Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[Bloodstone Press]

Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition,

Why say something when someone has said better already? Nice work

I reiterate because I still don't buy the obfuscation I've read in the last page and a half. And because Korimyr is still saying things like this:

The distinction was also important because I was in the position (incredibly rare for me) of arguing that something is moral despite it being clearly and obviously illegal.

and this

When the item in question only exists digitally, it is impossible to take it unless you take the physical media it exists within-- which would, actually, be theft.

Which I disagree with.

and this:

And, quite simply, you're attaching your cart to the wrong horse; the creator is not harmed by the act of downloading, they are harmed by the non-act of not buying. Not even you can argue that we're obligated to buy everything produced-- and if I'm already not-buying, then it makes absolutely no difference whether or not I am downloading.

which is a false circular argument.

if you were already non-buying, and you DIDN'T fileshare, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We are having this conversation because people DO fileshare.

And this:

And... are you really trying to tell me that if I'm gaining something, without depriving anyone else of it, it's wrong?

Yes.

See... that's what economists, games theorists, and ethicists all refer to as a "positive sum game"-- the very essence of beneficial activity.

Its not.

and this:

I'm still benefitting from it without paying for it; by your standards, that is morally unacceptable. While this is less applicable for roleplaying books, I don't need to own a copy of a book to benefit from having read it.

That's an obfuscation.

And this:

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.

Then by your definition pirates do not freely make copies. The computer costs money. The scanner, the web access etc..... but that's just nitpicking.

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 benefiting from them. Guess I must not be stealing those, either.

The "value" of open source software and ad supported radio is determined by the people who are providing it to you. It is up them, the owners of the material to decide its value and what you should have to pay to use it. If they choose to give it away free, that's their choice, not yours.

Then you say:

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

And still you say:

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".

Let me reiterate, since you still don't seem to get it:
That is a false circular argument.

If you were already non-buying, and you DIDN'T fileshare, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Therefore, you can't say that "you wouldn't have bought it anyway." Because clearly you have it, so we have to assume you would have (and should have) paid for it.

Why is that hard for you to understand?

I'm sticking to a very firm, objective, and certain ethical position, and I believe I am right for doing so.

Yeah, and I'm saying its flawed.
Shall I reiterate again?

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

BINGO!
Dare I say valuable to others? And therefore worth money?

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.

Then you are flat out wrong. As I have said, you gained ownership of valuable property without paying for it.

I still fail to see how gaining a copy of valuable goods without paying for it is anything but theft. How do you see theft as "moral?"

Because it "spreads information around?" and it "creates a new copy of the product?"

That's just more obfuscating.

After all the legal semantics, it is still theft.

 

[The Persian]

A statement that only holds water if you believe morality is relative.

change "believe" to "know"

 

[Storm Raven]

But I digress, and that further adds to the point in the previous 12 page thread, the information itself has no value, regardless of supply or demand and whatever intrinsic value one has with that piece of information. It's merely neurons and axons, chemicals and other lovely biological terms that explain our brain coming up with ideas, not a viable product or service that has a value. It's a culmination of many things, not just 1 thing.

Using that analysis, nothing has intrinsic value (including information). Which I don't disagree with. But that doesn't mean that something does not have value.

 

[Storm Raven]

change "believe" to "know"

Nope, it is still "believe". "Know" implies a divine omniscience which I assume you do not have.

 

[Morrus]

For those in the "information should be free" camp, how about looking at it this way?

You're not paying for the information when you buy a PDF. You're paying for a service, and that service is the organised presentation of that information to you. By downloading the PDF and not paying for it, you're refusing to pay for a service, not an object.

 

[Psionicist]

For those in the "information should be free" camp, how about looking at it this way?

You're not paying for the information when you buy a PDF. You're paying for a service, and that service is the organised presentation of that information to you. By downloading the PDF and not paying for it, you're refusing to pay for a service, not an object.

That is an excellent point, exactly the kind of argument we should concentrate on.

This is common in the computer industry, especially for corporations that tries to make money from open source. The product is free as in freedom. What you pay for is support and other services.

Publishers should really consider the ransom model someone mentioned a month ago or so.

 

[The Persian]

Ah, but how far along the line of "service" one pays for also determines price.

PDF vs Hardback

consider one doesn't have the work of printing, binding, checking for errors, physical quality, shipping to stores, warehouses, various distributors, etc.

consider the other includes OCR, bookmarks, links, online support and other such "perks"

which is harder work? you decide

 

[Rykion]

Data/Knowledge/Information has been a commodity for a very long time. It is how teachers and authors have earned all or part of their living for thousands of years. Computer programs, recorded music, and data files are more recent additions to the commodity of data. Many countries have added to their copyright and IP laws because the ability to transfer data without right has drastically increased over the last 10 years. The commodity of knowledge is the primary source of income for an increasing number of people such as programmers, accountants, scientists, teachers, authors, musicians, etc. Anyone who holds a job that requires a certain level of education is being paid in part for their knowledge.

Information may be freely given, but to take it without paying when the creator asks for compensation is wrong. It may not be illegal in some countries, but that doesn't make it right. My dictionary from 1982 does list the appropriation of ideas or words without right as stealing, so it isn't a recent concept. It may not meet the legal definition of stealing but that doesn't mean the term doesn't apply.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

Talking about "ethics" and "morals" to prove your point is dumb.
In Japan you can buy "Lolicon" in regular bookstores. Do you know what lolicon is? It's porn cartoons with naked children age 3-17 or so (check Wikipedia). Lots of japanese men think this is sexually arousing. Nothing wrong with that over there. Damn, that boggled your mind didn't it?

No. I'm pretty sure I'm not boggled.

Read my post above. You think it's wrong. It's not wrong in other cultures.

No. you used an irrelevant example of anima child porn to point out something most of the people reading this already know: cultural norms exist.

I challenge you to name a culture where theft is a social norm. And note I said "theft" not borrowing or sharing.

I just want to say something. First, just because there is potentially an infinite supply of something, you do not have a right to take as much as you want if it isn't yours to begin with. You took it, you kept it and you didn't pay for it when you should have. I don't see why some people have so much difficulty in grasping the fact that doing so is wrong.

Probably because that's not a universal absolute.

Right, but it should be. Among ethically minded people it is.

Information has value? Wow, i didn't know you could tag a dollar value on how to make fire!

Check Amazon, I'm sure someone has already beaten you to it.

 

[Kurotowa]

Let's simplify.

People do work for compensation. That compensation can be monetary, or it might be something else like satisfaction. In a capitalist society, money is the typical measure of value, so we can simplify and say people work because they are paid for that work.

Copyright laws are designed to ensure that creators receive value from the intangible aspects of thier creations -- images, stories, music, etc. You pay the creator for the results of their efforts and talent (plus distributors, marketers, etc., who add value from somebody's standpoint).

I disagree with your simplification.

Artists create art for art's sake. Writers will write because they feel a drive to write, just like painters will paint because they love it and photographers will carry a camera whenever possible. Look at www.fanfiction.net and www.deviantart.com and all over the internet. Those people give away their work, as you define it. If profit was a person's primary goal there are so many better lines of work than the creative arts.

Copywrite laws were designed to encourage artists to release their works into the public domain for the betterment of society and the general public good. They were an alternative to the patronage system, where only the rich patrons benefited from the creative works. The purpose is to support creators by giving them limited control over their works for a limited time to allow them to gain compensation for their efforts.

Each time this subject comes up I think back to past time the technology advanced past the current laws and busniness models. The movie studios being emotional over VCRs, the record labels getting furious at radio, the sheet music companies becoming hysterical over player pianos. There was a lot of shouting and when it was over people had adapted to the new technology and the creative types keep going on just fine. I can't help but see this as the same thing.

People are never willing to wait, they want to enjoy the benefits of the new technology NOW. Are digital distribution has so *many* benefits. Except that PDFs are clumsy, eBooks suck, the pricing structures are crazy, and the official lines of distribution are lacking. So people do what they have to, to use the new technology. Sooner or later digital books will find their iPod to meet the demand. The more the potential customer base is attacked, insulted, and demonized the later it will be.