, but I hardly think that’s how they got most of the money for their massive supply of weapons.

I’m looking at you, United States.

report

The truth is, I care less and less for current entertainment, and am less interested in spending my time and money on it. When I see anti-piracy warnings at the cinema, I can’t help but read between the lines and see the result “You’d better not think about spending less money on us…”

I think purchasing second-hand goods is a form of peaceful protest about constant piracy fingerwagging. Okay, I say, I’ll live by the letter of the law. Just don’t expect any more profit from me.

report

no doubt game publishers – and the music industry, and the movie industry, and no doubt book publishers too – would love to have the government use their force to get them in on the used market. hell, car manufacturers would no doubt be delighted if they could continue to get a slice years after the initial profits for a given model year have been taken.

but that’s a 24oz bottle of crazysauce, and hopefully it will never come to be.

as to why i think this issue is important:
i don’t care for radiohead, but i do feel badly that so many of their fans thought so little of their work. people like getting something for nothing, and if it can be digitized people will take it. this attitude no doubt correlates strongly with youth. the entire concept, as i’ve mentioned before, of “doing without” (if you wish to not pay for a given copy of xyz) makes as much sense to many people as yelling latin at a dog does for poor old rover.

this doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of good criticisms of copyright, to say the least – life of author plus 75 years is a great way to enrich james joyce’s great grandson (or whomever the twat who holds the rights is), but does little to help spur the advancement of the useful arts and sciences.

report

in situation two, a copy has been made. nothing has been bought. zero purchases have been made.But in either scenario, none of my money has gone towards the maker of the game. I do understand your point, but second hand games in stores are a never-ending flow.

The reason we all disapprove of piracy, as I understand it, is the fact that the people who produced the game are not getting their fair share for my experience of their product. I never buy anything on release anymore, so I could quite comfortably buy everything second hand for the foreseeable future. I’m a hardcore gamer, and yet the makers of the games will never see a penny of my money.

Should I feel guilty that I haven’t bought Darwinia yet? Or that I got Uplink free with Defcon? If I never buy Darwinia, they can’t really complain as I haven’t played their game so they’ve got none of my money. I could go on eBay or Amazon and buy a second hand disc right now. That would satisfy you, and the law. But what of Introversion?

report

not at all.

in situation one, a copy has been bought. that physical copy is then transferred to a second party. one purchase has been made.

in situation two, a copy has been made. nothing has been bought. zero purchases have been made.

report

I illegally downloaded The Sims 2 when it came out, as I was unsure if it would run on my machine. It did, and I played it for a few days, until I started to feel guilty. So I went out and bought a second hand copy.

I never needed to open the second hand box, as I already had the game installed, and with a cd crack. The developers never got any money from my purchase. The only one who benefited was the shop that sold it to me. So I was just left feeling very confused about the whole thing, and wondering why I bothered.

report