Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[Dannyalcatraz]

You truly believe that? You have never been to Europe, have you? Just go to a city like Berlin and spend your day in the poorest district .

Yes, I do believe that...and note that I said "in some, if not all, regards." My apologies if I worded that awkwardly- my meaning was that American poor are better off in some ways, but not in all.

I lived in Europe (specifically, Stuttgart, Germany) for 3 years. While I lived there (and on 2 subsequent visits), I visited France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Portugal, Greece, Hungary (before the fall of Communism) and Russia- to name just a few.

With my familial and professional (I wasn't ALWAYS an entertainment lawyer) ties to medicine and public health, I got to see some things that most people don't. Socialized medicine is not a panacea. While European poor can usually claim to have universal health care coverage, they also must pay for that coverage with long wait times. A poor person in a socialized medicine regime who needs a particular kind of test may wait months and may have to travel extensively to get it. An American will usually live within hours of a suitable facility- for example, there are more MRI's PET and CAT scanners in Dallas than in all of Canada. Hell..there are more PET scanners in Dallas and Houston combined than in the whole of Europe. . The obstacle is purely one of cost, and that may be taken care of by insurance or by our pro bono publico system.

You still pay, its just a question of how.

You're rather stubborn in this notion that money is the only reason to do anything.

Personally, I'm rather stubborn in the notion that money is what I'm paid for my labor and provides me the means of how I feed myself and my family.

If my boss (OK, I'm self employed, but work with me here) told me tomorrow that my 40 hours of work would be paid for in the psychic good that I receive by doing good things for people, I'd kick his ass because I'd be well short of covering my car note, grocery bill, etc.

If my client told me he wasn't paying me for 40 hours of work on his case, I'd sue him.

If, on the other hand, I decided to donate 40 hours of my work to a shelter, it was my decision- not someone else's.

People in the industry of selling games are (here's a shocker) trying to make money selling games. Some of them even go so far as to put a price on the product's final form. This should be an indicator that the medium of exchange they expect for their labor is....MONEY!

If tomorrow WOTC announced the donation of a complete set of their product to every US Military base and HS in America absolutely gratis, that would be AWESOME. It would also be their decision, not the decision of 50K Joe Pirates on the Web.

Did it suddenly start sucking in the '60s?

Well, yes and no. There was a lot of criticism of the book in the US when it first came out... Many researchers questioned not only the authors' sources but his conclusions.

On the "No" side, they pointed out that there were many systematic flaws in the data collected pre-1960. Some crimes were grossly underreported, like child molestation and rape, as well as most white-collar crime. Some statistical data was collected from homogenous groups- very bad for statistical projections in a heterogeneous group. In effect, the numbers post 1960 were more accurate than those before hand.

On the "Yes" side- the 1960s also marked a change in the way American kids were educated. Concepts like "New Math" and "Phonics," while effective teaching methods for certain subsets of students, were applied to whole school systems, including those for whom the systems did not work at all. Other major problems that show up in various districts:

1) Schools stopped viewing kids as individuals.

2) Student/teacher ratios ballooned.

3) School funding in some places is based on the value of surrounding property...meaning that schools in poor districts have less money.

4) Teacher salaires stagnated.

And many more. The problems spawned by integration were just a reflection of the state of society as a whole, so I discount those. But even so, the 1960s in America were more (internally) tumultuous than other periods of our history bar the Civil War and the Great Depression.

 

[Turjan]

Yes, I do believe that...and note that I said "in some, if not all, regards." My apologies if I worded that awkwardly- my meaning was that American poor are better off in some ways, but not in all.

I lived in Europe (specifically, Stuttgart, Germany) for 3 years. While I lived there (and on 2 subsequent visits), I visited France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Portugal, Greece, Hungary (before the fall of Communism) and Russia- to name just a few.

If you lived in Stuttgart (I lived there for a year), you should know that this is not the case in Germany. People basically go to the physician whenever they want. There is no cost limit. The long waiting times for transplantations and stuff like that have more to do with the aftermath of the esoteric boom of the 90's than anything else, because many people don't want to donate their organs. I personally know cases where health insurances spent millions on people who had been living on social welfare more or less all their life.

I know about this extensive testing that is performed here when you go to a physician. I was told this has to do with defense insurance .

It's quite different in Britain, though. But their Gini index is more similar to that one of the US, anyway. Plus, they are not really famous for their public health system .

Edit: But not to let it slide, because the details of the health insurance are just one point in a whole picture: If I compare the poor areas of this town where I live now with the poor district of, let's say, Berlin, I know where I want to live . This might of course have to do with the fact that the percentage of poor is generally lower in European countries than in the US (at least in the old EU countries).

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm currently reading The Bell Curve, looking at the graphs I was amazed to see how poverty declined rapidly in the USA until 1969, then remained static or increased up to the date of publication (1994). Many other indicators like crime rates and education rates ceased improving (education) or started getting worse (crime) from the mid-60s onwards. It looked like the US had suffered some kind of huge disaster in the '60s, losing a major war or something. Uncanny how every indicator started declining within a few years of each other.

I suppose that the fact that the U.S. began engaging in government directed social engineering on its grandest scale ever during that time frame could not have anything to do with it?

(Okay, this is drfiting into politics).

 

[Storm Raven]

You truly believe that? You have never been to Europe, have you? Just go to a city like Berlin and spend your day in the poorest district .

Yes, I do. I've been to Europe, several times. I'd rather be poor in the U.S. than poor in Europe. And while I'm not poor now, I was in the past. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

 

[Turjan]

Yes, I do. I've been to Europe, several times. I'd rather be poor in the U.S. than poor in Europe. And while I'm not poor now, I was in the past. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

There was a recent BBC article about the general misconception of poverty and the chances you have to get out of poverty in the US compared to other developed countries (old EU, Canada). The numbers show that it's much easier to get out of poverty in any of the EU countries or Canada than in the US. Nevertheless, the nimbus of the "land of unlimited possibilities" stays unbroken. We probably have to live with that .

Edit: Just to avoid any misunderstandings: Please, don't misinterpret what I say as "in the US, everything is bad, and in Europe, everything is good". Far from that. There's a reason why I'm here at the moment .

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The numbers show that it's much easier to get out of poverty in any of the EU countries or Canada than in the US.

I don't really doubt it that much.

We had some TRULY idiotic laws dealing with poverty and government benefits that have only recently been repealed. Some were actually counterproductive. It will probably take a generation for the effects of those laws to dissapear.

Example: We actually had laws limiting the amount of savings you could have in the bank and still recieve government aid. While this actually makes SOME sense, the limits were set in the 1930's at $1000. If you exceeded that limit, ALL benefits were cut off completely. For many people, it was a perfectly rational decision to not save that money and stay on the public dole.

In the early 1980's, a philanthropist conducted an experiment: he had experts calculate the 1980s equivalent value of $1000 in 1930 dollars. When a family in his experiment reached the goverment's limit and cut them off, he provided the equivalent benefits they lost. When they reached the COLAd figure, he cut those benefits by 50%. When they suppased that amount by a figure his experts suggested, he cut off all benefits.

Results: of all the families in the experiment, only 2 families returned to welfare in the decade after he cut them off. One woman (a single black mother) even managed to open a business that, according to his reports and a televised interview, grossed $1M+ annually.

That experiment caused a revision in many programs. They didn't follow all of his recs, but they did adjust some of the limits for savings and no longer cancel all benefits immediately.

So, give us a little time...

If you lived in Stuttgart (I lived there for a year), you should know that this is not the case in Germany. People basically go to the physician whenever they want.

It isn't a question of going to a physician when you want, its a question of when the test or procedure the physician wants to do can be done. When I lived in Stuttgart, I might have to wait a week or two for certain tests or procedures that I have had within minutes of having my physician order them since I've been back in the US.

BTW, don't get ME wrong...from what I've seen of the economics, the US is probably OVER-invested in high-tech medical equipment, but sometimes that lag can make a difference.

I personally know cases where health insurances spent millions on people who had been living on social welfare more or less all their life.

I can say the same thing of people in my family here in the US.

+++++
Query:
Does anyone want to fire another broadside about the REAL topic of this thread, or are we now officially and permanently off on various tangents?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Look at you. You're setting up a strawman argument. You're acting like I said all open source is inferior to the stuff you pay for when I said nothing of the sort.

Your argument was very close; perhaps I exaggerated it a little further. My point remains that Open Source is quite possibly a viable alternative to commerical software-- at the very least, in the creation of applications.

As far as games are concerned, I suspect you're correct that they're less viable. On the other hand, given the amount of money made by the industry, despite the level of free distribution in that area, suggests that piracy is by no means a threat.

Then there is the free distribution of "abandonware" games-- games that are no longer for sale and are typically at least five years old. That is just as illegal as distributing new games, and just as much the acquisition of something-for-nothing-- and generally as undesired by the designers and publishers of newer games. It's hard, however, to claim that this activity harms game publishers.

Morality is subjective, and therefore, worthless for setting up the laws. Societal good is the only thing we should look at when setting laws ...

I actually disagree with your first statement-- at least in the sense that while people may disagree on moral issues, not all moral positions are equal.

Surprisingly, I agree with you wholeheartedly in the second statement; the laws should be written in the form that contributes most to the public good.

... and I can't imagine how it benefits society in any way to say that it's okay to take intellectual property without compensating the creators.

Outside of very limited cases-- the kind originally touched upon in this thread, and the kind that I've already noted that I avoid-- it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that piracy has served to hurt creative-IP industries, and some studies indicate it may even be beneficial due to word-of-mouth.

The copyright laws were drafted in an age where the concern was not about free copies, but about third parties copying and re-selling intellectual property without engaging in any of the development costs-- or compensating the original creator. I agree with you that this is wrong, immoral, and should be illegal; I'm glad that it is in most of the developed world. However, I also believe that this is a separate issue from the free distribution of those copies-- especially since freely-distributed copies are typically inferior to the retail product, and thus provide a way for the creator to still benefit from sales.

At coffee last night, I happened to be speaking with a friend of mine who has a sizable collection of pirated computer software. He never charges for anything he doesn't own-- and he's talked a number of people into buying legitimate copies of a program or paying the registration cost for shareware.

These ideals are not wholly incompatible.

And here we find the source of your flawed beliefs. The idea that secrecy is wrong is not only idiotic, but insulting as well.

Considering this statement-- and the number of people who've called me a liar, a thief, and a coward in this thread-- I can only suggest that you suck it up and deal with it.

Are you trying to imply that the paratroopers's in my grandfather's regiment were in the wrong when they secretly deployed behind German lines via parachute on D-Day? Are you trying to imply that the allied spies who risked their lives to help bring down the third reich were in the wrong? Secrecy is not wrong like you claim it is, and you are truly being insulting by saying it is.

Let's look at this, shall we? Your grandfather and his comrades-in-arms benefitted from secrecy in their campaign against an enemy that most of us will readily acknowledge was corrupt and dangerous, if not wholly evil. I honor your grandfather's service, and I would be the last to denigrate it.

Allied Intelligence, through use of secrecy, protected our forces from that enemy-- though their main purpose was the breach of that enemy's secrets, I might remind you.

If the keeping of secrets is right-- and the exposure of secrets is wrong, as you say-- then how was the behavior of Allied Intelligence moral? If keeping secrets is right, and exposing enemy secrets is right-- which is a contradiction-- then how was Allied Intelligence more morally correct than Axis Intelligence?

I would also remind you that the war in which your honorable grandfather fought was made possible by the ability of Germany to conceal and deny their military buildup-- in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Their numerous crimes against humanity were only made possible by their utter secrecy-- their ability to conceal these crimes, or at least the true extent of their crimes, from their citizenry.

If it were made possible by the Treaty of Versailles, it was also made inevitable by that Treaty, which ended a war built upon a network of secret alliances and triggered by an assassin.

American involvement in that war started in secret, with our smuggling of military equipment to the British-- and civilians paid the price of that secret with the sinking of the Lusitania. Though I of course cannot prove it, I suspect that World War I would have ended sooner, with fewer casualties and far less economic costs, if it were not for our secret-- and then not-so-secret-- involvement.

It certainly would have ended on a more even basis, without the Treaty of Versailles that made World War II an inevitability. That war, beyond the horrors of World War II, was also responsible for the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-- the USSR-- another government that used its ability to keep secrets to commit atrocities.

The intelligence struggle-- the war over secrets-- and brinksmanship between our government and theirs was capable of making human life extinct, and it almost did on at least one occasion.

No, the ability to keep secrets has caused far more harm than any amount of judicious secrecy-- whether you find this simple truth insulting or not.

What is it with you and absolutes? Why are you so insistent that they exist?

I might ask you the same question, since you are claiming that my position is both absolutely wrong and absolutely idiotic.

Like with the argument about "greed", I think this discussion would be better served if you focused on weaknesses in my argument-- that are not also shared by yours.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Query:
Does anyone want to fire another broadside about the REAL topic of this thread, or are we now officially and permanently off on various tangents?

I suspect the original topic is exhausted, and any return to it will be in the form of simple moral judgements that do not take the previous pages of argumentation into account.

I'm rather comfortable with the thread being closed now-- or simply fading into obscurity-- but I wouldn't want this to happen without Falkus, or Storm Raven, or yourself getting the opportunity to address my last post-- if any of you desire to. I think the conversation has reached its natural conclusion.

 

[Storm Raven]

There was a recent BBC article about the general misconception of poverty and the chances you have to get out of poverty in the US compared to other developed countries (old EU, Canada). The numbers show that it's much easier to get out of poverty in any of the EU countries or Canada than in the US. Nevertheless, the nimbus of the "land of unlimited possibilities" stays unbroken. We probably have to live with that .

It also has to do with expectations. In the U.S., we expect a different set of returns than many people living in the EU. Observed behaviour, for example, has shown that Americans, in general, don't value health benefits all that much relative to a lot of other things. Any study performed by an organization based in the EU will necessarily measure those things that they consider to be of significant value, and compare what people from both regions have in those areas.

So, for example, your typical American believes that he will someday own his own house, and in many cases he is correct in that belief. In the EU, real property ownership is less common, and appears to be less valued as a whole. In the U.S., we expect that we will own a car, or even two cars, and multiple personal conveniences (in many cases, duplicative ones at that). In the EU, it seems that this expectation is not so strong.

Take, for example, my sister in law. She and her husband make a decent amount of money, live in a sizeable house, and own not two, but three cars, and have not only a television, but a built home theatre system. Yet they have no health insurance (my brother-in-law is a contractor and his job doesn't provide it as a benefit). They certainly could afford it by, for example, foregoing the completely extraneous third car (they have no kids or other dependents). The could actually afford it and keep the third car. But they don't want to spend the money on health insurance (and there is nothing other than that keeping them from getting it, they haven't been denied coverage for some health problem or anything like that). Other things are, quite simply, more important to them.

Now, the BBC looking at this situation would conclude that something is very wrong: they are uninsured! This is a travesty! Even the middle class in America run the risk of being uninsured! But it is simply a choice - they want other things more, because their opinion of what is important is simply different. That is not to say that everyone who is uninsured does so voluntarily, but if you look at the numbers, a large proportion of the uninsured population effectively are.

Since Germany has been brought up, I would point out, for example, that Germany currently has 12% unemployment. If the U.S. had a comparable figure, people would be howling in anger at the government.

 

[Storm Raven]

Please consider that the vast majority of technology we're using today was originally developed by (or for) the U.S. military and/or NASA. Both are government-funded organizations, and government funds an enormous amount of research. Usually, the private sector only improves upon government research, once the government is done with it.

Most of the research for DoD and NASA is actually done by private organizations. DoD and NASA give specifications of what they want the end product to do, and then private organizations figure out how so they can compete for the contract. The incentive of the private organizations - getting paid.