75 replies to this topic

[NoeL]

^ What he said.

AFAIK you're a pretty prolific pirate yourself so I honestly don't even understand why we're arguing about this. When does piracy become okay, in the gospel according to NoeL?

Me being a pirate is irrelevant. I'm just explaining what the laws are, and why we have them to begin with. There's also a moral difference between pirating a game that's no longer being produced by the original developers and pirating a game that's currently on the market. In the case of retro games, legally obtaining the original cartridge can only be done by buying a second hand copy, so the developers aren't in a position to lose sales in the first place. In the gospel according to NoeL, that kind of piracy is ok. Still technically illegal, but not necessarily immoral IMO.

[Giggidy]

We do things we know are wrong all the time but that doesn't make us hypocrites.

"Piracy is wrong, and if you pirate you should hang yourself in shame! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go do some pirating..."

Is the definition of a hypocrite.

Me being a pirate is irrelevant.

Actually, yeah, it's pretty relevant.

I'm just explaining what the laws are, and why we have them to begin with.

Except that's not what this argument is actually about.

There's also a moral difference between pirating a game that's no longer being produced by the original developers and pirating a game that's currently on the market. In the case of retro games, legally obtaining the original cartridge can only be done by buying a second hand copy, so the developers aren't in a position to lose sales in the first place.

There are very strong arguments from both sides of the piracy debate that second-hand purchases and piracy are more or less equivalent, at least as far as their moral status goes. Why is buying a used copy of a game that's still on the market okay, but downloading it is not?

[NoeL]

sigh... really?

Actually, yeah, it's pretty relevant.

No it's not - not in the slightest. Criminals can acknowledge they've broken the law, even if they have no remorse for doing do. Whether I pirate or not says nothing about how right/wrong piracy is, though it does say something about how right/wrong I am.

Except that's not what this argument is actually about.

You don't think the legality of piracy is a valid topic when discussing whether or not it's "okay" to pirate? Really?

There are very strong arguments from both sides of the piracy debate that second-hand purchases and piracy are more or less equivalent, at least as far as their moral status goes. Why is buying a used copy of a game that's still on the market okay, but downloading it is not?

That's an interesting question. The simple answer is that buying a used game is legal but pirating a copy is not. Going more deeper, used games are a finite resource - every used game on the market is a copy that was originally bought from the publisher, so if 100 people go buy a used copy of a game there must have been at least 100 legitimate purchases. In the case of piracy there only needs to be a single purchase from which an infinite amount of copies can be made. So in purchasing a used copy you own a game that was, at one stage, legitimately purchased from the publisher - there's a 1:1 ratio between games sold and games available. This isn't the case with piracy where there's a 1:many ratio, and your pirated copy of the game may equate to one millionth of a legitimate purchase, instead of 1:1.

[Koh]

That's an interesting question. The simple answer is that buying a used game is legal but pirating a copy is not. Going more deeper, used games are a finite resource - every used game on the market is a copy that was originally bought from the publisher, so if 100 people go buy a used copy of a game there must have been at least 100 legitimate purchases. In the case of piracy there only needs to be a single purchase from which an infinite amount of copies can be made. So in purchasing a used copy you own a game that was, at one stage, legitimately purchased from the publisher - there's a 1:1 ratio between games sold and games available. This isn't the case with piracy where there's a 1:many ratio, and your pirated copy of the game may equate to one millionth of a legitimate purchase, instead of 1:1.

And that's where this goes into morals. If we're dealing with a product of a big time company like Nintendo, something like this won't even scratch their bank, so many really don't care in that regard. However, with something small like an indie game, whether it's the developer's only game or not, they aren't so well off money wise. So every sale counts. If a ton of people pirated from the select few who bought the game legitimately, then the developer would never get off of the ground, and would earn "pocket change." Of course, it also depends on the popularity of the game. Minecraft, for example, is so popular, that those who pirate the game really aren't doing much harm, since the game gets hundreds of sales monthly.

Edited by Koh, 25 September 2012 - 08:13 AM.

[sigtau]

I can't help but agree with NoeL here, as an indie developer.

What he says is basically how it is--and the industry trying to kill the used game trade is about as redundant as the industry trying to kill piracy by way of DRM. Not much else to add here...

[Giggidy]

No it's not - not in the slightest. Criminals can acknowledge they've broken the law, even if they have no remorse for doing do. Whether I pirate or not says nothing about how right/wrong piracy is, though it does say something about how right/wrong I am.

Criminals can believe that their actions were against the law, but only the insane don't believe their actions are justified. Ask a murderer why they did it and they'll say "They deserved to die" or "It was an accident" or even "I just did it for fun, really." They may regret their actions after the fact, but at the time a sane person will have a reason for what they do.

You probably don't pirate because you're insane and have no idea what you're doing, so when you pirate you probably think you have a good reason that justifies your actions. It follows you believe that piracy is right in these situations and possibly wrong in others.

You don't think the legality of piracy is a valid topic when discussing whether or not it's "okay" to pirate? Really?

Yes. Something being illegal doesn't automatically make it wrong, and something being legal doesn't automatically make it right. If murder was legalized tomorrow would murder stop being wrong? The law reflects morality but doesn't define it. In other words, the law can be wrong, and in need of changing.

We're not discussing what's legal, we're discussing what's right. These are not the same thing.

That's an interesting question. The simple answer is that buying a used game is legal but pirating a copy is not. Going more deeper, used games are a finite resource - every used game on the market is a copy that was originally bought from the publisher, so if 100 people go buy a used copy of a game there must have been at least 100 legitimate purchases. In the case of piracy there only needs to be a single purchase from which an infinite amount of copies can be made. So in purchasing a used copy you own a game that was, at one stage, legitimately purchased from the publisher - there's a 1:1 ratio between games sold and games available. This isn't the case with piracy where there's a 1:many ratio, and your pirated copy of the game may equate to one millionth of a legitimate purchase, instead of 1:1.

At the risk of being shot down again, here's a hypothetical scenario.

Let's say an indie publisher releases their new game at $59.99 on a physical disk, so it can be passed around through used sales and borrowing. Only one person buys the game. The game is short and takes only 30 minutes to complete. When they finish the game, they pass it on to their friend, who completes the game and then in turn passes it on to one of their friends, ad nauseam. Within 3 days, 100 people have finished the game, and the game is returned to the original buyer, who puts it on his shelf and never touches it again. The developer has made only one sale even though 99 others have played the game without paying.

And here's an analogous scenario: The same developer releases the same game, and only one person buys it, again. Instead of passing the disk around, however, this buyer makes a copy of the ISO and puts it up in a torrent, which his 99 friends all download and play. Once again, the developer has made only one sale even though 99 others have played the game without paying.



By your reasoning, the former scenario is perfectly fine, because there's only one copy of the game in circulation, even though the second scenario is identical in terms of the end result: 100 people have played the game, but only one person has actually paid for it. Why is this?

[NoeL]

Criminals can believe that their actions were against the law, but only the insane don't believe their actions are justified. Ask a murderer why they did it and they'll say "They deserved to die" or "It was an accident" or even "I just did it for fun, really." They may regret their actions after the fact, but at the time a sane person will have a reason for what they do.

No. People can, and do, willingly do things they know is wrong, because they're compelled to do so. They don't have to think they're doing something morally acceptable, they only have to believe the benefit is worth the cost of being immoral. This is the state of mind most pirates are in - they know it's wrong, but they really want the product and know there'll most likely be minimal consequences, so they do it anyway.

Yes. Something being illegal doesn't automatically make it wrong, and something being legal doesn't automatically make it right. If murder was legalized tomorrow would murder stop being wrong? The law reflects morality but doesn't define it. In other words, the law can be wrong, and in need of changing.

We're not discussing what's legal, we're discussing what's right. These are not the same thing.

I agree with you to an extent, but as you said, the law reflects morality. This means murder would never be legalised, and your hypothetical is invalid. It also means that the law, at least generally, is a reflection of what society expects of its members, and just because you personally find it morally justified to break Law X that doesn't mean that the greater society - whom you are obliged to respect - are ok with you doing it. The law is more entwined with morality than you give it credit for, but that's another discussion.

Let's say an indie publisher releases their new game at $59.99 on a physical disk, so it can be passed around through used sales and borrowing. Only one person buys the game. The game is short and takes only 30 minutes to complete. When they finish the game, they pass it on to their friend, who completes the game and then in turn passes it on to one of their friends, ad nauseam. Within 3 days, 100 people have finished the game, and the game is returned to the original buyer, who puts it on his shelf and never touches it again. The developer has made only one sale even though 99 others have played the game without paying.

And here's an analogous scenario: The same developer releases the same game, and only one person buys it, again. Instead of passing the disk around, however, this buyer makes a copy of the ISO and puts it up in a torrent, which his 99 friends all download and play. Once again, the developer has made only one sale even though 99 others have played the game without paying.
By your reasoning, the former scenario is perfectly fine, because there's only one copy of the game in circulation, even though the second scenario is identical in terms of the end result: 100 people have played the game, but only one person has actually paid for it. Why is this?

In the first scenario the people no longer have access to the product once they've given it away. In the second scenario they retain access. This means that should anybody in the first scenario like the game and wish to play it again, they have to buy their own copy. In the pirate scenario they don't have to, since they already have a copy. This is what publishers call "lost sales", where had it not been for piracy they would have (at least under some circumstances) one more sale.

[Giggidy]

No. People can, and do, willingly do things they know is wrong, because they're compelled to do so. They don't have to think they're doing something morally acceptable, they only have to believe the benefit is worth the cost of being immoral. This is the state of mind most pirates are in - they know it's wrong, but they really want the product and know there'll most likely be minimal consequences, so they do it anyway.

"Compelled" my ass. "Compelled" is when you dig your own grave with a shotgun pressed at the back of your neck. "Compelled" is when you don't struggle as your pants get pulled off because there's a knife at your throat. "Compelled" is when you pay protection money because otherwise scary armed men will come take you away and do god knows what with you. "I don't feel like paying $60 for a new game" is not compulsion.

I agree with you to an extent, but as you said, the law reflects morality. This means murder would never be legalised, and your hypothetical is invalid.

Really now? In some parts of the world today, rape victims are legally executed for their "crime." As recently as the 17th century the concept of animal cruelty was entirely alien and burning a kitten alive was considered a perfectly reasonable pastime. The great Alan Turing committed suicide rather than face the (at the time) legal penalties for being a homosexual.

It also means that the law, at least generally, is a reflection of what society expects of its members, and just because you personally find it morally justified to break Law X that doesn't mean that the greater society - whom you are obliged to respect - are ok with you doing it. The law is more entwined with morality than you give it credit for, but that's another discussion.

Morality is not defined by consensus.

In the first scenario the people no longer have access to the product once they've given it away. In the second scenario they retain access. This means that should anybody in the first scenario like the game and wish to play it again, they have to buy their own copy. In the pirate scenario they don't have to, since they already have a copy. This is what publishers call "lost sales", where had it not been for piracy they would have (at least under some circumstances) one more sale.

That... I'm sorry, that just sounds really contrived.

[SpacemanDan]

Heya. I'd just like to remind you all that this shouldn't turn into a debate about morals in general as opposed to a discussion about morality of piracy, as it would become an irrelevant debate, which is against our policies. Please bring things back to the original topic.

If it does turn into a debate on morality in general, I will have to lock this thread. ):

Thanks.

[NoeL]

No disrespect Dan, but how are debates about morality "irrelevant"? Unless you subscribe to divine command theory or some otherwise unsubstantiated and unverifiable philosophy there's a lot to be learned through open discourse. That said, a discussion on general morality would be off topic regardless.

"Compelled" my ass. "Compelled" is when you dig your own grave with a shotgun pressed at the back of your neck. "Compelled" is when you don't struggle as your pants get pulled off because there's a knife at your throat. "Compelled" is when you pay protection money because otherwise scary armed men will come take you away and do god knows what with you. "I don't feel like paying $60 for a new game" is not compulsion.

The word you're thinking of is "coercion". "Compulsion" is a perfectly apt word for what I was describing. Regardless, this is simply a matter of semantics, and you never addressed my point that a person can willfully act immorally.

Really now? In some parts of the world today, rape victims are legally executed for their "crime." As recently as the 17th century the concept of animal cruelty was entirely alien and burning a kitten alive was considered a perfectly reasonable pastime. The great Alan Turing committed suicide rather than face the (at the time) legal penalties for being a homosexual.

I'm not seeing the word "murder" in there.

Morality is not defined by consensus.

I never said it was. I was making a statement that, in civilised society, it can potentially be immoral (and certainly unethical) to disregard the opinions of your peers in favour of your own notions of right and wrong.

That... I'm sorry, that just sounds really contrived.

So? If you disagree, make a counterpoint.

[Giggidy]

The word you're thinking of is "coercion". "Compulsion" is a perfectly apt word for what I was describing. Regardless, this is simply a matter of semantics, and you never addressed my point that a person can willfully act immorally.

Only if "compulsion" means "I wanna do it." You're seriously underestimating the extent to which people rationalize their desires.

I'm not seeing the word "murder" in there.

comically missing the point.jpg

There are plenty of horrifying things that are perfectly legal (or at least were at some place and time) and plenty of perfectly innocent things that are illegal nonetheless.

I never said it was. I was making a statement that, in civilised society, it can potentially be immoral (and certainly unethical) to disregard the opinions of your peers in favour of your own notions of right and wrong.

Why?

So? If you disagree, make a counterpoint.

"Burger King is wrong because it hurts the hardworking people at McDonalds, because people can just get Burger King's product instead."

I once again have to ask why games are special and the exact same logic doesn't apply to food.

[Russ]

"Burger King is wrong because it hurts the hardworking people at McDonalds, because people can just get Burger King's product instead."

I once again have to ask why games are special and the exact same logic doesn't apply to food.

The difference is Burger King isn't cloning McDonalds food and handing it out for free. You're failing to understand the difference between competition and piracy here. Competition is offering a similar product. Piracy is copying the product and giving it away for free. It's that simple. And the same logic does apply to food. If I break into McDonalds, take a bunch of their burgers, and hand them out on the corner for free, I'll get arrested.

[Giggidy]

The difference is Burger King isn't cloning McDonalds food and handing it out for free. You're failing to understand the difference between competition and piracy here. Competition is offering a similar product. Piracy is copying the product and giving it away for free. It's that simple. And the same logic does apply to food. If I break into McDonalds, take a bunch of their burgers, and hand them out on the corner for free, I'll get arrested.

Do I really need to link the "Copying is not theft" video again? Comparing piracy to breaking into a place and stealing stuff is intellectually dishonest.

A more apt description of what pirates do is captured by my PirateBurger analogy: They provide a superior product with superior service for lower costs without stealing a single thing from anyone.

[Russ]

But they are stealing. Pirate burger didn't make the burgers. They just magically copied McDonald's recipe, which years of research and tons of money have been poured into, and gave it away for free.

Think of it like this. You're an author. You write a book. It took you three years to write. It's an amazing book. You expect to make a lot of money off it. But then I come along. I buy the book, then scan and upload the entire thing to the internet. Everybody downloads it and reads it for free. You make a whopping ten dollars total, the price a paid for the book, rather than the 10,000 you'd have made if everybody bought it. Sure, it wasn't physically stolen; I didn't raid a bookstore, grab all the copies, and hand them out for free. But it's still theft; I'm giving away multiple copies of something for free (the book, albeit electronic form) that isn't mine to give away, and, just as if it were an actually physical theft, you're not making the money you actually deserve for it. So actually, you're wrong. Convincing yourself that piracy is not theft is intellectually dishonest.

[Giggidy]

But they are stealing. Pirate burger didn't make the burgers. They just magically copied McDonald's recipe, which years of research and tons of money have been poured into, and gave it away for free.

Erm... so what? They're doing it better. Literally everyone is better off because of PirateBurger, with the possible exception of McDonalds executives who now have to find new jobs (you could even make an argument that they, too, will be benefitted in the long run by PirateBurger's existence). This is all well and good, since if PirateBurger exists then McDonalds is a net drain on society. They should have to get new jobs.

Think of it like this. You're an author. You write a book. It took you three years to write. It's an amazing book. You expect to make a lot of money off it. But then I come along. I buy the book, then scan and upload the entire thing to the internet. Everybody downloads it and reads it for free. You make a whopping ten dollars total, the price a paid for the book, rather than the 10,000 you'd have made if everybody bought it. Sure, it wasn't physically stolen; I didn't raid a bookstore, grab all the copies, and hand them out for free. But it's still theft; I'm giving away multiple copies of something for free (the book, albeit electronic form) that isn't mine to give away, and, just as if it were an actually physical theft, you're not making the money you actually deserve for it. So actually, you're wrong. Convincing yourself that piracy is not theft is intellectually dishonest.

But they are yours to give away, you took out your own time and resources to make the copies and you have the right to give them to others for whatever price you like. If the letters on the pages were arranged randomly you would have no objections to this. It's actually kindof screwed up that I have the power to stop you from doing what you're otherwise perfectly free to do with your own property, just because the letters happen to be arranged in a particular way.