Being from LA, I find that traffic tends to be caused by those who bend the rules or drive aggressively. I can't count how many times I've been stuck in traffic exiting a freeway or merging onto another one because a slew of people are skipping the line and cutting right where the merger takes place, leaving the rest of us at a halt as these people scoot in. Do you remember where that study was from? I'd be interested in reading about it.

FINALLY! The other side has given us a fair example. I don't believe it is stealing, but I still get that 'wrong' feeling. I'll have to think on this one.

That's basically what I hit after my dad told me that analogy. It still feels wrong to me, but I can't logically show that it is in fact stealing. He's got a book on intellectual property and I'll look at some stuff on the internet and see what I can come up with, for or against piracy.

No, I don't know the study, I just caught it being mentioned on the radio one time I was driving home from work. It's Radio New Zealand National which are an actual journalistic, publicly funded radio station (no ads), not some bullshit entertainment station. So you can pretty much take anything they say on it to be true (eg, they didn't just make this study up or read something on the internet that sounded cool and so repeated it).

@Roy: Bit late on the reply here, but I was pretty busy today
Anyway, for the most part, I agree with you. I'd like to add, though, that attitudes toward piracy vary from game to game and company to company, so IMO generalizations aren't much use. If we're talking about piracy as a whole, however, then well, that's a different story...but this topic is about game piracy. (yeah....as if )
But anyway, I'm rambling on again. I won't restate any of the points previously said, so that's all I really have to add.

Excellent example, and a hell of a lot better than the sandwich analogy. This is why I believe that piracy does not equate to stealing; because the company does not lose anything if you weren't going to pay for it anyway.

If you weren't going to pay for it, then why get it? That seems to be my biggest issue with that argument. Clearly you want the product enough to pirate it, so I imagine that if you could afford it and had money to spare for it, you would buy it if pirating wasn't an option. For example, you want to see the football game enough to sneak a peek from outside the stadium, you just don't want to have to pay to be able to see it. I see that as stealing because you want something that everyone else has to pay for (and I say "has to" as it would be considered illegal not to). If no one paid for it, the product would cease to exist, and the company would fold.

I get why you all are saying that they aren't losing money, but you have to also consider that if everyone pirated the product, the company would actually lose money on it as they would lose all the money invested in it. Its not like they just program all this crap for fun and hope to turn a profit on sales, they have a lot of wages and licenses to pay and hope for sales revenue on the back-end to make up for that. The more people pirate, the less chance companies have of making back that investment. That's why we say that they lose money, despite whether or not you all claim you wouldn't buy it in the first place. At my last job, every computer in the office had pirated software on it because it was easier to just use cracks on all the machines rather than buy a license for each. We needed that software to do our work, and instead of paying, everything was pirated. I see that clearly as stealing, considering we would have paid for all those programs had pirating not been available.

"I give my money to companies who I believe deserve it."




If there were an answer to this debate (and the matter of piracy in general), why does it need not be obvious to everyone?

This concept bugs me.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Jun 23 2011, 9:28 am by Tuxedo-Templar.

How do you rank companies in degrees of "deserving money" though? Though I should be directing this to the person that said it.

Estimated popularity of products x (Net obesity + superfluous bodily hair of employees)

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 23 2011, 9:23 am by Tuxedo-Templar.

There isn't any degrees. You're either a disgusting excuse of a developer or you're not.

Because I want it, but not enough to pay its purchase price?
"if" returns "false".
That aside, as presumably my jobsearching ventures will succeed eventually...
I'm not sure how "willing to spend ten minutes to get it" equates to "willing to spend 10 hours' worth of labor (which is in limited availability for many people) to get it". Or 83.75 hours' labor for Photoshop CS5, according to Amazon's price of $670.
I get why you all are saying that it's not harmful for you to litter highly biodegradable products, but you have to also consider that if everyone littered indiscriminately it would result in ungood things. Thankfully, the second scenario has little to do with the first, so what was I talking about again?

We get it, you're a perfect pirate that doesn't hurt the company in any way. That doesn't mean everyone else is. The argument isn't that people can pirate without harming the company, but that people in actuality are harming the company through pirating.

Moreover, it's impossible to keep those who pirate without harming while eliminating those who pirate with harming. It's hard to tell (for me, at least) if I would buy a product if I couldn't pirate it but wanted it. In some cases, I wouldn't, and in others, I would; I can't seem to draw a distinct line, though, so your confidence fascinates me.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 23 2011, 7:19 pm by Roy.

What? I get that you're trying to mock my statement, but I don't see how what I said is incorrect. Money is invested in the product, and that money is expected to be earned back due to sales. If everyone pirated the product, no money would return to the company to pay for the initial investment. Regardless of whether that is stealing or not, the fact remains that the company would lose money. At the moment I'm guessing that enough people pay for the product for companies to make that initial investment back, plus profit, but supposing more people pirated rather than paying, that would be less true over time.

For example, the sandwich maker buys all the parts that go into making his perfect sandwich, and if no one buys it due to people getting the pirated replica, he loses money. The management company of the football stadium pays wages, stocks all the vendors, etc. and if more people decided to watch the game from outside the premises rather than in the seats, then they also lose money.

Which argument are you talking about? There've been quite a number of them here.
Not "incorrect", just "irrelevant". No one's arguing for "everyone should pirate indiscriminately". I think there are very few people who would agree with that.
"Honest pirates" would not exist (or close enough) without "harmful pirates" (making cracks and distributing files publically is indiscriminate, and thus inappropriate); however, "harmful pirates" would exist without "honest pirates". Eliminating "honest pirates" does not harm "harmful pirates".
Ultimately, however, I would not be unduly concerned by the prospect of everyone losing the ability to freely download things illegally online.
A fair enough point, and all I have to say to it is that, in my particular case, being broke kind of eliminates a lot of the decisions.
Eventually I will have money (hopefully), but I'm rather confident that even without the option of pirating, seeing a chiropractor about my neck problems would be higher priority to me than the roughly sixteen hours of entertainment I've gotten out of a series of some of my favorite games.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 23 2011, 9:22 pm by EzDay281.

I thought I'd post this:

60% of Photoshop Users are PIRATES! (Since there weren't that much people that completed the poll (about 500), I'm not sure if this is of any value. (Even though in statistics, once you reach a certain amount, the results are not much different from the reality.))
Adobe wins crusade against Russian pirates
Types of software piracy
Adobe Genuine Software

ALL OF THEM. (Actually, more specifically, the one regarding people that would buy the game if they couldn't pirate it, but don't buy it because they can pirate it).

Well, yeah, that was more or less my point.

The part I highlighted brought an interesting question to my mind: if someone were to crack a game and release a self-made "demo" (maybe including, for example, Chapters 2 and 3 with cutscenes and dialogue stripped out), would you consider that to be bad or harmful to the company? It would be a lot of work, but it would be a lightweight sample that players could use to test performance and enjoyability of the game. If they like it, they would buy the game (assuming a full-pirated copy didn't exist), and if they didn't, they wouldn't. This gives more advertising of the game, and the only way it hurts the company is that it prevents players from buying a game that they essentially won't enjoy playing (and if that's the kind of revenue a company doesn't want to lose, I lose respect for that company). I know this is a slightly off-topic tangent, but I thought it was interesting enough to share.

Also, I like to see the name of the person you're quoting, so if it's not too much trouble, please consider doing that.

Most of Adobe's sales are aimed towards companies, and such a small poll from individual users isn't very reliable in the grand scheme of things.

I've seen numerous which state that, regardless of circumstantial variables, directly equate to the loss of an equal amount of money from the developer.
That "honest pirates" are okay? Then what's going on?
I see nothing (or little, rather; certainly no more than pirating) wrong with it, personally. Though I do agree it's interesting to think about.
If you're referring to my [\quote] boxes, I'll try to remember that.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, particularly the first part. Numbers*? Numerous pirated games*? Numerous sources* which state that pirates* directly equate...? Maybe it's the lack of sleep talking, but I need an elaboration on this statement.

Honestly, I don't see how they aren't okay, other than being defined as doing something illegal; they aren't costing the company anything except "bad" sales (again, "if that's the kind of revenue a company doesn't want to lose, I lose respect for that company").

Yeah, that's what I meant. Maybe it's just me, but I read things on SEN in different narratives, depending on who made the post.

Staff, please delete

im retarded

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 24 2011, 8:07 pm by Vrael.

Eh, slip-up from chain argument. Forgive me for my poor choice of words, and thank you for the clarification.

Well, technically, to steal a game, you have to connect to another IP and transfer the data, much like you'd have to go to the carpenter's house and transfer the chair. The risk of being caught and facing consequences during this transfer also exists in both scenarios.