Very good article/video, though I slightly disagree with "only valid excuse is can't legally buy it in your area", I feel that very few companies release complete enough demos to give me a full enough idea of the game to properly decide to buy it or not.
So if I enjoyed the game I'ld buy it, if I didn't I would likely not finish it and junk it.
Suppose I pirate a game, certainly multiplayer won't be in working condition if its pirated, thus if I enjoy the game and especially if I want to play online then I will buy it certainly.
Then there's the issue of digital downloads, alot of my games, say 70% aren't availiable as digital downloads, only some are making their way to steam.
So there would be games there I would pirate even if I did already buy the game just so I could have a working digital backup that I had a valid key for.
or sometimes the disk is scratched and won't install! Etc.
Then there's the grey area of visual novels/japanese dating sims; they don't have english translations or at least the two I am interested in; School Days and Cross Channel aren't in english officially for example.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I feel that very few companies release complete enough demos to give me a full enough idea of the game to properly decide to buy it or not.
So if I enjoyed the game I'ld buy it, if I didn't I would likely not finish it and junk it.
I, too, am a fan of Extra Credits, and I had a feeling you'd post something about them sooner or later.
Anyway, this "no-demo-then-pirate" rationale seems like a weird standard to me. I think it's great when publishers provide free demos for players to try; it's a good marketing strategy in an industry where consumers tend to mostly buy remakes and sequels. But taking this for granted and pirating the game when there is no demo assumes that publishers are required to release a free demo, and that neglecting this obligation gives consumers the right to steal their product as a substitute for the demo.
I see few precedents for this kind of system in other media. It is true that it is common for people to read the first few chapters of a book before buying it, either by reading in the bookstore or sometimes reading a preview online. But are you going to steal the book if there's a watchful clerk who decides that you've read enough and had better hurry up and buy something? Or will you just not buy it? Is the film industry expected to give you 20 minute previews of their movies for you to decide whether you like it enough to buy a movie ticket?
All I'm saying is that assuming a right to a free demo is an unfair expectation. I do hope that demos can become more of an industry standard, since it will help sales of more original games. But piracy is not the solution to this. Think of it from a publisher's perspective: This game isn't selling well, but lots of people are pirating it! The publisher would probably feel that pirates are stealing customers and hurting sales, even if in reality the game is just bad and people who download it illegally just realize that before they decide to make a purchase. If you remove piracy from the equation, the publisher is forced to recognize that the bad sales are either due to the bad quality of the game or the bad marketing strategy (e.g. no demos). Wouldn't it be nice if developers and publishers focused on fixing these elements rather than fighting pirates?
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If I only have a limited amount of funds to pay for games, I thus need the ability to be able to sample different games and determine if I like it.
Some games don't require this, some I will automatically buy like almost anything from Paradox Interactive or sequels to certain big blockbuster games like Mass Effect.
But if there's 10 games out there being released in a particular season I will only buy the ones I have an oppurtunity to thoroughly scout ahead of time to make sure my purchase is well worth it.
If out of those 10 games only 2 have Demos and the demos leave me unsatisfied due to lack of features or terrible terrible bugs my only way to make sure if the games are worth buying is to borrow or otherwise pirate the game, try it out, then buy it in order to get proper technical support and online content.
For example most demos are crap, Paradox's ones especially are extremely buggy and unplayable affairs and even their Gold release product can't be played properly are launch, only by pirating the game ahead of time can you fully make sure your future purchase is worth the money.
For example I had originally pirated Mass Effect and got stuck at the galaxy map because of well, drm, deciding I liked the game enough to continue I went out and bought it.
Caesar IV I think was a game I downloaded only to discard as being unplayably bad game and glad I didn't waste money on it, as its entirely inferior to Caesar III.
IP: Logged |
posted
What rivka said. Your starting premise is creating a critical flaw in the rest of your reasoning.
You no more need the ability to sample games so you can buy them than you need a winemaker to pour you a glass from the bottle so you can drink it before you will make a buying decision.
If you can't afford to risk spending money on a game, then you can't play it, that's it. You are not entitled to a company's products. They set the parameters for it being available, and you can either accept that or refuse.
There are more than enough ways to sample a game before being required to buy it. You could try it at your friends house if they purchased it. If they bought it on steam they can share with you their account info and you can try it. Some stores will give you store credit when you return a game if you are not satisfied.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw a funny chart once that explained the difference between piracy and theft.
Piracy = Making a copy, but the original is still there
Theft = Taking the original, and is no longer there.
It still doesn't make it right, but I did smile when I saw that chart
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What rivka said. Your starting premise is creating a critical flaw in the rest of your reasoning.
You no more need the ability to sample games so you can buy them than you need a winemaker to pour you a glass from the bottle so you can drink it before you will make a buying decision.
If you can't afford to risk spending money on a game, then you can't play it, that's it. You are not entitled to a company's products. They set the parameters for it being available, and you can either accept that or refuse.
There are more than enough ways to sample a game before being required to buy it. You could try it at your friends house if they purchased it. If they bought it on steam they can share with you their account info and you can try it. Some stores will give you store credit when you return a game if you are not satisfied.
And all of those alternatives are practically speaking no different, you are getting something for free for a small duration of time before making a decision.
Also store credit doesn't hold water with me, I specifically can't get reliable transportation into town to buy a retail game and then have to head all the way back to return it, that is just not practical, thus it is vastly more convenient, especially in the case of a game lacking a digital means of distribution to pirate it, see if I like it and then next trip into town purchase it when I am reasonably certain I am not wasted a trip OR money.
quote: No. You want it, but that's not the same thing.
I do not believe you are understanding me, allow me to simplify further: If there are 3 games out there, and I download and try out all three, and if I like all three then I will at the next oppurtunity buy and purchase all three.
If I liked 2 or just one and not the others then I wouldn't purchase or finish the games I tried out but only the one(s) that I did like.
quote: than you need a winemaker to pour you a glass from the bottle so you can drink it before you will make a buying decision.
I see nothing wrong with this reasoning.
quote: If you can't afford to risk spending money on a game, then you can't play it, that's it.
Nope, I can afford the game, but I can't afford the associated costs that would occur if the game was crap, and instore credit doesn't give me a total refund of a game, in fact most game stores in my 'area' refuse refunds or credits unless the game can be proven to be broken in some way.
IP: Logged |
posted
I pirate a lot, and I don't excuse it or come up with convoluted reasons why it's really okay or actually right or noble. But it's at least amusing to listen to people try to do exactly this, though!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Right or noble are irrelevent bougosisie concepts, I only care about whether it is at least justifiable under a few circumstances.
I justify it as fundamentally a compromise between me the consumer and they the company: I will pirate but only to confirm if the game is worth buying and no more than for the minimum duration required to determine so and if it is worth playing then I will purchase it, put in the proper cd key and continue.
If it is not worth playing then I will stop playing and junk the game from my system never to look at it again.
Maybe not be the most ideal of high roaded of choices but it is a compromise.
IP: Logged |
posted
whether or not an act is right is not an 'irrelevant bourgeois concept,' but rather a pretty fundamental moral question important to everyone.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: whether or not an act is right is not an 'irrelevant bourgeois concept,' but rather a pretty fundamental moral question important to everyone.
Suppose 100% of gamers pirated a game to determine if they liked it enough to buy it, and suppose perfectly each person who liked the game would go and buy it, with only the ones who didn't like the game not buying it.
In a zero sum scenario such as this the AAA companies make much more money (because say hypothetically before 40% of gamers pirated their games) with only the companies who release 'bad' games losing out to people who pirate, play for an hour, dislike it, and then junk it.
Why would or should the industry rely on profit from people who bought the game without properly knowing if it was worth their money?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Suppose 100% of gamers pirated a game to determine if they liked it enough to buy it, and suppose perfectly each person who liked the game would go and buy it, with only the ones who didn't like the game not buying it.
Replace "game" with any other type of digital content, and it's an argument I've heard many times, ie., if I like it I'll buy it, and if I don't like it I'll just stop using it.
While I'm sure that there does exist someone that makes that claim and then actually backs it up 100% of the time, I've never met such a person.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
It's a standard that I'm working my way towards but the last 5 games I've gotten I've all bought.
IP: Logged |
posted
Simply put, Blayne, I'll be honest: I don't believe you when you say, "If I like a pirated game (or media) enough after giving it a try, I'll eventually buy it legally."
Having read enough threads by you about the amount of time spent playing games, number played, and money earned-and you post a LOT of threads, more than anyone else making HR your little Facebook-I don't think you could afford to buy everything you pirated, liked, and decided to buy 'someday'. I think that's just what you tell yourself.
And I also think if another poster came along and tried to sell a line as flimsy as this that you weren't personally invested in, you wouldn't buy it either. But we're supposed to smile and nod...why?
ETA: So, five games bought...out of how many games pirated lately, and how many hours played on those games pirated not bought? To say nothing of the fact that there are many quite reliable, easily accessible, free review services out there, just as an example, and this doesn't even touch on other forms of media such as anime, manga, etc.
Much depends on where your initial assumptions lie: are you entitled to enjoy this stuff, period? If the answer is yes, well, usually you can do some rhetorical contortion as we see here and find a way. Or another initial assumption: do you care if the chances of being caught are essentially nil and can enjoy in private? What I don't understand is this preaching about it, which is not uncommon. The guilt is pretty transparent, but why bring it up when it's so easily hidden? That's what I don't get.
posted
The modern entitlement attitude that you display here regarding the "right" to try products before you buy is selfish and unethical.
In my line of work (graphic design related) I sometimes have customers that want me to spend time doing work on spec(ulation) before committing to buy. Reputable designers & companies don't work this way, and you shouldn't pretend that they do.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I can so afford to buy that many games in theory (as I make 800$/mo) but its actually a moot point as I don't actually [/i]play[/i] that many games anymore, just been too busy with other things.
Sorry if you don't believe me but I have in fact been checking to see what games I have installed, which ones I own, and then slowly closing the gap via steam, recently formatted my Computer so that list is alot smaller now.
IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, Blayne, just because you make $800/month doesn't mean you can afford to buy that many games, or any games. This is both a general fact and something I can apply to knowledge learned of you from threads you've posted.
You can be upset by this observation if you like, but hearing people say such things to you is simply a consequence of sharing so much, so frequently.
ETA: I note you're not discussing other media, such as anime and manga. By what right do you argue you're not sure you're going to like the next episode of a series you've watched several, dozens, or even scores of episodes of already and need to 'preview' before watching?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Uh, I have a CrunchyRoll account and my downloading is just for portable convenience? Also forgetting that not ALL anime or manga is licensed for NA distribution and thus falls under the legitimate "if its not legally availiable in your area go ahead" category?
I also do buy my own manga, such Ouku: The Inner Chambers, the Girl Who Leapt Through Time and "It Takes a Wizard" as recent purchases and always keeping an eye out for newly released manga in stores.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, about five seconds of research informed me:
quote:Crunchyroll started in 2006 as a for-profit video upload and streaming site that specialized in hosting East Asian video content. Some of the content hosted on Crunchyroll, such as illicitly-produced fan-subbed versions of East Asian shows or bootlegs of official US releases of anime titles, was illegally hosted without permission from any rights holders or the fansub team responsible. However, Crunchyroll respected DMCA and removed copyrighted content when requested by the rights holder.
In 2008, Crunchyroll secured a capital investment of $4.05 million from the venture capital firm Venrock.[4] The investment drew criticism from anime distributors and licensors Bandai Entertainment and Funimation as the site continued to allow users to upload illegal copies of licensed titles.[5]
However, Crunchyroll eventually began securing legal distribution agreements with companies, including Gonzo, for an increasing number of titles. On January 8, 2009, after announcing a deal with TV Tokyo to host episodes of Naruto Shippuden, Crunchyroll stated that it was committed to removing all copyright infringing material from its site and to hosting only content to which it had legitimate distribution rights.[6]
So...I'm not sure what your membership in Crunchyroll is supposed to prove, Blayne. And since when is that little category of yours acceptable, by the way? Cocaine isn't legally available in my area, so I should just go ahead, I suppose. Just as an obvious example. Your reasoning is absurd.
As for your own manga, are you claiming that you buy and don't view/download/peruse any manga anywhere without actually purchasing it or checking it out lawfully from, say, a library? Seriously, Blayne?
I don't know why you're trying to sell the legitimacy of this when it falls so badly on its face. You really want this stuff, so you're going to get it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
By paying about 5$/mo I can watch just about all of the anime I am currently interested in watching as a majority of it is on CrunchyRoll, and thus is the equivilent of watching on Hulu or Netflix.
Did you watch the video from Extra Credits? They specifically say that it is a legitimate reason, if it isn't availiable, doesn't exist or for sale anymore, not availiable in your native language etc.
quote: As for your own manga, are you claiming that you buy and don't view/download/peruse any manga anywhere without actually purchasing it or checking it out lawfully from, say, a library? Seriously, Blayne?
First of all I've been a predominatently anime!only fan for a very long time and only recently began reading manga, and to my knowledge just about all of it aren't actually licensed in NA yet and from your post I can see you actually don't know that much about the industry.
The anime&manga industry when it comes to overseas distribution has a very complicit understanding with fansubs and scanlations, they accept them as essentially free publicity and advertisement meaning that they KNOW that there *is* a market for it and will eventually license it for NA, at which point the otherside of the unspoken agreement kicks in and the fansubber/scanlation groups drop the project and people are encouraged to purchase it once available.
So no, you are wrong, if a product isn't available in English but there's a fangroup who have translated it there's nothing wrong with using their version until the official owners get around to exporting it properly, that's the agreement, its a business arrangement that actually profits the original owners.
I'm trying to think back off the top of my head but I don't think I've read online any manga that was actually licensed and was available at my local bookstore.
usually when i read manga it's because there isn't even an anime adaption yet, or is an extremely obscure series.
I also own television cable which I'm pretty sure has Adult Swim on it so I'm paying for anime that way as well.
Release an english localization of School Days visual novel/dating sim and I'ld buy it, but 120$ for something thats only Japanese and the only english version is by fans and unofficial?
I think you need to get off your high horse your making an awfully lot of assumptions about my personal life that are really just unwarranted suppositions.
And to specifically counter your argument if Command And Conquer is banned in China due to censorship is it unethical for people there to pirate it?
IP: Logged |
quote:By paying about 5$/mo I can watch just about all of the anime I am currently interested in watching as a majority of it is on CrunchyRoll, and thus is the equivilent of watching on Hulu or Netflix.
No, it's not equivalent because Hulu and Netflix actually have specific permissions from the ultimate creators, whereas CrunchyRoll has many times a much more nebulous lack of denial of permission, not at all the same thing.
No, I didn't watch the video. Are you seriously saying that because they say, "It's a legitimate reason," that makes it true, Blayne? It's pretty feeble minded to make such a transparent appeal to authority just because it tells you what you want to hear.
quote: The anime&manga industry when it comes to overseas distribution has a very complicit understanding with fansubs and scanlations, they accept them as essentially free publicity and advertisement meaning that they KNOW that there *is* a market for it and will eventually license it for NA, at which point the otherside of the unspoken agreement kicks in and the fansubber/scanlation groups drop the project and people are encouraged to purchase it once available.
So, just to be clear, you get zero media that falls outside this understanding (yes, I'm aware of it)? Anyway, there are other factors you're conveniently omitting, such as the fact that it would be very difficult to really shut down piracy if they wanted to, so why try? That makes things a bit different than your 'very complicit understanding'.
Or do you imagine the creators prefer not to be paid for their work?
quote: So no, you are wrong, if a product isn't available in English but there's a fangroup who have translated it there's nothing wrong with using their version until the official owners get around to exporting it properly, that's the agreement, its a business arrangement that actually profits the original owners.
The agreement with who? Where is this agreement kept, what are its terms, exactly? Or is this another 'complicit' agreement? This really just sounds very much like one of your after-the-fact moral reasonings. And then there's the other alternative: wait. Terrible, I know, but it involves the unheard of assumption that just because something isn't available for you to consume instantly doesn't necessarily grant you the right to go and take it without compensating its creators.
quote:I think you need to get off your high horse your making an awfully lot of assumptions about my personal life that are really just unwarranted suppositions.
Blayne, you should think carefully before you invite people to question the details of your personal life on a discussion like this, given the kinds of threads you've posted. I'm not making a threat or anything, I'm just pointing out that if you recall back to the many threads you've posted here, you will remember that nothing I've said here is based on assumption when it comes to your personal life, but quite a lot rather from what you say about your own personal life, spending habits, living circumstances, etc.
quote:And to specifically counter your argument if Command And Conquer is banned in China due to censorship is it unethical for people there to pirate it?
Censorship is a different question entirely. You're trying to shoehorn in a whole violation of an unjust law argument, when so far you haven't made that case for piracy at all. The closest you've come is saying, "If it's not available in your area legitimately, it's OK to steal it."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Crunchyroll reformed and went legit. They now only have anime they have explicitly licensed on it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, so they've completed that process then? Didn't say in the reference links I looked at, just mentioned as 'committed to' 'ongoing' sort of thing. My mistake, then.
So I guess my next question is what exactly is meant by 'just about all of the anime I'm interested in watching'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
As far as I can tell every series that is licensed on my hd right now is available on CrunchyRoll that I pay for, or the dvds are in the mail, or some other alternate legal form of viewing them but keep digital backups for convenience.
What falls outside of this are those that aren't licensed or aren't available.
IP: Logged |
posted
So then we come back to the very dubious, "If it's not available right here right now this second, it's morally acceptable to take without compensating the creator," argument, I see.
You've a LOT moremselling to do on that one, Blayne, and I think you know it. I also see you're not suggesting I'm making assumptions anymore.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"If it's not available right here right now this second, it's morally acceptable to take without compensating the creator,"
Patently ridiculous if it isn't right here or likely to be soon available and isn't officially being sold not even in the language of the particular region I think your simply taking the extreme viewpoint blocking out all practical considerations.
The point is they DO get compensated, by the now firmly consolidated fanbase that grew during the duration who is now readily able to buy the localized official merchandise, this is the one case where 'piracy' prior to the official selling of the product actually helps sales and significant evidence suggests tha some series were able to be viably marketed in North America BECAUSE of the distribution of fansubs and scanlations in the years prior to the NA release.
Your completely ignoring the practicals for trite high horse soap boxing.
I don't think you actually understand the Anime Otaku subculture here enough to realize that these are both common and accepted practices within the industry, Otakus will first record or otherwise download the fansub, then they will buy the DVDs, then the blue rays, then a second copy for loaning to friends, then the offical merch and the manga special edition blah while keeping blue ray 720p or 1080p rips on the HD for safe viewing.
Its virtually no different though I don't both with figurines or models anymore, I get the fansubs and the scanlations then when its licensed I get the manga in store and the DVDs eventually, this is standard consumer practices for it and the industry is geared towards it.
IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like the basic argument as to why piracy is wrong goes something like this:
Content is created by somebody (or somebodies). Once they've created that content it is theirs, and they should decide what happens to it. That means that they should be able to get some sort of compensation for it. If someone downloads a game for free, that means that the copyrighted content producer has lost out on the money they would have received from that sale. This is bad for the copyright producer and also bad for society, the argument goes, because if people don't get compensated for their art, they have no incentive to make it, and our culture will be impoverished as a result.
It seems like a lot turns on the assumption that pirated media = lost sales, because this is where the posited harm to the content creator comes from. In the cases where content is simply not available for sale (e.g. very old games), then effectively no sale can be lost when you download, so I can't see that any actual harm is done at all. Obviously it's a slightly greyer area when you're talking about things which may or may not be available for sale in the future, such as native-language versions of media.
I agree with Blayne that playing a game at a friend's house to try it out and downloading it to try it out are fairly morally equivalent, and agree with Rakesh that the difference turns on whether those who download actually typically do just do so to try it out. I typically pay for the things I download, but on my last laptop I did have an immense amount of 80s music given to me by my university room-mate (who almost certainly downloaded it illegally), so I have no particular moral high ground !
I do think that, like it or not, pirating is not going to go away - it seems like no matter how hard a company works to encrypt the things they produce, the moment it's released there are hundreds of people working on ways to break it. It will be up to media producers to adapt.
In music, I wonder whether what the future will bring is a large number of musicians making a respectable living, rather than a small number of musicians becoming very wealthy, as we have today. I suppose I'm envisioning somewhere where all musicians make their music free to download on their website, and those who like it can pay for it. Likely most would just take it for free, but a hard core of fans would be willing to pay. Admittedly, this business model wouldn't work so well for software, which I understand often involves hundreds of people.
Another possible spin I suppose could be that pirating is a fairly peripheral issue. Most people I know pay for the things they download. Those who don't pay typically download an awful lot, far more than they could ever afford to pay for. So the amount of actual revenue lost is far less than the book value of the media which is pirated, and thus the 'estimated cost of pirating' figures have been blown up out of all reasonable proportion. But then, I'm working from an anecdotally sized sample, so who knows whether this is right or not.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been thinking about this for some time and have decided that admitting to comitting an illegal act is definitely against the TOS. I'm locking this thread, and probably deleting it after a few days. If you'd like to create another thread where you discuss piracy, that's OK, just keep it clean of admissions to pirating.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
