Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Yes, you do. You need to give an idea of how a better system could be put in play than the one that is being used. Otherwise you are just engaging in of form of the Nirvana fallacy.

No, I don't. A man with your background in the law really should be familiar with the Opposition's burden in a debate.

My argument is that the current system is failing and that a new system is needed-- and I am capable of demonstrating this. You're capable of demonstrating this, because you've been using evidence of the system's failings as arguments against my conduct. I think every person in this thread-- except a few arguing that piracy has absolutely zero effect on sales-- is capable of showing that the current system is not working.

You don't have to be an engineer to see the bridge is out-- and you don't have to know how to fix it in order to report it.

Or to learn to swim.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Open source software and fan fiction is not a replacement.

Why not? Everything I need to do on a computer, I can do with open source software-- I even have a handful of entertaining games. And not all fan fiction is creepy erotica.

You're also leaving aside the fact that they're not the only possible replacements. We've got shareware (which works for non-software electronic information), ransom, and donation models-- and while all have their drawbacks, so does the current system. Almost certainly, someone soon is going to discover another business model for electronic publishing-- and we can see how well that one works.

And how do you know that? Maybe in two years there'll be a whole branch of the FBI specializing in tracking down information pirates, with an international authority to do so.

Now who's dreaming?

 

[Storm Raven]

No, I don't. A man with your background in the law really should be familiar with the Opposition's burden in a debate.

If you want to be taken seriously in a debate concerning public policy, yes, you do. What you are engaging in is the Nirvanah fallacy - denigrating a current system for its flaws, essentially comparing it to some unnamed, but perfect alternative. Unless you come up with some sort of alternative that cures the ills, you don't have any kind of argument that the current system is worse than any usable alternatives. You say "the current system is BROKEN" as if that proves some sort of point. It doesn't. Until you put forward some sort of option to replace the current system, your entirer argument is completely nullfied by the simple observation that the current system is better than any known alternative.

And you aren't "the opposition" (and public policy debates aren't a court of law). You want something changed. The burden, realistically, is on you to prove that this change is needed, and would be beneficial. You have yet to prove that changing would be beneficial, because you have not provided any alternative to compare the current system to.

 

[Kelleris]

If you want to be taken seriously in a debate concerning public policy, yes, you do. What you are engaging in is the Nirvanah fallacy - denigrating a current system for its flaws, essentially comparing it to some unnamed, but perfect alternative. Unless you come up with some sort of alternative that cures the ills, you don't have any kind of argument that the current system is worse than any usable alternatives. You say "the current system is BROKEN" as if that proves some sort of point. It doesn't. Until you put forward some sort of option to replace the current system, your entirer argument is completely nullfied by the simple observation that the current system is better than any known alternative.

This might be the case if Korimyr were actually arguing that we should tear down capitalism. However, as I read him, he'd simply arguing that we should start looking for better alternatives (with the awareness that there might not be a better alternative to be found). IF the current approach is as flawed as Korimyr claims it is (and I'm neutral on that), then I think we're justified in mounting a search for a better alternative based on the hope that there is such a better alternative. That's what epistemically responsible people do when their current paradigm begins to break down.

Ugh, starting to sound like Kuhn. Scientific paradigm shifts are actually an interesting analogy here, though.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

If you want to be taken seriously in a debate concerning public policy, yes, you do. What you are engaging in is the Nirvanah fallacy - denigrating a current system for its flaws, essentially comparing it to some unnamed, but perfect alternative.

I'm not denigrating the current system, however-- I am predicting its demise. As it stands, my only complaint with the current system, as it would be practiced in ideal form, is that it prevents the free flow of information. In the real world, however, the use of file-sharing technology means that the system cannot prevent dissemination-- and that is why the system is failing. The current system depends on controlling the flow of information to compensate authors; it is based on a functional impossibility.

Unless you come up with some sort of alternative that cures the ills, you don't have any kind of argument that the current system is worse than any usable alternatives.

Until you acknowledge that the ills exist, beyond blaming them on simple criminality, there is value in pointing them out.

As long as publishers are crying for the blood of the pirates-- or, at least, their criminal prosecution-- they're not doing anything to adapt themselves to the reality of the changing information market. It doesn't matter how many people they shut down, how many lawsuits they file, or how many draconian new laws they pass; if they do not adapt to this technology, they will be as dead as the companies that maintained the gas streetlights.

Until you put forward some sort of option to replace the current system, your entire argument is completely nullfied by the simple observation that the current system is better than any known alternative.

Not if my argument is that we need to be looking for those unknown alternatives.

And you aren't "the opposition" (and public policy debates aren't a court of law). You want something changed. The burden, realistically, is on you to prove that this change is needed, and would be beneficial. You have yet to prove that changing would be beneficial, because you have not provided any alternative to compare the current system to.

Alright-- you may have a valid point here.

But we're both arguing for something to be changed, here. I want the laws changed, and you want the behavior of hundreds of thousands of people-- the vast majority of them completely unorganized-- changed. You've neither proposed any real benefit to them, nor have you provided any meaningful vehicle for that change.

And, for the record, I have proposed benefits of changing the laws-- I've argued that it would allow for more creativity on the part of more people, as they gained more material to work with. I have also argued against-- if not wholly refuted-- the notion that the end of pay-per-copy art and entertainment (not to mention computer utilities) would prove the end of all art and entertainment.

The main failing in my argument-- because of my lack of adequate knowledge of business models-- is that it doesn't adequately provide for the just compensation of authors. However, wasn't this thread originally started because people were concerned that the current system, with its current flaws, was also not adequately providing this compensation?

 

[Storm Raven]

This might be the case if Korimyr were actually arguing that we should tear down capitalism. However, as I read him, he'd simply arguing that we should start looking for better alternatives (with the awareness that there might not be a better alternative to be found). IF the current approach is as flawed as Korimyr claims it is (and I'm neutral on that), then I think we're justified in mounting a search for a better alternative based on the hope that there is such a better alternative. That's what epistemically responsible people do when their current paradigm begins to break down.

He may or may not be arguing for the dismantlement of capitalism, but that's neither here nor there. What he is arguing for (as best I can tell) is the dissolution of the current intellectual property regime because it is (in his words) "BROKEN". But the problem in a public policy discussion is that all systems have flaws, so picking at a system's weakness and arguing that it should be replaced is not a particularly meaningful position to take. It is easy to throw hand-grenades from the back bench so to speak.

In a public policy discussion, you have to show that there is a better, viable option that could be used to replace the current model. That is much harder than simply arguing that the current system should be blown up. The key is to avoid putting in place something that is worse than what we have, and thus far Korimyr hasn't shownt that that is possible. To quote Churchill "democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the other ones".

A paraphrase for the current debate would be "copyright laws are the worst way to compensate those who create works of authorship, except for the known alternatives."

 

[Kelleris]

You're right about capitalism being neither here nor there; my non-sleeping addled brain got confused.

But (as I see it), he's not arguing for any change at all, per se. He's merely claiming that the current IP laws are headed for an untimely demise (an arguably empirical claim) and that we should be looking for a better alternative because the current system is intolerable (again, an arguably empirical claim). If he were actually arguing that we should, right now change to some other system, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on unless he could provide a demonstrably better alternative. But he doesn't need to have an alternative in mind to suggest merely inquiring into better alternatives. If that were the case, deciding to look for and evaluate new systems (for instance, democracy) based on the perceived weaknesses of an old system (like monarchy, say) would be an epistemically bankrupt enterprise right until you discovered the better system. That just doesn't sound like a plausible case to me.

And, uh, sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth Korimyr.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

If that were the case, deciding to look for and evaluate new systems (for instance, democracy) based on the perceived weaknesses of an old system (like monarchy, say) would be an epistemically bankrupt enterprise right until you discovered the better system. That just doesn't sound like a plausible case to me.

Thank you-- you've stated that far more clearly than I would have managed.

And, uh, sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth Korimyr.

When the words are better than my own, no offense can be given.

To refer this back to the argument at-hand, the unfettered spread of information is both natural and right. When books had to be copied by-hand, this didn't cause a conflict with the right of authors to be paid for their works. When books had to be copied on a printing press, it caused only a small conflict-- and the issue of people making unauthorized copies for sale was easily resolved when copyright laws were invented.

When books could be copied via Xerox, it was still a relatively minor problem, since Xerox copies aren't normally as good as hard copies, and the copier still had to use his own resources.

Now that books can be copied for free-- mostly, since scanned copies are still inferior to hard copies-- it has become a more serious issue. The problem arises when people, understandably, try to use the law to protect their business model; in this case, they're doing so by attempting to prevent the free flow of information, which is wrong.

The fact that a couple posters have used espionage as an example of why information-sharing is wrong only points out just how distorted and out-of-whack things have become, regarding this issue.

 

[The_Magician]

"Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?"

Of course not. That's how they make money. By not selling their products.

 

[S'mon]

I haven't either, which is why I asked. I see the assertion made that China has the death penalty for copyright violations, and that this was the result of a U.S. demand, but I haven't ever been able to find anything supporting this. Having looked at the detailed discussion of Chinese copyright law that you provided, I'm wondering if the whole "China has the death penalty for copyright violators" thing is an internet myth.

I was like you - on ENW someone asserted that the death penalty was a US precondition for Chinese WTO membership. I didn't find that but I did find a creditable reference to US requiring China to impose death penalty for copyright infringement during I think Most Favoured Nation negotiations early in the Clinton administration ca 1994. A search just now didn't turn it up, I'm now using a different browser since my copy of IE is F'd up so I can't search bookmarks or History. If no one else finds anything I can ask Robin Gross of IP Justice, I think I saw it discussed in an interview with her online.