Jump to content
IGNORED

Piracy >O<


Philly
 Share

Recommended Posts

1) The money lost to industry is equal to number of copies times by RRP ... Demonstrably WRONG

Now, I may have missed somebody on the forum claim this in which case I apologise, but if your post was purely to show this then you wasted a lot of effort patronising folk. Nobody here believes that is true. I only posted because I thought you were arguing that it was fine to pirate if you can't afford it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think with the recession we see a spike in piracy?.

Did we during the last one? What facts and figures do we have for Piracy rates from year to year?

Oh no.. wait a minute... Did the industry "champion" (either ELSPA or FACT or FAST) not give a shit about tracking and evaluating the problem, its scope and impact?

Did they instead just put a cheap ad in the games press every now and again full of misinformation and lies?

Doh!!!

Don't worry I'm sure the industry or it's "champion" will keep track of stats during this recession...

Surely they will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I may have missed somebody on the forum claim this in which case I apologise, but if your post was purely to show this then you wasted a lot of effort patronising folk. Nobody here believes that is true.

Read my posts.. I said that one way to stop piracy was to have an anti-piracy campaign that was not devalued by telling lies...

I pointed out two wrong facts... and both have been argued to varying degrees

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my posts.. I said that one way to stop piracy was to have an anti-piracy campaign that was not devalued by telling lies...

25283485.beggar.jpg

"This is Geoff. Geoff is a games designer. Because you filthy pirates are parasites of Geoff, now Geoff has to be a parasite of society. Do the right thing and just buy his fucking game instead of copying it, you cheap fucks. Deal?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or

robocop03.jpg

"This is Bob. Bob is a games designer. because you filthy pirates are parasites on Bob's back he can't afford anymore cocaine and hookers. Do the right thing and just buy his fucking game instead of copying it. Otherwise next time he sees his dealer they'll break his legs"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe is a gamer and spends approximately £1,000 a year on games, the rest of which he downloads. John is also a gamer but only spends £500 a year on games, but he doesn't download anything because he wants to support the industry. Who literally makes more of a contribution to the industry?

Joe is a gamer and spends approximately £1,000 a year on games, the rest of which he steals. The total loss in stock is £600. John is also a gamer but only spends £500 a year on games, but he doesn't steal anything because he wants to support the industry. Who literally makes more of a contribution to the industry?

Now someone explain to me how theft is the same as copying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens if you lose the key? Who pays for the key to be manufactured? You know EA want you to use their key for their games, but Ubisoft have thier own key system that far more secure. I'm a small publisher I can afford the aditional licencing cost for the key system.

The industry will never agree to one system as they will all have intrests in supporting a system that benifits themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe is a gamer and spends approximately £1,000 a year on games, the rest of which he downloads. John is also a gamer but only spends £500 a year on games, but he doesn't download anything because he wants to support the industry. Who literally makes more of a contribution to the industry?

Joe is a gamer and spends approximately £1,000 a year on games, the rest of which he steals. The total loss in stock is £600. John is also a gamer but only spends £500 a year on games, but he doesn't steal anything because he wants to support the industry. Who literally makes more of a contribution to the industry?

Now someone explain to me how theft is the same as copying.

Oh, now I get it. It's ok to pirate and even steal games as long as you spend a minimum of £1000 on actual games at retail :D.

Here I was assuming that some pirates don't pay for games at all ever and they're the issue at hand that the gaming industry has to work towards dealing with.

Exactly how much is Joe downloading in your first example? More or less than the £1000 he's spending on games?

In the second example, if Joe is spending a £1000 on games and then stealing the rest, he's probably a kleptomaniac.

One Joe is not a major problem, 1 million Joes is.

And the answer to your first two questions is John. Both times. He's got good ethics and doesn't overspend.

Joe is probably singlehandly responsible for buying crappy games and pirating/stealing the decent triple AAA titles.

This over time skews sales figures which is Ubisoft keep releasing so many bad games, along with the occasional decent one. If Joe is torrenting this:

51CcUEQoBXL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

but buying this for himself or his kids:

41sp7eXyrLL._SL500_AA260_.jpg

Tigerz...? WTF? This actually exists? Oh god, the horror. Forget piracy, The gaming industry is doing a decent job of killing itself here by allowing Ubisoft to release something like this...

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that if Joe is torrenting/stealing the good games and buying the 'crap' ones then the gaming industry will churn out continue to churn out more of what sells well, regardless of quality.

See?:

51CA8d01VkL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

That's real, by the way. A real game about monkeys... :(.

Games have an inherent value attached to them, they're worth more than most film and songs, not just in terms of actual retail cost or financial investment but also in what you get out of them, in regards to entertainment value.

By buying the games you enjoy, you're supporting the gaming industry financially and sending a message about what gamers will pay to play. Most pirates don't want to contribute to the gaming industry yet want these games for free.

If a million people decide they don't want to pay to enjoy great games, it's those who worked hard to create the great games who are being robbed of their reward of seeing their hard work translate into sales chart success and more money for their company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe is a gamer and spends approximately £1,000 a year on games, the rest of which he downloads. John is also a gamer but only spends £500 a year on games, but he doesn't download anything because he wants to support the industry. Who literally makes more of a contribution to the industry?

Joe is a gamer and spends approximately £1,000 a year on games, the rest of which he steals. The total loss in stock is £600. John is also a gamer but only spends £500 a year on games, but he doesn't steal anything because he wants to support the industry. Who literally makes more of a contribution to the industry?

Now someone explain to me how theft is the same as copying.

I think this is not only an exaggeration, but completely wrong.

Habitual PC games pirates will literally only pay for the games which involve subscriptions, like WoW. If you aren't a habitual pirate, but have some cracked games, it's because you find the cracked version for the game is more convenient (we've all seen that this can be the case), but you more than likely actually have a legitimate license as well.

On consoles you get a lunatic situation, where the hardcore try to buy as many games at launch, complete them asap, and get them back to the shop again, or hoard them. Net result here is that the shops make a killing on preowned titles. Preowned games at extortionate rates lose the development side of the industry absolutely frightening amounts of money. This is somewhere where the Fairplay campaign hit a nerve, because if instead they sold the games at a lower price both the sale of the new copy and the pre owned one at the old price point would have been for the cheaper newer one. The result of that would be the publisher and developer get about 50% more cash, but the shops would lose most of theirs, and that's why MCV etc. launched a major counter offensive. (Although it was flawed in other respects).

I'm not convinced the current home consoles have any real piracy, but handhelds clearly do, and I think it's the same situation as PCs. People either pirate nearly everything, or nothing. If you're somewhere between you are the exception. Unlike music piracy with a game (and especially many handheld titles) people will be bored or finished with the game by the time they've considered buying it, and this is largely a distribution problem.

This is why it's crucial to make buying and playing legitimate games easier than piracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51CA8d01VkL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

That's real, by the way. A real game about monkeys... :(.

Ubisoft is a bizarre cultural bubble unto itself. Just looking at the game you can tell Army of Two came from a load of ex-Ubi people, and you can also see their confusion as to why the outside world didn't get it in the same way they see it. This was apparent from the initial announcement, and just got worse over time.

They have this completely strange culture that combines a sort of love and hate for all things stereotypically American (especially violence, suburbia and That 70s Show), which succeeds in successfully alienating Americans that think they're taking the piss (because they are), and alienates everyone else because they're being so Americanised (which they also are).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What confuses me is if piracy has such a negative impact on the industry then surely this would show up in huge marked differences in the attach rates for consoles with piracy and without (well almost without)

N64 - attach rate of 6.84

PS - attach rate of 9.36

Now obviously piracy was rife on the Playstation but non-existent (almost) on the N64... Now obviously there are other factors.. Playstation had longer life and its games were cheaper... but surely if the rampant piracy was an issue it would have affecte dthe attach rate more severely?

Gamecube - 8.945

Xbox - 8.945

PS2 - 9.885

Gamecube... very difficult to pirate for ages... Xbox and PS2 easy to chip earlyish on.. Attach rates.. fairly even.

Again I know there are always multiple factors in these things... but again shouldn't piracy be having more of an effect?

Even with rampant piracy the market leader tends to have the biggest attach rate anyway.

Obviously the question needs to be asked... How much bigger would the attach rate be without piracy? And this is where more research is needed.. before you can stop piracy you need to quantify it, establish its impact on sales etc. You need a diagnosis before you can attempt a cure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok simple maths...

Johnny gets £40 PER MONTH pocket money

In September (where he has £40 remember) he purchases 1 game at RRP (which is £39.99)

He now has NO money to spend in september... so he downloads the other game release in September he fancied playing... In no way could Johnny have bought the second game... therefore No money lost

You may ask hey why not buy it in October.. well wouldnt ya know it every month there is at LEAST one game release that Johnny wants to play so he buys 12 games a year at RRP and pirates maybe as many again.. but the key point is that he has spent all his available money on games so if he copies other games NOONE has lost any money...

..................

Now do you get it!!!

Little Johnny should be thankful that he gets that much money a month as pocket money... little Johnny should also just choose one game and learn that he can't have everything that he wants when he wants it. Little Johnny is sadly a result of consumerism where something exists for purchase but he seems to have some warped sense that he can have everything, that he has some kind of right to have everything and that he'll download something he should be paying for.

Perhaps it is a matter of teaching people that you can't have everything whenever you want it. Personally I am a gamer with a reasonable amount of disposable income every month and I can probably spend £50 a month on my hobby but that doesn't mean I can buy every release I would like to buy. I have a Wii and a 360 and a DS and some months, what I'd like to buy would cost me £200 so I have to choose what I want to buy within the limits of what I can actually spend.

As a parent, the above post is worrying as it seems to justify that children/people do have a right to have what they want when they want it and that's a big problem with society in general. I try to bring my kids up to accept the fact that all the toys in Woolworths aren't theirs by right and that, in life, you have to wait for the things you'd like to own. When I was a kid I had a spectrum and only got bought games for Xmas and my birthday - I'd get around four a year and have to save my 50p a week pocket money up and buy a £1.99 title every so often when I'd saved £2.00.

The whole "theft" definition I've tried to defend in this thread is that the legal system hasn't caught up with technology and there needs to be new legislation written up and passed in parliament to make a new offence where downloading a retail product such as a CD, DVD, game is clearly defined as being illegal. A few other posters have voiced this too but we're being misread and obtusely ignored as being "thick" and the same old arguments about "piracy isn't actually theft you moron" comments have been fired back in retort. You're missing the point completely. Piracy isn't theft in the trditional legal sense and no one has argued that it is but it is the closest crime we have at the moment (in the UK) to what piracy is. If we had a new "crime" to define the activity, some of you would still nit pick and try to claim that piracy isn't illegal.

I haven't stated that anyone defending the action is a pirate either - it isn't a black and white argument.

It annoys people who pay for games to read that other people are yarring the same titles as the people involved in piracy seem to treat the paying public as idiots and refuse to accept a moral responsibility that what they are doing is wrong.

To answer the OP - the law needs a change to create a law to define piracy as a crime in solid terms. People also need to stop wanting the moon on a stick and expect everything for free. The second solution is probably going to be impossible as people are used to going on to the web and downloading.

I don't find the anti-piracy adverts that helpful but you can't create a 30 second advert that addresses the entire subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had more than enough time to class it as theft when they wrote up the DMCA. Guess what, they didn't.

They also had plenty of time to class it as theft when they passed the EU copyright directive. They didn't.

I also don't see anywhere in this thread where anyone has put forth an argument saying that piracy isn't illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little Johnny should be thankful that he gets that much money a month as pocket money... little Johnny should also just choose one game and learn that he can't have everything that he wants when he wants it. Little Johnny is sadly a result of consumerism where something exists for purchase but he seems to have some warped sense that he can have everything, that he has some kind of right to have everything and that he'll download something he should be paying for. [snip]

The moral issues are a different matter.. as I have said, my point is that not every copy made is taking money from the industry.

When your industry rep (ELSPA) is saying that the games industry turns over 1 billion and loses in excess of £3 billion .. then its fair to say that something is rotten int he state of Denmark...

Morally I find all sorts of things wrong with piracy but also with the industry... the points you make a fair.. morally Johnny hasn't a leg to stand on... My son doesn't have any pirate games and neither do I... but I don't paint the piracy issue as blackk and white as some...

The whole "theft" definition I've tried to defend in this thread is that the legal system hasn't caught up with technology and there needs to be new legislation written up and passed in parliament to make a new offence where downloading a retail product such as a CD, DVD, game is clearly defined as being illegal. A few other posters have voiced this too but we're being misread and obtusely ignored as being "thick" and the same old arguments about "piracy isn't actually theft you moron" comments have been fired back in retort. You're missing the point completely. Piracy isn't theft in the trditional legal sense and no one has argued that it is but it is the closest crime we have at the moment (in the UK) to what piracy is. If we had a new "crime" to define the activity, some of you would still nit pick and try to claim that piracy isn't illegal.

SNIP SNIP SNIP

Hopefully this will be my LAST comment on this issue.

PIRACY IS NOT THEFT

PIRACY IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Therefore we don't need a new offence or to have it "added" to the definition of theft (which would be a nonsense)

It is an illegal activity.. there is plenty of legislation to back it up ... People can (And this is according to ELSPA)

Piracy leads always to arrests, community service, hefty fines and prison sentences

Now obviously the always bit is wrong... as not everyone gets caught...

But the legislation is there.. people do get caught and prosecuted...

In addition downloaders get sued etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't even need to look at ELSPA

Term: infringement

1.

Infringement of intellectual property rights takes place when a person who is not the owner or licensee of the owner of the intellectual property copies, reproduces, or exploits the particular intellectual property in question without the license or permission of the rights owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, now I get it. It's ok to pirate and even steal games as long as you spend a minimum of £1000 on actual games at retail :lol:.

No. You can change the numbers to £1 Vs 50p if you want.

And the answer to your first two questions is John. Both times. He's got good ethics and doesn't overspend.

£500 is more than £1,000?

Nobody has answered by question and their replies have made it obvious this discussion isn't going anywhere. Some people aren't here to actually debate the issue and are just here on a crusade, even going so far as saying £500 is more of a contribution than £1,000. Of course it could have been any numbers and those with a point to make would keep banging the same drum.

Never mind, it's just a shame we can't have an actual discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just the nature of digital media i think, as long as games/films come in 0's and 1's they will be copied. The same is true of analogue of course.

Media has to be intelligent in it's own right to combat piracy. What shape this would take i don't know.

Look at is this way, if a normal joe can copy decent banknotes in his garage, what chance have dvd's got ? Cloning is universal to almost everything including us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some research papers looking at mp3 downloads have concluded that if anything, piracy was generating sales.

This is a bit of a dodgy one though. Out of interest I've studied retail data of Dutch music sales over the last 10 years or so, and you see a steady decline. For example, the sales/turnover which is generated today is about 50% in both units sold and total revenue of that in 1998. And that includes music DVD's and legal MP3 sales. Now even if we pick this results apart (as they ARE compiled by the industry rather than independant parties), I don't think we can do anything but concluding that Napster and everything that came after took a serious chunk out of the music industry's income. It's not hard to see why, people (myself included) just download current chart favourites and albums by promising artists and only buy what we really want. So that means lots of artists that would sell on the back of a short hype or one killer single in the past now just get bypassed by downloads. Quality albums and niche music will probably sell anyway because of loyal fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much do you think that's because of over exposure and the market being flooded Napoleon? I'm not making a point, it's a genuine question. For example, there's MTV, Radio, Youtube etc. You can listen and see these music videos all the time. There was a time when I would buy practically any snipet of Manga I could get my hands on, good or bad. Mostly bad, because that's all there was. Now that the stuff is shown on TV and it has had so much exposure then I haven't bought a Manga film in a really long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You can change the numbers to £1 Vs 50p if you want.

£500 is more than £1,000?

Nobody has answered by question and their replies have made it obvious this discussion isn't going anywhere. Some people aren't here to actually debate the issue and are just here on a crusade, even going so far as saying £500 is more of a contribution than £1,000. Of course it could have been any numbers and those with a point to make would keep banging the same drum.

Never mind, it's just a shame we can't have an actual discussion.

*sigh* If you could afford £1000 worth of games, you wouldn't really to pirate or steal in the first place, would you?

Your odd examples got the answers they deserved.

I'm much more interested in discussing how to stop those who pay £0.00. They are the real problem.

As I've constantly reiterated in my previous replies, the problem I see with digital piracy is that those who do the hard work of creating games and their respective companies are the ones losing a bit of money each time one of their games is pirated.

Look, forget the financial values bandied about regarding digital piracy.

It's about ethics. It is impossible to shut down digital piracy because people don't see it as a bad thing.

Let's switch this discussion around.

If you or anyone else can explain why taking a game for free and not compensating the creators is Ok, by all means do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What confuses me is if piracy has such a negative impact on the industry then surely this would show up in huge marked differences in the attach rates for consoles with piracy and without (well almost without)

N64 - attach rate of 6.84

PS - attach rate of 9.36

Now obviously piracy was rife on the Playstation but non-existent (almost) on the N64... Now obviously there are other factors.. Playstation had longer life and its games were cheaper... but surely if the rampant piracy was an issue it would have affecte dthe attach rate more severely?

We're comparing a console with a lifespan of about 3 years with one which lasted at least 10?

And saying that the difference of 3 is "about what we'd expect"?

You've raised an assumption here: that the PS attach rate wasn't severely affected by piracy.

Gamecube - 8.945

Xbox - 8.945

PS2 - 9.885

Gamecube... very difficult to pirate for ages... Xbox and PS2 easy to chip earlyish on.. Attach rates.. fairly even.

And the Gamecube wasn't difficult to pirate - you could buy a disk.

Again I know there are always multiple factors in these things... but again shouldn't piracy be having more of an effect?

No idea. But simply typing out attach rate numbers isn't going to tell us what effect piracy is or isn't having.

You can't draw any conclusions from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't they?

Perhaps because discussing how much piracy actually damages the industry in monetary terms (and it unarguably does) is a useful and interesting discussion (especially coming from people who see things from the inside in the industry and aren't just on a "piracy is worse than rape and murder combined and must be magically stopped" crusade - Monkichi has posted some great stuff in this topic), so why would anyone want to "switch it around" to revolve around a ridiculous point no-one was even making in the first place?

The point actually being discussed is the reason piracy is both unethical and illegal - it deprives the people who create software (for the purposes of making money) of income due to them in exchange for the permission to use the software, but to an unknown degree. As such, asking people to try and justify it in spite of these facts is pretty much a waste of time - you'll just end up with a load of personal justifications for piracy which we've all heard before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've constantly reiterated in my previous replies, the problem I see with digital piracy is that those who do the hard work of creating games and their respective companies are the ones losing a bit of money each time one of their games is pirated.

But this is the bit that just isn't true and has been argued about a hundred times in this thread.

First of all, they are not losing money, it's not that when somebody makes a copy of their game actual money is taken out of their cashregister. Neither is a physical product (or an SKU to use that dreadful term) taken from their warehouse which needs to be replaced or can no longer be sold. Piracy has NO influence whatsoever on the balance sheet at all.

And secondly, not each pirated copy means a lost sale. The problem is, you just don't know how many copies would have sold if a game wasn't pirated. If piracy is really such a huge problem, why has no publisher or industry board ever done a deep, thorough research of the subject matter so they can project how much damage it REALLY does? Or what could be done about it? These days all we get is 'there are 10.000 people seeding this title on bittorrent, so with an RRP of 40 quid this means 400.000 pounds in damages.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps because discussing how much piracy actually damages the industry in monetary terms (and it unarguably does) is a useful and interesting discussion (especially coming from people who see things from the inside in the industry and aren't just on a "piracy is worse than rape and murder combined and must be magically stopped" crusade - Monkichi has posted some great stuff in this topic), so why would anyone want to "switch it around" to revolve around a ridiculous point no-one was even making in the first place?

The point actually being discussed is the reason piracy is both unethical and illegal - it deprives the people who create software (for the purposes of making money) of income due to them in exchange for the permission to use the software, but to an unknown degree. As such, asking people to try and justify it in spite of these facts is pretty much a waste of time - you'll just end up with a load of personal justifications for piracy which we've all heard before.

Good points...

Stopping piracy completely would be impossible... so the best thing to do is focus the effort on the nastiest areas/elements...

We have ALL agreed that not all piracy costs the industry revenue... Therefore the best place to focus any anti-piracy would be on those parts of piracy which do cost the industry revenue.

To do this you need to investigate piracy and come up with a couple of things

1) What sorts of piracy/types of pirate are costing the industry money

2) How much is the industry losing to piracy

this way you can focus resources precisely accordingly to the problem areas... Knowing the size and composition of a problem is the first step... Mass campaigns that basically attack one big amorphous issue of PIRACY lack precision and as such are ineffective.

The reason why you need to know the cost of piracy is purely so you know how much it's worth spending on combatting it.

If you are losing 3 million a year to piracy and you spend 4 million on eradicting it (perhaps believing the 3 billion figure bandied about by ELSPA) then you are in for a shock.

What surprises me most is that industry seems to care very little about piracy... it doesn't seem to try and research or quantify the issue.

Well certainly any resulting campaigns/measures don't reflect this... ELSPA/SECUREROM/DRM etc all brilliant successes and targetted successfully !

EDIT - And then as I was typing all the above... Napoleon boiled it down to the basic reply far quicker and more efficiently

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all comes down to respect doesn't it? But the problem is while there might be the odd gem, the vast majority of games are poorly designed, often buggy and in no way worth the £40 - £50 that's charged. They're on the whole just a cynical attempt to grab your, but probably more often, the cash of parents and grandparents buying presents.

While that continues to be the case then i can see no reason whatsoever why anyone should feel guilty about ripping off these companies because that's exactly what they're trying to do to you with the majority of the product that they release. Show me a game developer / publisher where every one of their games has been made with 'love' and respect for the customer and i'll be more than happy to pay up when the time comes, otherwise i don't really think they've got a leg to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.