Videogame Piracy - Is a Stricter Approach Necessary?
Thanks to GamerDad for its editorial focusing on recent attitudes to videogame piracy, in which a change in approach is argued for: "The [ESA] should be less focused on the ratings system... and more focused on educating consumers that downloading games is theft, plain and simple.... Consumers only understand one thing, the game is available freely on the Internet with a minimum of work and that means they don't have to pay for it." The writer continues: "I can't bring myself to download games, even the things at a place like The Underdogs which specializes in supposedly 'out of print' games to download. Out of print used to mean something was rare and worth something. In the digital media world it apparently now means 'Ok to steal.'" He concludes by suggesting ways to make games more attractive again: "One great way to do that is including good stuff in the box. Give me a color manual or include a poster. Maybe a CD with all the music from the game? How about liner notes with each game describing some part of development?"
Games (especially 0-day warez) are only easy to download if you're in the know. You need to know what site to go to, or a friend with an FTP server or you need to have a very reliable USENET hook up or something along those lines. Otherwise, pirating games online is a nightmare minefield of porn pop ups, links to other sites with more porn pop ups, viruses and mislabelled 600 MB downloads.
The 'consumer' does not find this easy or fun. The 'consumer' probably doesn't even know that they could be trying to do this. People who are downloading complete games illegally are fairly sophisticated users. I would guess that they all know full well that they're doing something illegal. I just think that they don't care.
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
Anyone remember the "evidence" that came with Deadline, including two "pills" that were actually Smarties candy (yeah, I ate 'em)? Maps, booklets, and other details like that really helped set the stage for those text adventures.
I personally won't download games from "warez" sites, but I'd bet that if more care went in to the final product, people might value them more.
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
I honestly don't know exactly how it would work, but I believe that all or nearly all copyrighted material (books, music, software) should be "sell it or lose it": if the copyright owner doesn't care to sell copies of it, for instance because it is not deemed profitable, the copyright lapses.
Clearly, if it's not worth selling, the copyright holder doesn't lose much if the copyright lapses early, 5Nth anniversary precious metal editions notwithstanding. Of course, companies who are in the business of selling the same pile of tripe every few years with a different name would suffer. (Quicken 2005? No thanks, I like Quicken 2000 just fine and don't want to learn anything new. What, you mean I can't buy Quicken 2000? I think some music labels and book publishers would find themselves in the same bind)
This belief is what makes me feel not at all bad when downloading abandonware games to play on my Commodore 64 emulator, for instance.
Failing "Sell It or Lose It Copyright", I'd love to see a non-profit corporation in the business of buying the copyright to abandoned software, particularly games, and releasing it to the public domain. In my mind this would involve finding out what copyrighted items people were most interested in, reaching a deal with the owner, and then raising the money online. I have no idea whether it would work, but I'd love to see it tried. I'd put up a few bucks to see EA's 8-bit software collection enter the public domain, and surely a lot of geeks would do the same. Would it add up to the piles of cash Electronic Arts would demand? Well, I don't know.
I downloaded a bootleg and loved it. After a few days I decided to throw some cash their way, so I bought a CD. Never could get the legit copy to run.
Play Command HQ online