Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[Wayside]

I've read Psionicists Wiki link, and it didn't change my position or knowledge of the situation at all. The best pirated DVD's will match up poorly to the worst quality prpfessionally produced DVD's, IMO.

As far as I know, data is data. You don't need any kind of video suite or fancy equipment to make an image (an exact digital copy) of a DVD. I can copy the image to my harddrive and play it there by mounting it on a virtual DVD drive, for example, and this is identical to putting the DVD in my DVD player and watching it that way. I can also use a DVD burner to make an exact copy of the DVD with no loss of quality. There's no kind of video transfer involved--this is reserved entirely for using divx and other compression schemes, which take a 4 gig DVD image down to about 700 megs. These compressed files do lose some quality, but DVD images do not.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That depends on what, exactly, you mean by pirated DVDs.

I know a place that sells pirated DVDs of stuff that is still in the theaters...in their 1st week of their run!

That may be the kind of stuff Kid Charlemagne is referring to.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hi Danny, nice to have input from someone who could legitimately start his posts with "IAAL and..." rather than "IANAL but..."!

Very interesting reading.

Cheers

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Corporate espionage is BIG BUSINESS! Everything from hard extraction of data and prototypes to hacking mainframes.

Yes. Where did you think I developed my ethics regarding the distribution of information?

I'm sorry to say, that as much as I love roleplaying, it isn't a real big factor in my ethical decisions-- I don't base my worldview around my desire to play roleplaying games.

Do you think for ONE minute if you were to snag Boeing's plans for thier latest fighter jet that they wouldn't slit your throat and dump your charred body in a ditch somewhere?

And Bloodstone Press would be all too happy to do it, too, if he could get away with it.

I never said information was "worthless" or "valueless"-- I said it should be free. The fact that some people are willing to kill to protect certain information doesn't change that it should be free-- if anything, it makes it more important that it be made free.

If it were "worthless", I wouldn't be saying-- repeatedly, I might add-- that the people who create that information should be compensated for doing so. I wouldn't care if they got their paychecks, and I wouldn't avoid sharing the products of people I'm worried might not get paid because of it.

And yes, if it were within my means, I would snag Boeing's prototype plans, the core code to Windows Alpha, and the name of the man who shot Kennedy-- but as I said before, I'm no hero, and my charred body would end up in a ditch before I even got close.

Information is power and wealth in that arena.

Yes. That's why it must be distributed.

And who are you to decide whether or not something that was worked on for hundreds of man hours is valueless and should be free?

Who are you to decide what can and cannot be shared freely? Who are you to stop me?

 

[S'mon]

Not quite - the second is economically good if and only if in the process of creation there is some addition to the economy. If the new thing is created such that it does not actually take part in the economy (like copying a file and not paying for it), no good is done in the economy. Ergo, downloading the file and not paying for it is, at best, economically neutral.

Your understanding is different from that of The Economist, where I got this argument from.
According to The Economist (& the standard economic theory the writer was expounding) any valued good is an economic good. The normal way of valuing these goods is "what would you be willing to pay for it". Eg: if I build my own computer table, it does not "take part in the economy", yet it is still an economic good because I attach value to it. Likewise a piece of software I download for free.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

Who are you to decide what can and cannot be shared freely? Who are you to stop me?

The owner of the copyright, who has decided how much I am willing to sell copies for in the free market system.

Originally Posted by Warlord Ralts
Information is power and wealth in that arena.

Yes. That's why it must be distributed.

Distribution of wealth? Now you endorse communism?

And Bloodstone Press would be all too happy to do it, too, if he could get away with it.

Apparently you missed my post on page 3, where I said

The psychology of killing is a whole separate can of worms from what we are talking about. Indeed, its the subject of a new Chapter in my up-coming Book of Broken Dreams revision.

[shameless plug] Anyone who buys the antiquated, original version of the Book of Broken Dreams now (for only $5) will get a free copy of the revised version, which will include a new chapter on mobs, group dynamics and crowds as well as a new chapter on the psychology of killing. this revised version will sell for $7 (because of the two new Chapters)
so, buy now, save $2 and pick up a great gaming sourcebook, no matter what system you play.
[/shameless plug]

For now I'll refrain from an essay on the psychology of killing and say only that it is very different than what we are talking about here (for reasons cited in my post in the other thread). There are other things that keep you from killing besides laws and morals.

Of course, I should also point out that anyone with a pirated copy of that book won't be getting a free copy of the revision from me, and anyone who obtains a free copy from anyone other than me would be stealing it.

Really, if you can read all the legal and ethical arguments of the past two pages alone, and still not offer up any better defense, or reconsider your attitude, then this conversation is at it's hopeless conclusion.

 

[S'mon]

IAALL*. In the UK Theft is a particular criminal offence defined as taking a physical thing with "intention to permanently deprive" the legal owner of that thing. Copyright infringement per se is a tort, not a criminal offence at all. Fraud isn't Theft, either. Burglary & Robbery are criminal offences which both include theft in their definitions.

*I Am A Law Lecturer.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

IAALL*. In the UK Theft is a particular criminal offence defined as taking a physical thing with "intention to permanently deprive" the legal owner of that thing. Copyright infringement per se is a tort, not a criminal offence at all. Fraud isn't Theft, either. Burglary & Robbery are criminal offences which both include theft in their definitions.

Fair enough.

But I am not, and have not been, arguing the legal aspect of this. I'm leaving that to the copyright lawyers, law lecturers and arm-chair law experts around here.

I have been arguing since page 1 about the ethical and psychological aspects of file-sharing.

Taking something that you should have paid for is ethically wrong and is best characterized as "theft."

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Distribution of wealth? Now you endorse communism?

At risk of becoming political, not exactly. Re-distributing wealth does no good if you turn all the power over the distribution of wealth over to the government-- the point is for wealth and power to be held in more hands, not fewer.

I certainly wouldn't want the "stateless society" promoted by Marx, either.

Apparently you missed my post on page 3, where I said

Really, it was a cheap shot on my part. I do not think, however upset you are about piracy, that would stoop to killing me, and I should not have said so.

Of course, I should also point out that anyone with a pirated copy of that book won't be getting a free copy of the revision from me ...

Of course not. I wouldn't dream of asking you for one-- not that I have pirated any of your works.

What is Book of Broken Dreams, by the way? If it includes a chapter on mob psychology, I may be interested.

Really, if you can read all the legal and ethical arguments of the past two pages alone, and still not offer up any better defense, or reconsider your attitude, then this conversation is at it's hopeless conclusion.

That wasn't really a defense-- my defenses have been posted earlier. I can't use Boeing's (or anyone else's) ruthlessness as the basis of my morality, no matter how offensive it is to me. In any case, the copying and distribution of their prototype designs is, as Sundragon2012 would point out, a far cry from the wholesale copying of supplemental material for a roleplaying game.

My attitude on this matter is something I have considered, and reconsidered, and considered again; even with some of the well-thought and well-written arguments on the previous pages, I still believe it to be valid and correct.

I don't really think any of us came into this thread thinking we'd change our minds-- or, really change anyone else's mind-- but we have at least improved the level of discussion beyond "copying is theft!" and "books cost too much!". I figure at least some of us have gained some insight into the counter-arguments for their position, and that's worth something.

 

[S'mon]

Bloodstone - I was directing that mostly to Danny "Entertainment Lawyer" Alcatraz.

>> Taking something that you should have paid for is ethically wrong <<

I think this is true but tautologous. I also think the law is an important factor. Eg the (UK) law says I can resell books secondhand without compensating the publishers/authors. Is the secondhand book trade morally ok? What if the law changed so that resale became illegal or required me to pay a royalty to the Copyright Collections Agency? Would reselling without compensation then become morally wrong, equivalent to theft?