Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[Sundragon2012]

Do you have an example? I may be biased but it seemed to me like the arguments here eg against equating copyright infringement with theft were generally well-argued and not obfuscatory.

More than the use of individual words, I see it as educated people conflating situations that are magnitudes of importance apart.

(all examples to follow are not intended to insult the posters though I do find these positions ridiculous)

For example my exchange with one poster equated the fact that I feel that one can morally and ethically preserve one's life at the expense of a manufacturer's right to compensation such as in the case of food or medicine means that therefore I am hypocrtical in claiming that pirating RPG materials is wrong.

Or pseudo-philosophy....nothing is universally wrong... when this is blatant moral relativism in its most self-serving sense.

How about this gem of brilliance...Its ok to not pay the creator of a product because in copying the item you are actually adding data to cosmos and therefore ripping people off is a good thing as long as you add to the sum total of data in the universe.

Connecting the reality some CEOs of successful companies are effectively robber barons in regard to copyrights with the idea that if they get away with such draconian controls over copyrights then another has a right to take what they want without paying for it.

More than words alone, its the abuse of philosophy and ethics that I see amongst those who seem to have taken a course or two in such subjects but are twisting the inherent subjectivity and uncertainty regarding moral/ethical issues to suit their desire to get something for nothing. There are no Robin Hoods here, no real rebels and no heroic protectors of liberty. There are those who actually believe that their self-declared entitlement to a luxury item trumps the right an author has to compensation for his or her work. They couch it in colorful philosophies but this is what it boils down to.

The rationalization I see here is a base use of intellect and reflects a certain amount of education and knowledge but just enough to BS even themselves into acting without character in regards to this issue. It is the intellect of one that seeks to act without character but isn't honest enough with himself to embrace this lack of character. Instead, they take the cowards road of justifying what they intuitively and intellectually know is dishonest and lacking in integrity.

I would have more respect for someone who had the self-awareness and courage to admit that they know they are wrong to do what they do but choose to do so anyway. I may see this person as a theif but I can respect their honesty. The smoke I see being blown here by some folks makes me scratch my head and wonder if they have actually been hypnotized by their own nonsense.

(apologies to those who really and truly believe they aren't doing anything wrong, though I believe that your numbers are quite rare)

Chris

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

What is the moral definition of "property" and "ownership"?

Well, at risk of being circular, the moral definition of "my property" would, more or less, be the set of objects that it would be immoral for someone else to take or use without my permission.

If I were to characterize the argument I'm having with Sundragon, it would be whether or not "intellectual property" and information qualifies as "property" in the moral sense.

Without that bundle of rights, the car is just a thing, and not property.[/quotes]

It's funny that you mention that "property" is strictly a legal concept; I'd argue that "rights" are likewise purely a matter of legality.

I mean that the copying is either (a) illegal, or (b) either bought from or permitted by the owner of the property. Hence, it isn't "freely available to reproduce".

Ah, okay-- we're using different definitions of "free". You're talking about what someone is legally allowed to do, while I'm talking about what a person can do without expending their material resources.

You asked how one could own something that could be "freely downloaded". That's not different than people asking how one could own land, or a car, or any physical object.

Legally, yeah. Getting away from the purely legal aspect, you have to look at the nature of the things described. I don't create more land by hopping over your back fence; I don't get the same benefit from renting or borrowing your land for a couple weeks that I would from owning it. I can't create a parcel of land exactly like yours, for free, and then use it myself.

I can understand the arguments for intellectual property rights, and I even agree with some of them-- and some of the rights advocated by those arguments-- but I can't regard "intellectual property" the same way I regard real property. The two things are entirely different in nature.

 

[MonsterMash]

But, you say, I'm benefitting from something without paying for it! Yes, I am. I also benefit from open source software and from advertising-supported radio without paying for them. I don't pay for my use of fresh air and sunshine, either.

Then again... my usage of open source, radio programming, and sunshine also don't prevent anyone else from using and benefitting from them. Guess I must not be stealing those, either.

Actually advertising supported radio is paid for by the listener in two ways -
1. hearing adverts from the sponsors
2. purchasing products from those sponsors (whose prices would be lower if they did not have advertising to pay for)

In economic terms sunshine is a bit of a special case. Open source is a complicated case as effectively the cost of supporting the developers has to come from somewhere, whether its employers allowing staff to release code, support for universities and students, etc. In other words it is paid for in an indirect manner.

 

[Sundragon2012]

If you were applying the Golden Rule to this argument at all, you'd stop trying to win this argument through insults and labelling my personal ethical convictions "rationalizations". Otherwise, I don't really see how the Golden Rule would stop you from arguing with me at all, and I'm not asking you to agree with me or concede, or even to shut up.

We're arguing; that's what civilized people do when they disagree. It was my choice to get involved in this argument, so I obviously expected to be argued with.

I apologize for insulting you in any way. I simply get exasperated regarding this issue and sometimes have a hard time believing that some folks actually believe the way you do and are not merely rationalizing behaviors they know to be wrong.


Chris

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, at risk of being circular, the moral definition of "my property" would, more or less, be the set of objects that it would be immoral for someone else to take or use without my permission.

But by defining "your property" as "something you can limit others from using" you have made a legal relationship between yourself and the object - the right to exclude others. Your "moral" definition is of no consequence without the legal ability to enforce your rights with respect to the object in question.

Property is, almost by definition, a creation of law.

If I were to characterize the argument I'm having with Sundragon, it would be whether or not "intellectual property" and information qualifies as "property" in the moral sense.

But there is no "moral sense" for property. Either you have rights in a thing or you don't. And if your rights are not enforceable by law, then they aren't of any value. I suppose you could argue that you have rights that you can enforce your rights by personal force, but that's not what you are talking about.

It's funny that you mention that "property" is strictly a legal concept; I'd argue that "rights" are likewise purely a matter of legality.

In application, pretty much. Rights that aren't enforceable are not worth very much.

Ah, okay-- we're using different definitions of "free". You're talking about what someone is legally allowed to do, while I'm talking about what a person can do without expending their material resources.

But that's not something that is "freely availabale". Sunshine is generally freely available. Air is freely available (in most cases). No one owns them, so anyone can have them. But, something you have to infringe upon another's property rights to get is not "freely availabale", you, at the very least, run the risk of being caught and forced to pay compensation.

Legally, yeah. Getting away from the purely legal aspect, you have to look at the nature of the things described. I don't create more land by hopping over your back fence; I don't get the same benefit from renting or borrowing your land for a couple weeks that I would from owning it. I can't create a parcel of land exactly like yours, for free, and then use it myself.

But you have defined a legal relationship: the right to exclude others. Every time you say "I'm making a moral argument", you just make a legal one that you, apparently, don't seem to understand is a legal argument.

I can understand the arguments for intellectual property rights, and I even agree with some of them-- and some of the rights advocated by those arguments-- but I can't regard "intellectual property" the same way I regard real property. The two things are entirely different in nature.

Only if you don't actually understand what property is to begin with. Property is not the thing, it is the relationship between you and the thing.

 

[CarlZog]

Now, I have to wonder, to what purpose? I think the "thrill" to these guys is the actual finding stuff, downloading it, and checking it off of a list. I seriously doubt these guys have time to play RPGs because they spend so much time hunting around and catalogging what they have.

...

I really think most of the people with 10s or 100s of gigs of illegal RPG stuff are actually just packrats. I really don't think they use it.

I have to agree with this, if only because I found myself falling prey to that mentality a few years ago. When websites began hosting huge amounts of fan-created material and warehousing older material, it suddenly seemed like Christmas to me.

I downloaded craploads of old games from sites like Home of the Underdogs. At first, I was just downloading stuff I honestly wanted to play. Then I found myself casting a wider and wider net. ("I should download that one too, JUST IN CASE I ever want to play that.")

When I discovered WotC's cache of old 2e D&D materials available free online, I methodically went through and downloaded every one of them. I'll probably never look at half of them, but I found a disturbing sense of satisfaction and comfort from knowing I had them all tucked safely away on my hard drive.

I've downloaded most of the free stuff ever offered from RPGNow and DrivethruRPG.

From computer game fansites, I downloaded mods, patches and manuals for dozens of games. I've downloaded craploads of user-created adventures, characters and rules variations and other junk from fansites for dozens of different RPGs.

Mind you, when I say "craploads", everything I've collected is still fitting in less than 30 gigs, and, as the initial marvel of it all has worn off, I'm downloading less and less. But I do understand the thrill of it, and it has nothing to do with piracy (pretty much everything on my computer is legal). It's just about knowing you've got it.

The biggest thing that prevents people from becoming packrats is the cost of acquiring crap and space required to store it. When stuff is free, and occupies no physical space, it's a lot easier to choose to take it instead of leave it.


Carl

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

To forestall the flames, I suggest we all speak like a pirate in piracy threads. What could be more appropriate? Yarrr!


Hong "not y4rrr!" Ooi

Too bad your sensible post didn't sway these landlubbers...yar.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Or pseudo-philosophy....nothing is universally wrong... when this is blatant moral relativism in its most self-serving sense.

I've seen some of that, too. Despite our other disagreements, I have to agree with you that self-serving moral relativism is pathetic. If we cannot accept that our own ethical principles are correct-- and cannot argue against that which we know is wrong-- then what is the purpose of pursuing any kind of ethical standard at all?

How about this gem of brilliance...Its ok to not pay the creator of a product because in copying the item you are actually adding data to cosmos and therefore ripping people off is a good thing as long as you add to the sum total of data in the universe.

You really have to remember that the point you're trying to prove is that downloading something without paying for it is "ripping people off". You can't use the statement to prove itself-- no matter how strongly you feel about it.

... but are twisting the inherent subjectivity and uncertainty regarding moral/ethical issues to suit their desire to get something for nothing.

Even if you want to characterize my entire argument as rationalization for my "desire to get something for nothing"-- since you're already doing so-- you have to admit that I'm not relying on (or twisting) subjectivity or uncertainty to justify it. I'm sticking to a very firm, objective, and certain ethical position, and I believe I am right for doing so.

There are no Robin Hoods here, no real rebels and no heroic protectors of liberty.

I agree-- but, in reading this thread so far, I haven't seen anyone claim to be. I'm not a rebel by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm just as certainly no hero. Even if I were either... my file-sharing activities aren't rebellious or heroic. They are, at best, useful to others. (You've been very thorough about what they are at worst.)

They couch it in colorful philosophies but this is what it boils down to.

Be careful trying to tell other people what their philosophies "boil down to". People are very rarely accurate when doing so, and they're nearly always offensive.

It is the intellect of one that seeks to act without character, but isn't honest enough with himself to embrace this lack of character. Instead, they take the cowards' road of justifying what they intuitively and intellectually know is dishonest and lacking in integrity.

I know you aren't directing this toward me-- and I am trying not to take it personally-- but you need to tread very carefully here.

Whatever else you believe about me, know that I have argued with you honestly, and that I believe everything I have said to you. Intuitively and intellectually, I know that you can't own information and that there is nothing wrong with copying it for others. If I were a coward, or if I were dishonest, I would have taken the easier path of avoiding this thread or taking the far more popular opinion here-- yours.

I will allow people to call me a thief, if they think what I do is stealing. I won't, however, tolerate being called a coward or a liar-- I am neither, and I have done nothing on this thread to suggest otherwise.

The smoke I see being blown here by some folks makes me scratch my head and wonder if they have actually been hypnotized by their own nonsense.

As opposed to being hypnotized by the recording industry's nonsense? After all, they're the ones that started a massive propaganda campaign to convince people that copyright infringement was theft.

edit: Needed to soften my tone in a few spots.

 

[S'mon]

I apologize for insulting you in any way. I simply get exasperated regarding this issue and sometimes have a hard time believing that some folks actually believe the way you do and are not merely rationalizing behaviors they know to be wrong.

I've noticed that there does seem to be a lot more insults & anger coming from your side than from the opposition. The fervour seems almost ...religious *eek*

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I apologize for insulting you in any way. I simply get exasperated regarding this issue and sometimes have a hard time believing that some folks actually believe the way you do and are not merely rationalizing behaviors they know to be wrong.

You don't need to apologize, but I appreciate it. I know this is an emotional topic for a lot of people-- and as cold-blooded as I am, I've still probably deleted more words than I've posted in this thread.

For what it's worth, some of the words I didn't delete were sharper than they needed to be-- particularly in my last post before this one. I posted them before I saw this, and I would have been softer had it been otherwise.