Slashdot Mirror
An In-Depth Look At Game Piracy
TweakGuides is running a detailed examination of PC game piracy. The author begins with a look at the legal, moral, and monetary issues behind copyright infringement, and goes on to measure the scale of game piracy and how it affects developers and publishers. He also discusses some of the intended solutions to piracy. He provides examples of copy protection and DRM schemes that have perhaps done more harm than good, as well as less intrusive measures which are enjoying more success. The author criticizes the "culture of piracy" that has developed, saying. "Fast forward to the 21st century, and piracy has apparently somehow become a political struggle, a fight against greedy corporations and evil copy protection, and in some cases, I've even seen some people refer to the rise of piracy as a 'revolution.' What an absolute farce. ... Piracy is the result of human nature: when faced with the option of getting something for free or paying for it, and in the absence of any significant risks, you don't need complex economic studies to show you that most people will opt for the free route."
Piracy is the response of all good, thinking people to an epidemic of Ninjas.
I'm already there, you ignorant clod!
People will pirate when it's overpriced. When it's right-priced, most people will gladly pay for it.
What does gaming have to do with piracy?
I pirate because I have an addiction to worthless things. I pirate to try and fill the hole which has always been sitting there. Drinking doesn't do it, alcohol doesn't do it. The distraction of free music and video games doesn't do it. But I keep on downloading, drinking, and watching. Not because I realize that these things aren't fulfilling, but because I just can't think of anything more convenient to act as a stopgap to the flood of boredom and loneliness.
So I agree, for myself at least. There is no grandiose reason for piracy. It's there, it's easy, and I honestly gave up trying to care a long time ago.
Well, there's always a third route: Not getting that something, meaning that having these three options:
- 1. Play for free
- 2. Play at a cost
- 3. Don't play at all
Many people will sort it 1,3,2.
Also, some people will happily do 2,1,3 as long the price is reasonable and so it what they get.
So... stop trying to get money from people who just don't value your product if it isn't free, because it can't be done. You can piss them off though, and that can hurt your business.
If i buy the game. They treat me like a thief. Install things that may or may not fuckup my computer or game. Require the disk to be in the drive. Require activation and other bullshit. Limit the number of installs i can do. Tell me what programs i'm not allowed to use like daemon tools. And costs a shitload for a semi-beta game.
If i pirate the game. I don't have any of that. AND it's free.
Piracy. Better product, lower price.
You're kinda foolish not to pirate anymore...
Introduction
If there's a single topic that's guaranteed to cause heated debate among PC gamers today, it's piracy and the impact it's having on the PC gaming industry. Almost every gamer you speak to has a strong opinion on this topic, ranging from full support for piracy to total condemnation of it. In the past year in particular this issue has really come to a head, with one major PC game developer after another stepping forward to point to piracy as a clear and present danger to the industry.
As a long-time PC gamer, I have to confess that I've become extremely frustrated with reading the numerous discussions and articles on piracy. PC piracy and related topics such as DRM seem to have become so shrouded in illogical excuses, hysteria, scaremongering and uninformed opinions that having a sensible discussion on the topic is virtually impossible. While it's true to say that it's very difficult to obtain completely accurate and conclusive data on piracy and its impacts, it doesn't help that there are a range of vested interests deliberately spreading misinformation on piracy-related issues.
I decided it was time to compile an article which takes a close look at every facet of PC game piracy with a view to hopefully clarifying the debate with a range of facts. I'm not looking to repeat the same old one-sided, superficial examinations of PC piracy that you'll find everywhere else. What this article does is examine PC game piracy in a logical manner, taking into consideration a range of publicly available evidence to provide an informed view of the current state of play. I encourage those of you who are genuinely interested in this topic to take the time to make your way through this rather long but thorough article, as I believe it provides a great deal of food for thought for those willing to read it.
As you may have noticed, this article is quite long. The reason for this is because it tries to do something that other articles on piracy have failed to do: examine this complex and controversial topic in detail and with a wide range of relevant facts and verified information. Other articles take the easy path by slapping together some unsubstantiated opinions and dubious arguments which merely follow whatever the popular sentiment is on this topic, and come to the usual conclusions. Let me be clear: I won't be doing that here. I've invested a great deal of time into actually delving into all the various aspects of this issue, thinking through all the issues and getting a good handle on the situation based on a large amount of publicly available data. Consequently throughout the article you will find numerous references to reputable data sources and first-hand information rather than just hearsay and conjecture.
That's not to say it's just an article filled with data and theory. I've tried very hard to keep things as straightforward as possible, using plain English and plenty of straightforward examples. I've also tried to make this a balanced examination of piracy, however bear in mind that this doesn't mean that all sides of the debate have equally valid arguments. It simply means that I've examined and weighed up all the various arguments and facts, and present the most logical and plausible view in light of these.
You can skip straight to whichever section of the article interests you, but I recommend reading the entire article from start to finish at some point despite its length, as every section contains important information, and the arguments and data spread throughout this article form a complete picture of piracy. Taking small portions of the article out of context in some sort of half-hearted attempt at debasing it is meaningless. If your only interest in reading the article is to quickly skim through it to see if it supports your preconceived notions of piracy, then you're probably better off not bothering with it in the first place.
Note: Because this is a long article, if you find the text size uncomfortable after a while, hold down your CTRL key a
Piracy is the result of human nature: when faced with the option of getting something for free or paying for it, and in the absence of any significant risks, you don't need complex economic studies to show you that most people will opt for the free route.
Right, there's also moral values in the balance. To some people piracy is all bad, to some people everything should be free, to some other people it's fine to pirate from big studios but not from small developers who try to make a living out of it. It's called moral values. It varies from people to people, with also varying degrees of importance in the role it plays in decision making.
You just got troll'd!
The OP suggests that "most people will opt for the free route" simply because the product is free. I would argue that due to overly restrictive DRM, people prefer the free route because "hacked" or pirated products are better. I buy DVDs, but I wouldn't buy DRMed movies because it's effectively wasted money -- one day those movies will be unwatchable.
Also, in the field of ebooks, often it is possible to find an ebook that's been pirated when no legal copy exists for sale. In this case, the publishing companies are not servicing a demand that is clearly present. Sure, I could scan in my own paper copy of the book, but why go to the trouble when someone else has already done it?
I stopped reading when he told me that Usenet is now becoming a rapidly growing file-sharing method. Usenet is a rapidly declining file-sharing method that I would guess peaked in the mid/late nineties. Does anyone seriously use Usenet for piracy these days?
The article goes on an extensive analogy about DRM equaling Door Locks, and it completely misses the point. Yes, DRm prevents the majority of hackers from being able to do anything to the actual, hard copy of the game. This is worthless, though. All it take is for one person to break through the protection and upload it to a torrent site, and then everybody with internet access can have the game for free. It does not matter that most people couldn't break the encryption themselves. They don't need to, because somebody else already has.
Do you have any idea how long it takes to dig graves for twenty-three oak trees?
The bottom line is that the Scene provides better long-term support then most game companies ever have, and I only like to buy the games that I can and will indefinitely far into the future, which usually requires some variety of cracks and emulators, which is why even the games I have bought in the past are not installed in favor of the infringed+enhanced versions.
"Fast forward to the 21st century, and piracy has apparently somehow become a political struggle, a fight against greedy corporations and evil copy protection, and in some cases, I've even seen some people refer to the rise of piracy as a 'revolution.' What an absolute farce. ... Piracy is the result of human nature: when faced with the option of getting something for free or paying for it, and in the absence of any significant risks, you don't need complex economic studies to show you that most people will opt for the free route.
and political struggles and revolutions are EXACTLY that.
.... AS LONG AS the hassle justifies the thing, they will do it.
an unglorified movement of 'rabble', at least at the start, which developes into a formatted, defined ideological struggle.
if you had seen french revolutionaries in 1789, you would want to spray them with insecticide. it was a total stampede of barbarians. but then, in 2-3 years' time, it has become the very thing that awarded your sorry ass with the modern social guidelines about human rights, civil conduct we know today.
piracy is exactly like that. just like it was back in 17th century, in which mercantilism was the order of the day. smugglers and pirates and traders ignored royal laws and edicts and traded with the nations they were barred from trading. the nations who were prevented from trading turned to piracy. no armada was able to stop piracy up until end of 16th century, when countries eased mercantilist laws and started trading with each other. then piracy waned like an extinguishing candle.
same goes with software/music/movie piracy. IF, you are not providing a product that justifies it cost with EVERY aspect of itself, people WILL pirate and even out the thing. even if it takes more hassle to actually find a good, acceptable, virus free, quality copy of the game, movie, music, and even if it takes days to download and set up to watch (those horrible codecs and filters), even if it is missing on features
now imagine something different. imagine that, im able to acquire a game i need for $10. imagine that i can acquire it online at any time, directly download it to my computer in just half an hour. imagine it works regardless of where i put it, without any installation, shitty copy protection, problems, anything. do you think, unless im really in need of cash, AND i have the means to pay that company online through internet without any security/privacy issues, i still would go through the hassle that is pirating ?
i wouldnt. and i dont. and IF i was in desperate need of $10, you wouldnt take my money regardless of the laws or enforcements you might have put out. thats a segment of society that is never going to be able to pay for those, so get charging them out of your mind already.
an excellent example is spore. there was too much hype about the game, and the premise looked good. so, i go, buy it, shelling out $30, thinking it was a game worthy of my cash. i come home, i install the thing, only to discover that it is shitting with my computer, trying to install stuff i do not want on it. i go get a crack for the exe so it wont be disturbing MY property in a way i dont want. i actually, had to, CRACK a game i have PAID for. this is an irony that can kill people.
6 hours of gameplay, another 3 hours of forced gameplay on the weekend, another 4 hours more on sunday, and i decide game wasnt worth either my 30 bucks, or the hassle i went through for the cracking. now i think, if i had known that it was going to be like that beforehand, i wouldnt even take the hassle of pirating and acquiring it through the internet even.
too few are the games im going paying and buying boxed. and they generally happen to be the same software houses' stuff. you know, bioware, blizzard and so on. the companies who actually at least TRY to continue the pre-1995 (advent of the cd) era of innovative, entertaining game developme
Read radical news here
I know there are people like myself who purchase games, don't install them, but do install a downloaded copy that has the DRM restrictions removed. This may or may not be viable with Steam-related DRM, but I'm anti-social enough that online multiplayer doesn't really hold a whole lot of appeal for me. And if I did decide that I absolutely had to play something online, I setup an account just for that game so that I could resell my original copy (with the account info) when I was finished with it.
Some of the copy-protection schemes are also designed to try and kill the secondary ("used games") market off by locking out copies from being reactivated.
The mindset of some of these companies is that a game (or other software) has to generate revenue for them each time it changes hands. In other words, they refuse to accept the "first sale doctrine" at all.
Buying one copy and distributing multiple copies to others is piracy. Uninstalling the thing and giving the disk and key to someone else is not.
It all boils down to greed and control, really.
You'll often hear these companies say something like, "$100 billion is lost to piracy ever year," but when you ask for a source, then cannot provide one. Sure they might say something like "I copied it from XYZ document," but that document doesn't list a source either. It's a factoid that comes from nowhere.
A society that holds itself to embrace science, rationality, and logic should ignore numbers that have no sources. Do not accept numbers that came from no place.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Piracy is the result of human nature: when faced with the option of getting something for free or paying for it, and in the absence of any significant risks, you don't need complex economic studies to show you that most people will opt for the free route."
The article summary includes the following quote, but it doesn't actually seem to be the case if you actually study the issue. In many studies it has been shown that "honor systems" result in fewer thefts than systems where there are technological or potential criminal penalties. In many, many cases building a system of trust and relying upon people's morals and ethics is the most effective solution.
I scanned this article and then gave up because it seemed unoriginal and completely one-sided. If you can't even understand the perspective of people on one side of an issue, how can you rant for so many pages about your perspective on it?
Instead of debating whether or not piracy should be called piracy, how about we discuss that actual issue of how piracy affects games, and what effect DRM has on piracy.
Honestly, I think the solution is to provide benefits to paying for the game. You're not going to stop piracy through DRM. And DRM may chase off paying customers. So about instead of pushing people away, you attract customers with benefits?
For instance, online play that is only accessible to paying customers might convince pirates who downloaded your game to start paying for it.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Try before you buy. Why is it that we have to pay for a game before we play it? Why don't trials or evaluation periods exist for all games like they do for other applications? Don't say short-sighted demos or one-sided reviews do any justice. They don't. The gaming industry has coasted far too long on the "pay first, be disappointed after" system and is in need of an adjustment; this is why piracy is rampant. Why would anyone want to pay for a game not worth the money? Only good game developers that have fulfilled my gaming desires get my money: Blizzard and Valve.
I'm not blindly buying another Hellgate: London.
Keep pirating. Buy the games you like. Let the weak game developers wilt and die. This will only cause the market to shift to the games we truly desire or at least a system that doesn't rob you up front and leave you sore after.
Until people understand basic economics, people will simply conceptualize piracy as stealing from "the Man" or whatever rather than recognizing that it both drives producers out of the market and drives up prices for the paying customers who have to be responsible for recouping the development costs. Undoubtedly a lot of anti-piracy measures taken have only made things worse, but that shouldn't obfuscate the fact that piracy is a huge problem. Unfortunately, the impact of piracy on markets is largely invisible to customers, while the benefits (paying $0 vs. paying the shelf price) are anything but. The post-hoc ethical justifications are particularly disgusting... I really loved the ironic discussion of how file-sharing systems used for free-riding pirates have to deal with their own free-riding issues.
Steal the game, share the game. Not rocket science.
Ohhhhhh crack if needed.
I was contacted by a company the other day and they have a new game called "drone" and they said they would pay me to play it. I could fly a simulated plane in a virtual world and blow stuff up.All I had to do is sign a piece of paper and use their terminals. They said it was as realistic as you could get. I think the game was made by a company called USAF, or something like that. So why use the free version when somebody will pay you to play?
Some binary bits may have been harmed in the production of this comment.
As far as the article, a reasonably priced product will be easier to purchase and an expensive one will be more profitable to pirate. I don't think pirates go after ship loads of potatoes as much as diamonds. I personally find that FOSS games are entertaining enough for me and often educational, and I probably learn more playing with the source than the games themselves.
I bought my first computer in '95. I spent every extra penny I could get on games. I bought them and was happy. I traded my Dune 2 floppies for Civ 1 floppies and then those for something else. It is the trading of games that was big on the minds of anti-piracy corporations. They wanted to stop this. By '97 I was buying two of three new games a month (and so was my roommate). We had well over 100 boxes each.
1997-1999 were great years for gamers. New companies were breaking new ground; big companies were breaking the sound and graphics barriers. I spent thousands of dollars in just a few years supporting the games I loved so much. I still had fresh memories of my first computer game: Eamon. The new sounds and graphics were getting better all the time and game-play was imporving.
Then it all changed. Well, not all, just most. Large firms started to pump out games that were nearly identical. Instead of innovating they just polished. They needed to make money faster. I am all for capitalism (I purchased 1 and 2 ... TY Trevor Chan), but they were making games that had less than two weeks playability. These were not $9.99 games; they were $39.99 and $49.99.
Don't get me wrong there were diamonds in lumps of coal. Small indie dev houses still get my money from time to time. I have purchased EVERY Civ and both Diablos. I have purchased 15 or so MMOs that all were played less than a month. I purchase a lot of games, but I download them first and see if they are worth the $$$ and time. Sadly, most are not. I wish I could find games worth $50.
I am happy and excited when I buy a new game. I love the new challenges and soon to be stories of multi-player action. Many games are made with the 15 minute gamer in mind. They only want to play for 15 furious minutes and then try again. I want to call in to work for two days while I stay up and save the princess.
When devs make decent games .. I buy them, but so many games are crap now-a-days I refuse to buy until I try.
What is needed for culture to evolve and flourish is hat the creatives make a decent living. That does mean enough people have to be willing to pay. For music, this is clearly the case, if you expect "normal" earnings and stipulate reasonable talent. Same for other areas.
For business however, piracy is a problem. Cultural business aims at dominating and creating a mainstream, were a relatively low-quality product is sold in high numbers. People realize the low quality level and are often pirating or not interested at all. Ftom the point of view of evolving culture, the business apporach is very harmful. should it fail permanently and go away, at least todays networked world with very low publishing cost can expetc culture to get richer and more interesting.
Of course the people that get rich on the talent of others will say everything, lie, cheat and steal in order to keep their revenue flowing.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The article is quite biased anti-piracy, pro DRM.
Instead of taking a balanced close look at the causes of piracy the same old (pro-piracy) arguments are assembled into strawmen and then quickly ripped apart. When the focus turns to DRM there is a lot of handwaving and chanting "if I don't want it to be true it will not be".
A shame really.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
Tell people: "If **AA can refer to unauthorized copying as piracy, it should be fine if we refer to the filing of SLAPPs as 'rape'"
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
If they don't want to actually sell the game, then it's a rental or subscription. Ok fine. There should be no buy in cost then. Just pay to play, and call it good.
Frankly, I would be ok with that model. At least it's honest.
This whole buy it, but don't own it, and pay to play it too business has just turned me way off. I don't game much, but for consoles where selling off the titles is still viable, as is playing used. Buying new titles right now just isn't all that appealing. They cost too much, and there are a lot of issues.
Retro gaming is fun. Lots of home brew titles to play, and writing one is doable for the average Joe as well. Much better scene. It's open, no hassles, and if you do pay for stuff, chances are it goes right to the guy that wrote the game, packaged it up and sold the copies! That is actually very cool and important to me. I know somebody somewhere did it for the love of it, put together a nice package, and earned the dollars straight up. No middle men, no hassles, just fun.
I've bought a few home brew titles this year. Paid from $20 to $50. Got great packaging, lots of fun, sent a note to the author sharing how fun it was, and it was just a good experience.
Looking at where major league gaming is right now just sucks. I think I'm tuning out for a while.
Oh, and the home brew keeps a value on par or better than commercial titles. How cool is that?
IMHO, building up this model and encouraging more authors to write and publish direct to their audience can only be a good thing.
Blogging because I can...
I'm sorry, but Titan's Quest had a lot of problems that were not piracy related. Even those with a legitimate copy had severe issues getting the game to play. Trying to cite that as an example for negative perception underscores the fact that the developers, or maybe even the producers, rushed the game out before it had proper QA testing.
Who say it's an option? Sometimes, either (a) the player just doesn't have money or (b) the games are no longer available (like a lot of legendary SNES games).
What is one supposed to do if one cannot afford to buy games? Sit around bored all day? If this player plays a "pirated" game, I would think that nothing is really lost, since the company wouldn't be getting this player's money, anyway.
Or, what about stuff like Final Fantasy VII? There are still people who would pay for that, so why is it no longer available? Or, for that matter, what about Super Mario RPG, or Chrono Trigger, or any other completely legendary game? If these are no longer available, how are people supposed to play them?
What is lost by game companies when the transaction cannot be made? Is it still "piracy" or any form of "theft" or "stealing"?
Sometimes, there is not the "option" to pay for the game. According to the summary, part of the argument against piracy appears to rest on this being an "option". That is just not necessarily the case.
Steam is the only DRM that protects both the digital rights of the publisher, and the digital rights that belong to me.
I don't pirate games much because most of them aren't worth playing past the demo.
But a few years ago I pirated a game. It's name was Deus Ex 2. I love (still) DX1 and it gets replayed every 6 months or so (still waiting for the DX:NV and HDTP to be finished.. drooool)
so DX2 comes out. I'm slavering. Only thing is it isn't supposed to come out for like 2 weeks in the UK. Fuck that I WANT IT NOW! So I download it, intending to buy when released in the UK.
Only I didn't. The game sucked ass. Only about 11 hours of gameplay and crappy tiny maps that fitted into an XBox, which meant running between areas caused map load after map load which in the inital release caused you monitor to switch resolution twice (as well as the pause).
i played it and uninstalled it all before it was released in the UK. (actually I completed it in one day). never bought it, was not worth the £40 or so it cost.
I'm glad in a way I got it pirate before because I didn't loose any money. This is another problem - everything tends to be priced the same whether its a classic or a hum drum wander around shooting things fps (I'm looking at you F.E.A.R)
One more thing. Steam now has pricing in GBP. only its shitloads more than the USD pricing (even given the VAT that would be added on anyway and most people commenting on this forget that).
Its just adding up to not buying many more games - also not pirating any either because they tend to be fairly crap. Bioshock? ooh a brightly lit doom 3. wander, trigger, shoot. Left for dead? Pretty but nothing interesting going on. "here they come!". game randomiser my arse. just randomly placing baddies when there are like 300 a level doesn't really make any odds. thank god for demos.
I got into piracy because as a child i wasn't terribly well off...
If i saved my weekly allowance, it would take me several months to be able to afford a legit game, and i may be able to get one or two at xmas or a birthday.
I started off buying games, quite a few in fact, and i found that a lot didn't live up to the hype, the demos/reviews were often very different from the actual game, like a demo that would include the first level which was quite good, and then the remaining levels were extremely poor and you couldn't save your progress, so you would do the first level, get to the second, die, and have to start again from scratch (the lion king is an example of a game like this)...
So for my stack of 15 or so games, i had 2-3 which were good and got played a lot, and was finding that the newer games performed poorly because my hardware was now out of date... I still had all the advertising hype and peer pressure pushing me to want the new games, but not only could i not afford them but i now couldn't run them adequately either.
So i started pirating games, and spending what little money i had on hardware upgrades. I was better off, i no longer had to be bombarded with commercials for games i couldn't afford to play, which is a very unpleasant feeling for a kid.
I think all the heavy advertising is extremely unpleasant for the poorer kids who cant afford all the latest stuff (not just games, but most things you cant get for free so easily), games are overpriced especially seeing they mostly target kids...
While on the subject, people are always complaining about the level of crime among teenagers and younger kids these days, but is it any wonder why?
When i was that age, the average kid would be walking around with maybe $5 worth of stuff not including clothes, hardly a worthwhile target for robbery... Now, kids have ipods, cellphones and all kinds of other valuables for thieves to target.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Outright lies. After being half way through the second page wall o' text, I did some skimming and found certain things to just not ring true. Quoting 2D boy's erroneous numbers, further more quoting the old erroneous old figure over the newer, lower erroneous old figure? Equating DRM to a door lock? Saying that STEAM doesn't work in offline mode? Citing Titan's Quest when that game didn't work right even if you had the retail version? Figures where there's a lot of "unknowns"?
Sure, copyright infringement, which is what I prefer to call it instead of some term to denigrate people, is indeed a problem. But you know what? There's fuck all you can do about it. You can try to slow down the crackers, but when they get the game two weeks before release, you've already failed. When you purposely put in measures which makes the game crash to piss off pirates, you've also failed. When the game doesn't work at retail, guess what? You've failed again!
I suggest to Slashdotters, who typically don't RTFA, to not read it. It's not worth the time or effort.
First, piracy is NOT "stealing", either ethically or legally. If you think it is, you do not know your history, in particular your legal history. Copyright infringement is quite distinct, legally, from theft, and there are LOTS of good reasons for that.
Second, for the most part, pirates are NOT "taking food from someone else's mouth". There may be exceptions, but in general the gaming industry is making more money now than ever before. There is good reason to argue, in fact, that piracy probably increases sales.
I could go on but I won't bother. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
I call bullshit on this article, from a number of different angles!
One of the biggest reasons is lack of logical coherence. The author cites lots of numbers, but then does not actually put them together in an objective way to actually support his conclusions. In fact, his conclusions appear to be foregone. He seems to have ignored a good body of evidence that would lead to different conclusions.
For one example, he cites an article about game piracy on Macs. The article mentions the "pirate's argument" that it is okay to pirate because that person would not have bought the product anyway, therefore there is no lost sale. However, the article only discusses this topic from the point of view of whether it makes a valid moral or ethical argument.
The cited article (and main article too) ignore that several university studies have in fact shown that somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of piracy occurs when there would not have been a sale anyway. (In most cases because there was insufficient money to purchase the product, but there are several other reasons this occurs.) That may not be a sound ethical argument in favor of piracy, but that is irrelevant. More to the point: it is an economic reality. Economic realities are; they exist. Simply putting them down as unethical is to ignore the actual causes, and possible solutions, for the situation. Further, trying to prosecute -- and especially fine -- people for not buying a product they probably could not afford to buy anyway is completely counterproductive. It offers no societal solutions to the actual problem; it simply fosters fear and antagonism. And backlash, as the RIAA and MPAA are finding out, probably too late to do them much good. They were warned by the society of their customers, but they did not listen.
In another example of faulty logic, the author indulges in the classic logical Post Hoc fallacy argument to conclude that piracy causes DRM, not the other way around. (For those not familiar, this is the argument that because one thing happened after another, the earlier event must have caused the later event. This does not follow: in fact it is just as likely that some third event caused them both.) In particular, he states that a game that was released with no DRM resulted in lots of downloads, then claims that "The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM." When in fact his "evidence" shows nothing of the sort.
As a systems manager and tech (and now Software Engineer) with many years experience, I can testify that there are a great many cases where, in fact, DRM causes piracy. One example is when I worked for an engineering company, which used quite a few proprietary programs for certain involved, specialized calculations. Many of those programs came with various forms of DRM. And I can tell you this in complete honesty: every one of the programs that used DRM failed on us. Almost always at an important point in the project. And I mean that literally: every single one of them failed, without exception. And in every case, the cause of the failure was the DRM. Further, our calls to support for the software were almost always unproductive: "You must not have installed it properly." or "You must have been tampering with the copy protection". Nonsense. We had paid a lot of good money for the software and were not about to treat it so casually.
In such cases, we were forced to either try to break the DRM ourselves, or to try to find a cracked version of the software, just to get the functionality we had already paid for! Which technically made us pirates. But it was DRM that forced us into piracy, not the other way around. Keep in mind that this was specialty software for which there was often no alternative product available. But just FYI, the invariable DRM failures did cause us to look for alternative products. Our official company policy became (this is true): "If there are alternative products available,
When we talk about piracy, we say the desire to get less for more is a moral failing that must be fought and punished. When we talk about the market, this same desire is used as a justification: there's no point fighting human nature. So we have piracy, a practice driven by greed, coming up against a system, the market, also driven by greed. How do we know which greed is good and which one is bad? If this fellow really thinks piracy is human nature, then he should stop trying to fight what can't be changed and instead find a system that works with it. But that rules out moral indignation, and it can be more satisfying to pronounce on good and evil than to seek workable solutions.
Now I don't think satisfying one's greed is admirable, and I'm skeptical of claims for some immutable human nature. Adam Smith argued not for outright greed, but for enlightened self-interest. Too often in this debate, all the enlightenment is expected to be on one side, while all the self-interest is on the other.
Unlike hardware and mechanical devices, software isn't something that can be contained or locked away. Because it must be read into memory before accessing, there is no technical means by which it can be locked away. Furthermore, once software has been developed, there is no limit to the number of copies that can be made for distribution. This is just as true for the developers of software as it is for those who wish to share or even profit from the unlicensed distribution of said software. Further, the cost of duplication is almost negligible as well. All of these factors make software unworthy of being thought of as "a product."
Compare these properties with other things and you will see what the big difference between software and other things for sale really is. And for all of the same reasons why software is unsuitable, music and video are also less suitable.
But the media pushers know this as well as I do. So they attack the problem by trying to change reality. They push for laws to support their business model. They push for equipment manufacturing standards to support their business model. They even damage the media they transmit their data on in order to make its access less available in order to protect their business model. A good business model does not need a great deal of protection if it is good.
Software, music, video and images are not worthy of being packaged because they cannot be easily contained. Copyright was a fair arrangement in the beginning, but it is no longer fair and so it needs to be restored to fairness. And until that happens, this sort of consumer backlash will continue only because it is a part of the human marketplace... not because we are bad people, but because we are people.
It is time for some serious reform.
DRM is what was made to combat pirating. The solution: STOP PIRATING. And that oh-so-awful DRM will disappear. Publishers like EA wouldn't feel like they needed it if there weren't a problem to begin with. This whole arguement is as rediculous as being upset when a store decides to put an anti-theft tag on a shirt. If you don't play games all that often, then you probably don't mind waiting a few years for the price to drop to $10 or $20. If you just think that $50 is too much to spend on a game, then tough. Look at your expenses and find a way to make it happen, or find another hobby. But if you can afford to maintain a computer that can run the latest $50 games, then some disposable income, in the amount of hundreds, is clearly available to you. The real issue is the disassociation with what one is actually doing when pirating. It's stealing, plain and simple. The only difference is that instead of pocketing the toy and leaving the store, running the risk of being caught, you click the button and it's done. Stop cheating and they won't have to assume that everyone is cheating.
Software is no different from a piece of music: both are written works that achieve a desired (pleasant, we hope) effect.
Do you not think artists should get paid?
The fact is that allowing original works (stories, music, paintings, photography, software, sculpture, inventions, etc.) to fall directly into the public hands, without reward to the creator, DISCOURAGES the creation of said original works. And as a result, people do not create them. We know this, because it is a fact that history has demonstrated over and over again.
That is the REASON that copyrights were implemented in the first place! To ENCOURAGE innovation and the arts, by allowing the creators (for a limited time) to profit from their works. When this period is truly limited (like the original 15 or 17 years), this also benefits the public -- which was the whole intent -- because then the art or invention gets into public hands and benefits everybody.
Unfortunately, greedy people got the period for copyrights extended to 50 and even more years, which is NOT in the interest of the public good. And in such cases, people lose respect for the law and just pirate the goods anyway. (That is an oversimplification but that *is* one reason.)
Just because such original works are in a different physical category than other works, that does not make them "not worthy"! A reasonable copyright system benefits the public a great deal, not just the creators of the works.
Unfortunately, our copyright laws have ceased to be reasonable. Blame the corporations, because they are the ones directly responsible for this. But do not blame the works themselves, or their nature. That is false logic.
After reading all of these comments it makes me wonder if any of you actually READ the entire article.
So because it was "human nature" that slaves would just naturally not want to be slaves, you think you can denigrate the struggle for abolition as "a farce?".
Nice logic, asshole. Having something to gain does not somehow magically de-legitimize struggles for justice.
I know I'm one of the few that actually did, and trust me 95% of the time I don't but for anyone else who did, Anyone else think it's to much of an indictment against pirates and not enough against DRM?
The best piece of crapware I will (never) read. Ever.
Piracy is no less ethical than the very deliberate efforts of corporate executives and other "entrepreneurs" to manipulate, mis-educate, misinform, and generally disadvantage large groups of people to disproportionately benefit themselves. The only reason that the one activity (piracy) is illegal and the others aren't is because it's yet another successful example of that manipulation. The "victors" not only write the histories, they also write the laws, not only including laws that benefit them but also excluding laws that would lessen their advantages over others.
It is this dynamic that drives some people to consider variations of socialism as an altruistic solution (never mind that socialism can't work as long as such people exist at all). In pure Darwinian terms, though, none of those activities would be unethical; any old trickery is fine if it gets the job done. That's "competition" in its purest form. "Cooperation", however, demands an artificial ethical framework not found in nature; Capitalists, Libertarians, and Socialists disagree on how much cooperation to legislate into a system of ethics, and so we have much infighting and a mish-mash of laws that winds up benefitting the very wealthy just a bit more than it does the rest of us.
They will stop calling it piracy when the gamer geek is willing to settle for less than the production values of a $150 million dollar theatrical feature and the game play of Grand Theft Auto.
Art is a labor of love. Love does not require profit, and an entire industry that puts its entire weight behind commercial success and greed can only do harm to one of the arts that I love.
May they crash and burn. I really do mean that. I'd rather have ad-hoc groups of 5 or so people who really love the labor they put their time into.
The entire games industry was born out of this love, this passion. It's disappeared from big companies. People who once sat in their rooms hacking assembly on ancient machines, out of passion, are now being exploited into grinding their lives away on a schedule, their creativity mostly ignored in favor of a few elite designers' "market-proven talent".
Bring back the love. Bring back the passion.
You really should have finished reading what I wrote before you commented. You would have found that we are in nearly complete agreement. I stated that the original copyright agreement was reasonable at first. It stopped being reasonable and that is where the real trouble begins. Ultimately, the virtually unlimited copyright law as it exists today not only allows copyright holders to control access, but limit access and even remove access to the works in question. Disney would seek to lock up any of their works indefinitely forever removing the copright holder's side of the bargain. And even now countless works have been lost forever due to these practices. The "giving back to the public" stopped happening and when that happened, all other agreements are off as far as I am concerned.
Yes, artists deserve their pay -- they rarely get it. Programmers are artists too... and they DON'T get a cut of the copyright do they? Not usually. So the real question to ask is whether or not the people COLLECTING the money and keeping it deserve their pay? I say no. They don't. Not after their reasonable time has expired. And in software terms, "reasonable" is a lot less than 10 years... possibly less than 7... but at least 5 years.
Moral values are the ones that _don't_ go out the window when you think you won't get caught.
Do you not think artists should get paid?
Yes.
The fact is that allowing original works (stories, music, paintings, photography, software, sculpture, inventions, etc.) to fall directly into the public hands, without reward to the creator, DISCOURAGES the creation of said original works.
Disagree. People create works of art not to get paid but for sheer fun of it. Paying them for it would help them focus on it though.
IMO even government support will be better that current perverse copyright-based system. Restricting access to such immaterial and easily duplicable things is silly.
Why do people always drag in these asinine "but, technically, it isn't stealing! Here's what stealing is, and I'll be quoting from Webster's 4th revision of the 1986 dictionary" arguments? Redefining the terms does not change what the activity is: obtaining something in a way that is against the wishes of the people creating it, and violating their contract of sale. Don't hide behind a veil of semantics to try to justify this. The item that you are pirating has some sort of price that has been set on the market. What you think it should be is entirely irrelevant: you are not paying that price because you want it for free. The creators of the work are not receiving the compensation that they asked for.
I have but one question for the pirates: how does this not make you an asshole? Can you see past your own self-entitlement complex and realize that your actions have an effect on other people? That the world isn't something you exploit to get ahead?
Also, as for your gaming industry comment, well, I'll quote a few people:
"It's crazy how the ratio between sales to piracy is probably 1 to 15 to 1 to 20 right now." - Cevat Yerli (source)
"Piracy has pushed id as being multiplatform" stated Hollenshead [id's CEO] (source)
Comments made by Epic's Capps carried a similar tone. "PC gaming is really falling apart," he revealed. "It killed us to make Unreal Tournament 3 cross-platform, but Epic had to do it," adding "the market that would buy a $600 video card knows how Bittorrent works." (source)
Really, the most hilarious thing is that I know there is some subset of people out there who see their own piracy as acceptable, yet are infuriated by GPL violations.
Agree with the above poster. The article is a classic example of tendentious writing. It wouldn't stand even the most basic requirements for an entry level university essay.
:rolleyes:
It is written arrogantly and from an pro-industry perspective. Point by point, it consistently takes sides but continuously claims it is not doing so. There is no underlying theory or methodology other than "examine every aspect of game piracy".
1) The article starts with the author claiming neutrality and utter non-bias
2) The article seems to have been laid out beforehand, written as intended and fleshed out with quotes and references where found as supporting his theses
3) Sources are quotes selectively to further his preconceived conclusions
4) Alternative interpretations are ignored or dismissed
5) There is no source criticism
6) Frequent hand waving and usage of weasel words 7) Interjected unsubstantiated strong conclusions, as "The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM."
Also, you gotta love an author who writes a long article, POS as it is, proves a "printable" link, which takes you to a page which says "if you want to print it, print each page, schmuck".
That article claims that consoles are seeing higher sales primarily because of lower piracy. That should mean that the difference is reduced or eliminated for games that can't effectively be pirated - the ones with peripherals like Guitar Hero. So did the PC release of any of the Guitar Hero games do better that expected relative to other games? If not (and I'm pretty sure it did not) then it indicates that other factors are at least as important.
Securom
Starforce
WGA
The wtf part
wtf?
Hell yeah it does. Ok, so you are trying to say this won't satisfy all parties... The only party I can so far think that would not be satisfied is a bunch of corporate leeches that actually think DRM is fine and costumers must give up all their rights, well, how about we just throw them to hell or something like that?
Ad Logicam strikes back
The Cherry on top
Of course, copyright infringement is 'bad'... However, it does not justify DRM, no it doesn't. DRM is neither necessary to "protect" investments nor effective against piracy. The WGA part was later laughable "This proves DRM works because Microsoft keeps using WGA" Let's forget about the fact MS has been attempting to make WGA stronger and more annoyingly in every release, people do get annoyed from it, many people I know in this country moved from MSN messenger to pidgin thanks to MS' silly attempt at controlling piracy.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
I haven't the article, but man am I tired of here slashdotters get side-tracked and make muddying, confused arguments.
Things that really should be debated (with several different, valid perspectives.)
1. Should IP be protected at all? (I expect even many of the pro-piracy group would support some level of IP protection)
2. How long should the protection be for (plenty of support here for shorter terms, but how many people are *honestly* saying they feel 0 years is appropriate?
3. Is DRM effective in limiting piracy (probably not very, but again open to rational, unemotional debate supported by facts and logic)
4. Is the production and distribution model efficient? (can of worms)
5. Should doctrine of first sale apply (I really don't think this is a core issue, but that's a personal perspective. I suspect the sale of second-hand games would not be a deal breaker to either side in the debate. There are different views, but I dont think it's core to most piracy.)
Things thatI feel are a distraction from the real issues above.
1. Prices are too high. If prices were lower we wouldn't pirate. Nothing in a free market system implies you need to like the price. How many of us own aston martins? Mercedes? How many would buy them if they cost $500? IF we accept the right to control IP for a certain amount of time (even if it is only 3 months!) then the price we are asked to pay is not an argument to pirate. One reason demand curves are downward sloping is because as the price of a good decreases, more people demand it. There are innumerable markets where some people do not purchase because they value the good at less than the value to the producer. Similarly, there are many purchasers who pay less for the good than they would be prepared to. How come nobody complains that people who would be happy to pay $100 for a $50 game only pay $50?
2. Not every pirated game is a lost sale. I'd agree with this. So what? IF we agree with IP, then the owner gets to control it. Further, some people who pirate games might otherwise purchase games (maybe a smaller number of games). To say that no revenue is lost (does anybody actually say that?) is disingenuous.
3. Piracy isn't theft. OK fine. So what? This may reflect on appropriate punishment, but is not in itself permission to pirate.
4. RIAA is evil. You know, some of the guys are probably quite nice and have families and stuff. Maybe they are still evil. So what? This is a separate issue, and probably one that should be dealt with. However, it is not sufficient to say piracy is Good.
5. Piracy doesn't leave the producer worse off because they can still sell the product. It hasn't been stolen like a car. Erm, sorry, no. To repeat, some pirates might otherwise have bought more games than they would if they could pirate. So there is a cost. Taken to the extreme, if piracy is ok, why shouldn't everyone pirate? If everyone pirates, then where is the incentive to produce. We can't have a system that fails when everyone does the "smart" thing. Ok, that last sentence may have been an opinion, but I think it sounds fair?
6. Pirated games are more useful than DRMd games. This statement is probably quite often true. Good for you. Relevance? If you don't like the game with the DRM, don't buy the game with the DRM (stay with me here, you don't HAVE to copy it either). If you don't like that the chocolate bar has nuts in it, don't buy it. Free market = nobody forces you to buy and nobody forces someone to make a product you like. Hopefully, if enough people dislike DRM and don't buy it (and don't pirate it... seriously, pay attention) then the producers will realise DRM = bad.
7. The games suck. How will I know if I like it before I buy it? Nobody forces you to buy it. Games are not a fundamental human right. Don't get me wrong, I think it's horrendous that companies release crap, buggy games. 100% not relevant to whether it is morally wrong to pirate the game.
Ok, I've only touched on a few. There are more. There is plenty to discuss. Good, solid,
The real issue is that someone at the game companies saw dollar signs. Just like the music industry. "x *illion dollars lost to piracy" yeah... thing is... I don't think that money was lost. I remember a lot of people I knew growing up would copy music or pirate games... IF THEY WEREN'T THAT INTERESTED IN BUYING IT TO BEGIN WITH. If they really wanted it they bought it. If it was a type of music or game they wouldn't normally buy but the advertising caught their eye they would pirate it. Oddly, as I remember, that generated a LOT of sales. 4+ extra purchases per year by almost every person I knew who pirated. Yeah, they also didn't buy a lot of games but those were games they never would have bought as well. Some people won't buy a sports/action/strategy/rpg/puzzle/whatever game... Unless they discover they actually like it.
I do know this. My purchasing habits changed drastically over the years. I used to buy a moderate amount of music, and a lot of games... Now, I buy NO music. I won't even turn on the radio to a station other then NPR I'm so disgusted with the music industry. I'm beginning to feel the same about gaming companies. There are enough good free (OS, Advert supported, etc) games out there that I'm not really feeling the pain as my commercial purchases drop off... again, because I'm disgusted by the companies... although I do remember a couple recent purchases... from companies that openly oppose DRM in their games and refuse to resort to the Russian protection racket that is StarForce.
All said... I guess I'm part of the problem. I'm so disgusted with the industries that I don't even bother to buy games/music/movies anymore. I don't pirate either. I just do without... That's a big loss of sales for these companies. 5-10 music items, 10+ games, 2-3 movies per year. 1 less person listening to the radio and 1 less person going to the theatres. and I know I can't be the only one feeling like this.
Maybe once the entertainment industry collapses in on it's own greed the next batch to come along will have a little respect for their customers and realise that treating everyone like criminals only make matters worse.
I am not supporting the ethics of the self-justification that was used by the student in the example. I am merely asserting its reality: most piracy occurs when there would not have been a sale anyway.
Why are you making a big deal out of something that wasn't even in the discussion? Whether it is ETHICAL or not was NOT the topic of discussion, and I never stated that it was! It was whether piracy is stealing. It is NOT. And it is not for a lot of very practical reasons, not some "technicality". Go get a law book and learn something. Or at least stop changing the subject and berating people for not saying things that were not even part of the conversation!
and there must be a misunderstanding, probably over the phrase "not worthy". I thought you meant something that apparently you did not.
I do agree with most of what you say here, and would add that in fact Disney was one of the corporations that were instrumental in getting copyrights extended to such a ridiculous degree. Michael Eisner was in charge then, and a bunch of Disney copyrights were in danger of expiration and falling into the public domain. Eisner was not about to let that happen.
"It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is not like ordinary property at all, but constitutes a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty."
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm
Fear is the mind-killer.
I am obligated to "read directly" from a law book because you say so? I don't think it works that way.
But as for the reasons you mention, I will give you one freebie:
The law generally considers copyright infringement to be different and distinct from theft, in part because theft deprives a party of ownership and use of property. Copyright infringement does not deprive the owner of the ownership or use of the original product; therefore they are fundamentally different.
Do not take personally my reluctance to elaborate on this; it is just that I have explained this and other related concepts seemingly endlessly, in many discussions of copyright here on Slashdot, and I tire of repeating myself.
I bought pokemon yellow, and after years of just playing that game like mad, it eventually just wore out (if I move it, it deletes the save data, which is pretty awesome, but annoying if I ever decide to put down my gameboy color after playing). Well, deciding for nostalgia purposes that I wanted to play again, I downloaded it. After some time of playing it, I decided that I liked it enough to buy a hard copy that worked, and go play me some Pokemon Stadium.
Going by the flimsy 'law' of piracy = downloading any game/music for free that could be sold for money elsewhere is evil, I should be fined a large amount (despite buying the game -twice-) for daring to download the game and steal money from Nintendo (the chances of finding a brand new Pokemon Yellow that would fork over a profit to Nintendo in any way is slim to none; most stores sell 'em used).
Piracy would also be, apparently, when you decide to give your game to a friend once you are done. They didn't pay, after all. Or how about the fact that me and my friend share the same Sims 2 copy, even though we both bought expansion packs to add on to the game (and my friend bought the Sims 2 that we share)?
Yeah, screw this -gets out 'game design for retards' book-. Get back to me in 5 years, I'll be the moron trying to sell DRM-free games for $30.
One meaning to to steal or commandeer at sea (or air), another is to illegally copy published material.
Get over it, it is just a word. It wasn't my choice to call it that: I would have just settled for "stealing."
Now, back to the topic at hand....
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
The article casually makes mention that the PlayStation was widely pirated, while the N64 wasn't. But... the playstation totally KILLED the N64 in sales.
Also, nintendo ds software is very widely pirated, and it's extremely easy to do. Yet the DS is one of the most popular platforms ever, and many companies feel so confident that they can make a profit that there are countless crappy shovelware titles on the system.
Why is copyright necessary? Why can't all information just be distributed without restriction? Copyright falls under the banner of a range of laws controversially referred to as Intellectual Property laws. The aim is to provide intellectual property a similar type of protection as that afforded to physical property. For example, whether you spend your life building houses or writing books, you should be equally entitled to reap the rewards of your labors and have the same sorts of legal protections against people seeking to unfairly benefit from your work without contributing appropriately towards it. It's argued that without protection against such theft, both the builders of houses and the authors of books would have much less incentive to invest their time and money into their respective outputs, particularly because they would stand little chance of earning appropriate income from their work.
"have the same sorts of legal protections" - This i don't have a problem with... The problem is profiteering, when people will produce something once and then produce infinite copies of it for virtually nothing. Someone who builds houses can sell each house they've built once, and then have to go to the same time and effort to build another one. If they stop building houses, they no longer have any houses to sell and stop making any money.
The two things are completely different, and thus should not be afforded the same level of legal protection at all. It sickens me to see greedy people continue deriving revenue from something they did many years ago, and for that matter deriving obscene levels of short term profit.
There should be a cap on the level of profit, after which copyright should lapse... What makes these people so special that they can work for a year or two and then have a life of luxury while the rest of us have to work for 50+ years.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
From TFA:
So really, all locks and keys do 99% of the time is present a constant inconvenience for legitimate users. If we lose them, we're locked out of our own houses or cars. Yet strangely enough, you won't find a groundswell of popular opinion stating firmly around the Internet that "door locks don't work!" and demanding that everyone remove them because of the inherent inconvenience that they impose. Why is that? Probably because everyone is the owner of physical property of some kind, and is willing to endure the constant inconvenience of various locks and keys in their daily lives in the hopes of protecting that property from potential theft, even if in reality it actually provides them with no real protection against most thieves.
If I have a lock on my door, it only inconveniences ME (the owner) and the thieves. Now if I want at least some protection from thieves with added inconvenience to ME, it is my right. The lock on MY door will not inconvenience YOU (if you are not a thief).
DRM inconveniences CUSTOMERS and not the OWNER (the company which made the game).
Now, you know that stores use video surveillance and those detectors near the doors that beep if you have something stolen. Those measures are relatively not intrusive, but do not eliminate shoplifting 100%. Suppose a store decides to really eliminate shoplifting - by having every person leaving the building stripsearched. How many customers would that store have?
1. Should IP be protected at all? (I expect even many of the pro-piracy group would support some level of IP protection)
yes, but it shouldn't be treated like physical property... it is not physical property and pretending like it is, is just stupid... the protection should be extremely limited with an aim to ensure a producer gets a short term benefit relative to the effort they invested, just like if they were working a normal job.
2. How long should the protection be for (plenty of support here for shorter terms, but how many people are *honestly* saying they feel 0 years is appropriate?
It should definitely be much shorter, especially in the modern world where things become obsolete so quickly... as it stands, lots of software ends up being lost or completely unobtainable because its no longer profitable but also not legal for third parties to distribute... having a shorter term should also serve to stop profiteering, where someone earns a completely disproportionate amount of money relative to the amount of work they did, i dont think anyone should have the right to continue profiting from work they did years ago, you lazy arrogant assholes get off your ass and actually earn some money.
7. The games suck. How will I know if I like it before I buy it? Nobody forces you to buy it. Games are not a fundamental human right. Don't get me wrong, I think it's horrendous that companies release crap, buggy games. 100% not relevant to whether it is morally wrong to pirate the game.
If people knew a game sucked beforehand they would never buy it... but how are you meant to find out if a game is lousy without buying it? demos are often very different from the final game (like a demo will have a good level, the full game has 20 more crap levels) and you don't get bad reviews anymore because all the reviewers are bribed or coerced by the big publishers... magazines and websites doing game reviews get the games for free to review, and a good portion of their revenue comes from advertisements... if they publish a good review then the freebies continue, the publishers buy advertisements in publications who give them good reviews and they may get other kickbacks (read: bribes)... but if they print bad reviews, then the advertisements will dry up, the freebies will dry up meaning they have to buy everything they review further increasing their costs, and they stop getting bribes... an unfavorable review can easily kill a game review publication.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Starforce was hated because it would force CD-ROM drives to go into PIO mode, which in long periods of time, can damage the drive. It has been documented by a number of people who fixed their suddenly-slow CD-ROM drives by removing Starforce.
I don't care if Daemon Tools or Alcohol is considered a 'rootkit' in definition.....at least they don't install drivers to obstruct my use of a certain piece of legit software.
real dickmove there, tweakguide.
Now if only someone was allowed to present such a sane argument about music piracy on Slashdot, I would think people might have finally actually grown up.
Fat chance, tho.
Suffice to say that I think your "I was poor" argument is, well, fairly poor.. especially nowadays with a plethora of free (beer / speech / etc.) games available, but even in the end of the 80's; I remember buying BBC Micro magazine and typing in listings of games from the magazine - for free (yes, that's source code right there) - such as Clogger. The magazines were cheap, even with them having to be imported out of the UK, easily afforded by not spending allowance money on, say, candy... beer... cigarettes and a ton of other things other kids my age were spending -their- money on.
However, your remaining arguments are very, very valid. Demos are supposed to be representative, but often they are not (Breed, Half-Life (yes, Half-Life was awesome, but I dare say the demo level was a notch above the rest of the game). Granted, reading around for reviews helps a bit in overcoming the shock of a full game not living up to the demo as the reviewer is likely to point this out - but reading another's review does not give -you- a full evaluation of the product.
Of course there's very few products where you can get a full evaluation before paying; short of the situation of eating at a restaurant, you most usually pay up front and then get to 'evaluate' the product afterwards.. if you don't like it, you can usually return it, but sometimes not. I know that games make 'returning the item' difficult if not impossible, so let me get off this tangent right quick and get back to the prior paragraph..
So given that the only way to fully evaluate a game is to essentially fully play the game, I agree that a pirated copy works wonders for it. Won't work with online games - and those are becoming the norm - but for single player games or games that you can still play on your own servers, it's a perfect solution (for you, not for the developer/distributor).
But the question is.. now that you have this available to you, and you evaluate a game, and presumably you enjoyed the game (if you don't, I fully suspect that you'd delete it without another thought)... then what happens? Do you go out and buy the game at full price? Do you decide that it isn't quite worth the full $40, and wait for a few weeks for it to be discounted to $20? Do you wait even longer and wait for it to be in the $5 bargain bin? Or do you simply say to yourself "well I'm already playing the game for free - what's in it for me if I go and spend anything on it at all? Warm fuzzy feeling inside? ha."
My warm fuzzy feeling inside makes me hope it's one of the first few options.. the reality around me is that by far the majority of those who would pirate games go with the last option.
The author mistakenly thinks that the TPB's infrastructure must not cost a lot simply because the website is spartan. The Pirate Bay is a tracker, and the author should look into what a bittorrent tracker does, and then multiply that by the millions of people that visit TPB each hour.
Whenever I see one of these articles I always wish for the ability to post images.
Or more accurately a supply/demand curve. (I'm going to use some slight inaccuracies to make a point)
If the price-point is ZERO then demand is essentially infinite.
Piracy is merely an example of this.
If the movie I want cost $5 I will buy it, and so will a couple of 100K people. If it cost $50 I won't. Same bloody thing. Just because something is pirated doesn't mean a sale is lost.
pal, terror, despite being termed recently, has long been around. how do you think mongols conquered entire asia except india into the east europe ? read. horrible history.
Read radical news here
Plumber, eh?
That sounds like a good idea for a game...
Water is free, but companies charge for it...does that mean i'm stealing if i drink the same water out of a clean stream even though a company processes that water and sells it? Many people play video games that others have bought and never pay a dime...they play for free. The same is true of data available on the internet or via bittorrent. Just because I play a game for free that someone is selling doesn't mean I've violated a moral code. Furthermore, the more disturbing trend is the idea that just because a company has made a product they morally deserve to get paid for it. If i play a friend's game that he rented for a dollar. I played for free. If i download the same game I played for free. Why is one less moral than the other simply because in case A. the company got money? Deserving is subjective and there is no metric by which to measure deservedness. Just because you make a product doesn't mean you DESERVE to get paid for that product. Especially if that product is nothing but positive and negative charged ions on MY computer hardware. Claiming loss from computer "piracy" is a universal negative that can never be proven. Just because I didn't buy your product doesn't mean you lost anything...you didn't I just didn't buy it. Whether or not I play it anyway is irrelevant. By the author's logic you're stealing from the water company every time you drink from a stream. You're stealing from a car company every time you walk. Don't you know that people PAY to transport themselves? YOu're stealing right now because you didn't PAY FOR THAT LIBRARY'S INTERNET CONNECTION! Don't you know that companies charge for internet access?!?! If we learned anything from Enron it is that companies and morality can be (and usually are) mutually exclusive.
TAG:STOPCALLINGITPIRACY.
Yup we should start calling it "Copyright Infringement" so we can come up with even better excuses than before.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
because THAT WAS NOT THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION.
Now, if the topic of discussion had been whether it was ethical to pirate software or other products, I would probably have been on your side. But it wasn't. Instead, I was basically accused of defending assholes, simply because I was explaining that there was a difference. And I found that to be rather... irritating, let's say, because I was not in fact defending pirates. I was simply trying to educate people.
i think companies need to get with the times and start using alternative business models. without popularity, your company will never get off the ground. so make a game like starcraft, have millions of players even after 11 years, free internet game access (battle.net), and then go on to create more innovative games for pay. http://www.3v3bgh.com/
Here's a few gems as I struggle through:
Just as the printing press brought about a whole new set of problems with regards to unauthorized duplication, the Internet has similarly required specific measures designed to address the new possibilities for piracy it opens up.
Not necessarily. Anyone remember the videocassette?
Every new invention, including the printing press, has been fought by exactly the industries which stand to gain the most from it, if only they are willing to change. And when that change inevitably comes, they find themselves even richer than before.
The important difference between digital piracy and the types of copyright infringement that came before it - such as taping songs off the radio - is that digital piracy allows perfect reproduction with no quality loss.
Burning CDs allow perfect reproduction with no quality loss. The music industry fought burning CDs. They ended up making money by selling media and burners -- at least, Sony did -- and they continued to make money selling CDs and concert tickets.
And so it is with the Internet. Their costs of reproduction are pretty much nil, even costs of a live broadcast are much smaller, and it's that much easier for the fans to connect, as well. It is their greatest opportunity yet. But they are fighting it, and that is why they're failing.
The aim is to provide intellectual property a similar type of protection as that afforded to physical property.
*head asplodes*
Physical property, when taken, must be replaced. It is real, and can be possessed. It operates under fundamentally different rules.
And when you factor in DRM, you find that they are not trying to protect intellectual property. They're trying to take away what you assumed to be your physical property -- your CDs, DVDs, etc -- and ensure that you are, in fact, only renting.
For example, whether you spend your life building houses or writing books, you should be equally entitled to reap the rewards of your labors
Indeed -- so find a system that actually parallels them.
If I build a house, I can't then replicate it into thousands of identical houses for a fraction of a cent each, and then sell them for a profit. And I'm sorry, but that model is ending for other media, as well.
The successful artists are getting paid like the housebuilders -- for actual work. That is, if you're a musician, sure, print a CD, but it is a promotional material -- let people pirate it. Your product is your tour.
Without copyright laws the GPL couldn't operate, because it's through the rights that are enforceable under copyright law that the Linux movement can place terms and conditions on their licensing arrangement in the first place. Without copyright, the default and only possible distribution method for anything everywhere would be via the public domain
I'm sure that many GPL advocates would be perfectly happy with that situation. After all, the primary evil of proprietary software is that it discourages sharing.
Disclaimer: I don't actually think it's evil, and I do develop proprietary software.
The argument is straightforward and both intuitively and logically sound: for every pirated copy of a product, there is some potential loss of income to the producer of that product.
The arguments put forth here universally center around the loss piracy causes.
What they completely ignore is the potential gain. Piracy demonstrates a much more effective method of distribution -- I'm at a loss as to why I can't legally obtain TV shows or movies via BitTorrent. It is also free advertising -- a pirate may eventually buy the game, and if the pirated version is at all good, they may in fact convince others that it's worth playing.
It also increases awareness of the game and the brand, something which might otherwise be done with expen
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
When I was young I used to wait
On master and hand him his plate
Pass him the bottle when he got dry
And brush away the blue-tail fly
Chorus
Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care
Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care
Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care
My master's gone away
When he would ride in the afternoon
I'd follow him with my hickory broom
The pony being rather shy
When bitten by the blue-tail fly
Chorus
One day he rode around the farm
Flies so numerous that they did swarm
One chanced to bite him on the thigh
The devil take the blue-tail fly
Chorus
Well the pony jumped, he start, he pitch
He threw my master in the ditch
He died and the jury wondered why
The verdict was the blue-tail fly
Chorus
Now he lies beneath the 'simmon tree
His epitaph is there to see
"Beneath this stone I'm forced to lie
The victim of the blue-tail fly"
From TFA:
The aim [of IP law] is to provide intellectual property a similar type of protection as that afforded to physical property.
This would be nice if it were true in the slightest. The stated aim of copyright in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
...and the term "Intellectual Property" didn't exist in the 18th C, sparky. Wiki says 1967 was when it was first coined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
Seriously, this guy spent paragraphs assuring us that he spent time, researched, and can back up what he says with more than just hearsay, and then provides the most commonly regurgitated piece of hearsay, the granddaddy of all industry lies regarding copyright, shortly thereafter.
He's got delusions of competency on the subject matter, on his research skills, and on his writing ability. FAIL.
P.S.: WTF is the "Linux Movement?" Does he mean the FOSS movement? Do we need to change GNU to GNLED? (Gnu's NOT Linux Either, Dumbass)
Could we read the f-ing article before posting a bunch of incompetently written, factually inaccurate crap as "News for Nerds?"
--
Toro
If I labeled chocolate ice cream on a menu horseshit, would you really find it as appetizing as if it wasn't?
AtariAge is a good start.
http://www.atariage.com/
You can also find stuff for other systems at their hubs. lemon64.com would be one such hub for the C64.
The fun thing is that older systems really do have some excellent capabilities. Here we are up to 30 years later, seeing new ways of doing things still happening. And since there are significant limitations, there is a lot of room for the simple game art to show. Last year, there were at least 10 commercial quality titles release for the old Atari 2600. All can be played in emulation.
The Atari 8 bitters saw many titles, and this being one excellent one: http://yoomp.atari.pl/
Here's a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNxICcU3bPo
Go find an emulator, and load up some great retro stuff!
I find the progression of graphics tricks, new game play mechanics, controllers and such just as entertaining as I do the progression of serious graphics engines and such on the modern systems.
The difference is, I can literally e-mail the authors of YOOMP! and congratulate them, buy a cart (if they produce one, some don't!), and ask, "how the hell?" and get some kind of an answer!
This year is was weak, but I also enjoy the mini-game compo. Google 2008 mini-game compo for the links to the site. There are vote packs where emulators games and instructions are stored for voting. This is an online version of writing cool games for one another in high-school. I participated in one of these for the 2600, got 11th place and had a blast! Mine was OOZE! and I think it was 2006.
For me, it's Atari stuff more than anything else, because it's what I like as a kid, so it carries over for me. New people show up all the time though. I see them run emulators, then get real gear, then some of them author, the rest just play and sometimes buy. A good author can make a coupla grand with a well realized production, and quality packaging. It's enough to make it fun and rewarding.
You can find scenes for Dreamcast, NES, ColecoVision and others.
Have fun! I do.
Blogging because I can...
scene on micro controllers. The Parallax Propeller is a very capable chip. It's inexpensive too. I've a coupla development board setups, and can run lots of titles, and there are some in the queue. Most of the code is open, meaning you can tweak, learn, build and just have fun with it.
http://wikispaces.propeller.com/
Blogging because I can...
All they would have to do is package the game with a tee shirt or something really cool for less than 30 bucks
He didn't go deep enough into the history of copyright to understand what copyright is really for. The original purpose of copyright has been so distorted by the lobbying and propagandizing power of various industries, that most lawmakers don't even know what it's really for. Everyone thinks, like this article's writer that it's to give "property rights" to content creators, so that they can protect their "intellectual property." What it's really therefore is to encourage the creation of creative works for the benefit of the greater good of the people (the greater good of the people should be behind all laws in a supposed democracy right?). It's purpose is to enrich a very important and undervalued concept called "the public domain." The temporary monopoly, is an incentive to content creators to create works which will ultimately enrich the public domain, at least in theory. The Public Domain has been completely destroyed by this process of lobbying and propagandizing corporate desires into legislation. Much of the significant creative work of the past century is caught up in it, even if it's not available to the public (this is more common than you might think.) So, let's always remember that the people in general are a much larger and more important group than the content creators. Copyright is a privilege granted by the people. The fact that "right" is part of the word I think is a bit misleading. It's not an inalienable right like life and liberty, as many people, this author included seem to not understand.
gave it a shot. facts and opinions are not clearly provided and references are largely not from credentialed literature (such as research journals).
I don't trust this article. Will not finish reading.
The author made a very convincing case and it is apparent by most of the comments here that no one read anything.
Almost all your points against him are refuted by FACTS in his article. Yet you continue to spout the same objections:
"If it was cheaper I wouldn't pirate it" -not true, proof in article
"It's my right to own the game" -which you bought for $50 and they spent $50 million on
"DRM doesn't work and chases people away" - For every person it chases away, 5 more people buy it because of the inconvenience of pirating
If you did, you would probably find that it pays better to be a plumber than to be a software developer. Plumbers also usually have reasonable working hours.
Sorry, but "potential income" != income.
Every person on earth could "potentially" buy my new tennis shoe line, but if they don't, or if they buy a competing line, they're not "stealing" from me. (don't compare it to shoplifting, copying does not deprive the originator of inventory).
Additionally, those people consider the price too high. Since they've already optimized the price, they're not going to lower it. That is their problem, not a problem of piracy. They didn't implement differential pricing, and probably never will because of all the backlash it would cause by the people who pay "regular" price.
It's quite simple. Pirated copy or not, they would not have bought the game. To them, the convenience to price ratio is not good enough.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The OP suggests that "most people will opt for the free route" simply because the product is free. I would argue that due to overly restrictive DRM, people prefer the free route because "hacked" or pirated products are better.
This is the case for me (though the fact these mega-glomerates are in a vast conspiracy against a neutral internet and strangling the tech sector also helps a lot).
"rips" are DRM free, about 4 to 10 times more storage efficient, play anywhere without issues, and, freed from a disk, don't MURDER my laptop's battery life.
DVDs may be too mangled by DRM to back up, even with ripping tools.
Both DVD and Blu-Ray will eat a laptop battery faster than pirana on a fresh carcass.
Then there's the atrocity that is blu-ray. "Down-resing" and blacking people's screen? Raising the cost of our hardware considerably by using MS to dictate ludicrous hardware requirements? Destabilizing drivers and operating systems by making them incredibly difficult to write?
Steve jobs alluded to this in his statement on why mac has been slow to integrate blu-ray, albeit with a great deal more civility than anyone who has fallen victim to this scheme would be.
Pirated products are the better choice, and I have absolutely no sympathy for these companies when a few teenagers in their basements can encode their movies four times more efficiently while maintaining the same quality.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Ultimately companies must realize that copying games without paying for them is going to continue irrespective of any technological advance companies make, because ultimately the same developers who produce these advances also hate the companies they work for.
1) Let the gamers download the game from any place. Rapidshare, torrent, etc. In fact it reduces the cost of hosting for the game company.
2) Let the buyer pay and get a key to unlock the Game completely. (I pirated Red Alert 3 because it was NOT available on my home country. It still is not.)
3) Avoid modifying OS files. Its the gamer's computer and if you have to secure your game only by trashing the gamer's PC, then your game will definitely be "modified." Just like you don;t like your game to be modified without your permission, so does the gamer does not like his PC to be modified without his permission.
4) Try to support the gamer is he finds it difficult to install or play. Don't treat him like a thief. The gamer is much, more intelligent than your answering drone.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
The article goes to great lengths to point out that console games outsell pc games, while there are more pc users than console users and then blames the difference on piracy...
What they have not taken into account, is that very few people buy computers just to play games...
Of all those millions of video cards sold by ati/nvidia, a significant number will go into office computers that will never run games, a lot of people buy highend computers because they want the best they can afford, and never plan to play games... And don't forget that almost 100% of industries involved in graphics related work these days will be using nvidia or ati cards, this is video work, graphics editing, cad work etc, companies buy highend machines capable of playing games by the thousands, and even people only looking to watch high definition video will be buying higher end video cards.
When it comes to gaming on the pc, it is often a lot of hassle for end users, even if your machine meets the published minimum spec you have no guarantee it will run or run at a playable speed, you could have incompatibility with background apps you have installed, or configuration issues, and drm schemes just increase the chances of things not working right.... pc gaming is a lot of hassle for end users, and so you get a much greater proportion of technically savvy users than you do on consoles.
Buying a pc game is risky, since you have no guarantee it will work, yet you are unlikely to be able to return it for a full refund... Console games on the other hand are guaranteed to work first time with no hassle. Smarter people will try before they buy if there's a risk like that, and the only way to do that is to pirate.
Also, 99% of console users bought the console specifically to play games, the proportion of pc users who did that will be massively lower.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
In the old pre-internet days, it was much easier to just ask the neighbor to hand you the game tape or disk or CD so as that you can copy it, than going out and buying it.
In these days, it's still easier to just download a copy than going out and buy the game. With broadband connections, it takes a few hours to download the game (you can start the download at night or before going to work and then in the morning or after work you have the game).
Online purchases is something that most people do not trust, and they are right to do so.
People pirate games in all price ranges. Even if a game costs $10, it will be pirated if it's one click away instead of going to the shop to buy it.
So, piracy is more about access than value.
In order to diminish piracy, there are a few things than can be done:
1) internet communications should be encrypted at all points (even DNS). Granted, that's a huge step economically (and perhaps technologically), and certainly something governments would fear, but that's the only way to unlock the online economy. As long as this does not happen, people will not trust online transactions.
2) games should be delivered incrementally to the customer. Why should I want to download a full game if I don't want to play it? I want to try it. Demos are a step in the right direction, but then after playing the demo, I don't have the option of downloading just the next level, I must purchase the whole game.
Keep in mind that piracy is not all that bad: piracy is environmentally friendly...
There are technical, legal definitions of theft, which don't include the act of making digital copies.
In Indiana they do. The Indiana Code defines theft to include "transferring or reproducing: (A) recorded sounds; or (B) a live performance; without consent of the owner of the master recording or the live performance, with intent to distribute the reproductions for a profit." True, federal copyright law preempts state law except for sound recordings published prior to 1972, but there are a lot of works published prior to 1972.
For me, no game is worth more than $5. Not because I'm cheap, but because I hardly ever play, and if it do, it's only for a while. So if you want to get $50 from me you are going to let me play like 10 different games or so.
Good. Nintendo can squeeze at least $1,000 out of you for WarioWare Inc. Mega Microgames, which contains over 210 games.
There is already a competitive market for creative works - if you don't want to play Spore you're welcome to play another game instead
As I understand it, you mean something like playing Lockjaw instead of Tetris, or some off-brand ludo board game if I don't want Hasbro's Trouble, Sorry!, Aggravation, or Parcheesi. I'll take you up on that offer if you can answer one question: Which Free game with similar rules to Spore would you recommend?
"If you think The Sims is overpriced, just buy Unreal Tournament instead". Which is, needless to say, also quite ludicrous.
It is only ludicrous because you're leaving the genre. The alternatives to The Sims are Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing, and an Unreal game is the alternative to a Quake game. The problem here is that Spore is in an oddball genre that doesn't really have a lot of close substitutes yet.
The people who are up in arms against EA's new DRM are some of EA's best customers. These customers are mostly just afraid they won't be able to play the games they paid for a few years later because the DRM servers no longer authorize the game. They are NOT the customers who buy the game and then sell it on Ebay who won't need rights to play it years later. They are also NOT the people pirating the game. Pirates have little reason to protest because they get the games without the DRM attached anyway. The people upset are just scared because they are losing the guarantee that they can still play years later. EA suggests we should blindly trust them that we will still be authorized, yet the placement of DRM feels like they are telling us that they don't trust us.
If the article is right, I can see why EA wants to block pirates though, but I don't think it should be done at the expense of the good customers, which is what I feel EA is doing now. Personally, I hate pirates because they are taking advantage of not only the game publishers, but also people like me who buy a lot of games (as the article discusses about freeloaders taking advantage of what paying customers fund). The only real advantage I have is that I can have an effect on which games are made in the future because every purchase is basically a vote for that type of game. But punishing me further by restricting my rights, in hopes to slow down pirates, is not the answer. I'm almost to the point where I'm ready to just look for a new hobby.
As a side note, I just want to point out that the number of PC gamers aren't equal to the number of hardware sold, as the article implies. I buy a new video card yearly, and a new pc every 2 years. Hardcore PC gamers like to do that in order to get the best visual experience from new games. (Although I still get out and play my older games sometimes too and need to still have rights to play them)
I agree with the article that Steam is not the answer though. My blood pressure was way up when trying to install Left 4 Dead. I uninstalled all my steam games and steam and even reinstalled my video drivers, but the game would not install. I finally found something on a forum the next day saying I need to delete a file from the Steam folder, and then it installed. Valve might make good games, but Steam obviously has some problems, and also removes rights to install games, even just by being buggy software. I will be looking for games that don't use any DRM in the future. If the day comes when all games use DRM, I will find a new hobby to spend my time and money on.
"Fast forward to the 21st century, and piracy has apparently somehow become a political struggle, a fight against greedy corporations and evil copy protection, and in some cases, I've even seen some people refer to the rise of piracy as a 'revolution.' What an absolute farce. ..."
This is not a farce. Well, against GAMES it probably is. But most people making this claim that it's a political statement are getting movies and music, and that IS a fight against greedy corporations. They use every accounting trick in the book to make sure records and movies lose money on paper. Lord of the Rings, each movie made over $800,000,000.... the movie company *still* claims the films have not broken even, to avoid paying any percentage of profits written into people's contracts.
This is also a practical fight against DRM... so many music and movie sites (the "legal" ones I mean) insist on putting restrictive rights restrictions on everything (which aren't as easy to get a crack for as for games...) they charge full per-track CD price for music that is tied to one computer (or 0 computers, if the software to handle the rights restrictions malfunctions.)
It's still a bit silly I suppose, but I do view movies and music seperately from software and games in these respects and I think many others do too. Now, the whole article *is* about games so in context what he says is valid.
I know this isn't a fix for people that would rather not pay for software; but, it does apply to a fair percentage of people that download games.
Bring back the demo. The only reason I have ever downloaded a game was to see if it was worth the money. The demo allows people that comfort. Back in the day, downloading the finished product after completion of the demo was pretty common. At least that is what happened with Doom, which we all know sealed ID's fate as a successful company.
Fix, get rid of, the mandatory CD/long waits for the DRM checks. When I get a game that is difficult to start because of all the CD/DVD checking/DRM evaluating bullshit, I WILL figure out how to get it to load without the CD. And when I go through all the hassle and hard work of figuring that out, I'm going to share it. When someone tar/rar/zips up the content of the game's folder with the crack in it and puts in on P2P networks, IMHO it is the "we want DRM" folks fault.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Ok, smart ass, if "Piracy is the result of human nature: when faced with the option of getting something for free or paying for it, and in the absence of any significant risks, you don't need complex economic studies to show you that most people will opt for the free route." then why has Stardock been consistently improving sales since the early nineties. They have NEVER used copy protection or DRM. They make solid products that people want to buy and provided added value elements to purchasers.
Of all of these "pirates" how many would have ever bought the game if they couldn't have pirated it? I think almost none. For a tiny percentage of their total sales these companies spend tremendous amounts of money on DRM solutions all of which have been hacked. They limit my freedom, make me feel like a thief whenever I install it. I have to think, can I install it on this machine or will that look bad? Will they ban me? If i want to uninstall it, do I have to worry that I won't be allowed to reinstall? How fucking stupid. Except for my WII, I haven't bought or played any new video games in four years, fuck them, let those companies dry up and blow away.
I sent the following e-mail to the guy. I think it's worth re-posting here.
"I got to say, I'm very disappointed with the one-sided, top-down, Pro-IP slant of your article. I'm not going to bother arguing the morals of IP law with you, as I assume you've already shrugged off a lot of the points I'd try to make, but I would like you, for a moment, to consider the potential functionality of a game industry sans Intellectual Property.
Imagine a world where, instead of people paying other people for the use of IP, people paid other people to produce new IP. One person could make a game and put it on-line for free, and tell people that he'll start work on a new game when he get's $5,000 in donations. If the game is good, and people like what they see, they can go and make a donation. If the game is crap, then the game's creator get's nothing, and is forced to go back to his job at Burger King. Under this system, people get paid for their work, piracy is a non-issue, and the number of crap games on the market drops dramatically.
You might be saying now "sure this works on a small scale, but what about big budget games?". Consider this: with out IP law, all game engines become open-source, and the cost of entry to game production drops drastically. A team of five people could put together a fun few levels of a new game on the current industry engine of the week, and make some money. They could then take that money, and use it bring new people in, beef up the engine, and put out more levels. Repeat the cycle until you have game development companies comparable to what we have today.
I, personally, think this system would be highly preferable to the system we have now. I'd like to know what you think of it."