Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[Lazarous]

Fascinating, but I don't really understand why there is a problem.
Someone writes a book and decides "you can use the ideas in my book, if you pay a certain price."
Now if you want to use the book, you pay the price, and if you don't ... you don't.
It's the same decision everytime you want to have/use/enjoy something you do not have, but someone else has. Either you pay the given price or you don't use/have/enjoy it. It doesn't really matter if it hurts the other person one bit. It also doesn't matter, if you can afford to buy the book. If you can't, than you must live without it. It's that simple.
Or perhaps this example:
You want to drive with a Porsche. Another person has one. He works from 9.00 to 17.00 h, so he can't use it. Should you be allowed to take his car without his consent during this time(you pay for gas and any possible damages, you even leave some money for the useage - it would not hurt him and he can't use it anyway)?
No. If you use someone elses work or property, you should only do so with his consent. And if he only gives his consent when you pay a certain amount of money, than you should pay it. Or you must go without said work or property.

Actually it seems like this sort of reasoning muddles the issue still further. An example to illustrate - imagine that an rpg book is available for purchase in a bookstore; an rpg player comes along and browses through this book, finding several ideas/mechanics that they like. Here is the twist - the rpg player has a very very good memory (eidetic for the purposes of discussion), Instead of buying the book, they simply memorize everything that they wish to use, and leave the book in the store. The player goes home, types out the relevant rules in a short .txt for his players, and starts using them.

Has theft occured?

If a publisher is trying to get you to pay for using their idea it seems they're on very shaky ground.

The above situation is also directly analagous to the debate over whether pdf sharing is theft, since what is being distributed is not a product, but an idea.

My kneejerk reaction to this is that it seems like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole - you have a system which actively encourages distribution of ideas to as many people as possible(making them non-scarce), but you're at the same time trying to fit it with an economic system based around scarcity. I can't think of any quick and easy answers to this issue.

 

[Storm Raven]

I agree copyright (and patent, etc.) laws were instituted to promote the creation and elaboration of new ideas. I just don't think people have a basic right to have future possible ideas. I think they have a right of free speech (including copying), though, and that this right should be tempered by other rights, not by commercial or ideaological reasons.

You mean rights like copyrights, which are enshrined by the Constitution?

The problem with your analysis is that without copyright, you don't have the initial product to copy in many cases, so you wouldn't have the "free speech" to copy them.

Also, given your statement concerning "future possible ideas" I don't think you understand copyright (or IP laws in general) at all. Copyright protects a certain expression of an idea once it has been fixed in a perceivable form. Until you actually fix it in that form, you don't own it, and you don't own any other ideas.

 

[Storm Raven]

Sure they are. I "steal" music online all the time then go buy the CD. Really isn't much else to do if you are into underground metal and don't want to waste money on CD's that only have one good song.

I think you've contradicted yourself here. For every CD you download, decide there is only "one good song" on it and then don't buy, you aren't a customer, you are thief.

And these sorts of anecdotes about how illegal downloaders usually end up buying the IP in question are just that - anecdotes. I know plenty of downloaders who have never bought something after they downloaded it. Which are more numerous, and does it matter?

 

[Storm Raven]

Because If you have actually read this thread, you can clearly see those who download material also buy it.

We see a some people who claim they do. But those people are whiny pro-pirate thieves to begin with, so they don't have much credibility on the subject.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think you've contradicted yourself here. For every CD you download, decide there is only "one good song" on it and then don't buy, you aren't a customer, you are thief.

I wonder what level I'm up to?

 

[Wayside]

I think you've contradicted yourself here. For every CD you download, decide there is only "one good song" on it and then don't buy, you aren't a customer, you are thief.

Fight fire with fire: I surely won't pay full price for an already overpriced cd with one good song on it, especially not with album lengths being as pathetic as they are lately. If you want me to buy your cd stop price-fixing, intentionally padding it with crappy filler, etc. Or are corporations the only ones allowed to break the law?

We see a some people who claim they do. But those people are whiny pro-pirate thieves to begin with, so they don't have much credibility on the subject.

Heh, this one gave me a good laugh. It's also funny from a rhetorical standpoint, you realize, because any credibility you might have had goes *POOF* after you make this sort of statement. Not because it's right or wrong necessarily, mind you, but because, accordingly, for you "pro-pirate thieves" can have no credibility on the subject of piracy whatever, meaning there's no reason for said thieves to bother discussing the issue with you at all, what with the fingers in the ears and sticking out of the tongue and the NANANANA and all.

For some reason piracy reminds me of the Boston Tea Party. It's a thing..

 

[Storm Raven]

Fight fire with fire: I surely won't pay full price for an already overpriced cd with one good song on it, especially not with album lengths being as pathetic as they are lately. If you want me to buy your cd stop price-fixing, intentionally padding it with crappy filler, etc. Or are corporations the only ones allowed to break the law?

"Other people broke the law! I should be able to too!" is not a very persuasive argument.

And, if you had actually read the article, you will note that the practice complained of was discontinued in 2000, and didn't actually benefit the record companies. It was intended to help small chains compete with Wal-Mart and other discount brokers. It might have been bad business (I think it probably was), but it wasn't there to help greedy record companies.

Heh, this one gave me a good laugh. It's also funny from a rhetorical standpoint, you realize, because any credibility you might have had goes *POOF* after you make this sort of statement. Not because it's right or wrong necessarily, mind you, but because, accordingly, for you "pro-pirate thieves" can have no credibility on the subject of piracy whatever, meaning there's no reason for said thieves to bother discussing the issue with you at all, what with the fingers in the ears and sticking out of the tongue and the NANANANA and all.

No, they have no credibility on whether or not they buy stuff after they download it as a justification for their piracy. You see, when you engage in illegal behaviour, but then come up with an post hoc and unprovable justification for your actions, you don't get any kind of credibility on the subject. It's a lame justification, and clearly a rationalization by people trying to cover their behinds and persuade themselves that their improper actions are actually proper.

For some reason piracy reminds me of the Boston Tea Party. It's a thing..

Yeah, because getting luxury items for free is somehow on par with being taxed without representation. I'm thinking your credibility just went down the drain on this.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

(Sigh) I went away for a few days and missed the argument. Oh well, here's my position anyway:

Intellectual property isn't any kind of right, natural or otherwise. Life liberty and pursuit of happiness are natural rights. So are freedom of speech and religion. But freedom to keep others from using my ideas? Ridiculous.

I have a problem with the concept that an idea can be considered property. Guy A thinks up an invention. Guy B thinks up the same thing independently a day later. So guy A has the patent rights under the law and guy B is denied the fruits of his labor. That's certainly not right and for me demolishes the notion that ideas should be considered property. This isn't a hypothetical example. RIM payed hundreds of millions of dollars to a patent holder even though they developed the Blackberry independently and without reference to the work of the patent holder.

I support IP laws to the extent that they support the public good. They provide an incentive to innovate and create. That's all good. But at some point they become counterproductive. The "Steamboat Willie" depiction of Mickey Mouse is still under copyright due to emergency action by congress. Is Disney going to be creating or innovating using these images? Unlikely at best. Then the public good is served by letting the idea go free for others to use. You can't make any kind of argument that the Blackberry example is for the public good either. It just served to enrich a group of blood-sucking lawyers (the inventor is dead for crying out loud)

I think the best solution is IP protection specific to the class of idea. Software patents 5 years. Drugs 25 years (we do need more incentive to innovate in parmaceuticals, although treaties to reduce free-riding of other countries on US research would also work). Copyright for author lifetime.

As for piracy, I can't see it as morally wrong - ideas just aren't property. I won't do it personally, and I support the laws because I want the opportunity to buy more creative product, but saying that pirates or theives or evil is just wrong. Over the short term, piracy actually serves the public good, since the pirates receive value and no one else loses anything. As long as creators receive sufficient reward to continue their work, I see no problem with piracy from the public good POV.

(IMHO, IANAL, etc etc etc)

 

[Wormwood]

edit: never mind. Loot away, ye scurvy dogs.

 

[Templetroll]

I agree copyright (and patent, etc.) laws were instituted to promote the creation and elaboration of new ideas. I just don't think people have a basic right to have future possible ideas. I think they have a right of free speech (including copying), though, and that this right should be tempered by other rights, not by commercial or ideaological reasons.

People have the right to the idea they develop, be it a work of art like a book or a technological advance. As far as I know there is nothing that says "I hold the right to the next beg-selling CCG to be published." There is, as far as I know, a patent on a CCG mechanic that is a valuable IP. OTher games develop their own mechanics to provide the gameplay or they make an arrangement to the hold er of the patent to use that specific mechanic.

The right to free speech is the government cannot pass a law to hinder your right to express an opinion. It does not mean you can copy someone's work and use it without recompense to the person who developed that work.