Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Instructor
#76 Old 20th Apr 2010 at 9:53 AM
Anya7777 it is pretty much like that in my country and in many developing countries (which is a lot of countries). People usually leave that out of the debate for some reason and focus only on the USA...
Advertisement
Alchemist
#77 Old 20th Apr 2010 at 2:06 PM
Quote: Originally posted by jooxis
Anya7777 it is pretty much like that in my country and in many developing countries (which is a lot of countries). People usually leave that out of the debate for some reason and focus only on the USA...


That's because we're all rich Joo
Scholar
#78 Old 20th Apr 2010 at 6:50 PM
Quote: Originally posted by jooxis
Anya7777 it is pretty much like that in my country and in many developing countries (which is a lot of countries). People usually leave that out of the debate for some reason and focus only on the USA...


The moral stance doesn't change, though. Just because something is unaffordable to people in a developing country, doesn't mean that they are entitled to it. It is the prerogative of a corporation to set their prices. If they were smart, they may want to cater to developing countries to some degree because it means a larger consumer base in the future, but there is nothing that can force them to do so.
Instructor
#79 Old 21st Apr 2010 at 10:01 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
The moral stance doesn't change, though. Just because something is unaffordable to people in a developing country, doesn't mean that they are entitled to it.


Not just unaffordable, but practically unavailable. Which means most people in my country should simply never play games, use software, listen to music, watch movies at home, etc... and just deal with it? That's retarded, but I already talked about this pages ago.
Instructor
#80 Old 21st Apr 2010 at 10:44 AM
Stealing is simply wrong, and from where I see it, the Internet is just a marketplace, just like a mall or store. I really dont see the difference. People seem to think that the Internet is some kind of no mans land, a free continent, same as when real pirates roamed the seven seas once upon a time. A rather romantic way of thinking.

I agree with HP on convenience. With "spotify" for instance, people who downloaded pirate-music now ripps each other apart for an invitation to an account. Personally I don´t mind paying for something that works well.
BUT I recently bought a digital version of a game from a certain store, that does not work. Or their Download Manager doesn't. In cases like that Its easy to see how easy it would be to revert to piracy. After all, I already payed for something that is not working! I will not get a copy elsewhere because of it, but for the cause of argument...What is right or wrong when a company "steals" my money? (I'm not the only one having this problem, and I'm not trying to make this into a personal issue, I'm just mentioning one of the many problems existing when you shop online)

"The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory. "
Test Subject
#81 Old 21st Apr 2010 at 5:18 PM
Shopping online for CDs is ok but most people in my country do not have credit cards that enable them to do so...
Lab Assistant
#82 Old 18th Aug 2010 at 6:57 AM
People neglect to realize that most piracy is a result of the person not being able to afford the cd/movie/game. And so, without piracy, wouldn't have bought it anyway. Either way, the company sees no loss or gain. So if you've been dying for a game, but simply cannot afford it, and are then presented with a free copy on the internet with likely absolutely no repercussion...what are you going to do? Seems like most people who feel so strongly in their anti-piracy views are most likely just frustrated with their inability to pirate themselves.
Mad Poster
#83 Old 18th Aug 2010 at 6:19 PM
Quote: Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
Seems like most people who feel so strongly in their anti-piracy views are most likely just frustrated with their inability to pirate themselves.


Well, it may seem that way, but I can tell you that it's not true.

I feel very strongly about piracy (I'm against it), and it's not because I can't do it myself. I just choose not to, because I have empathy and I know I wouldn't want someone to pirate something that I made (especially if I was actually trying to make a living off of it). Behind every huge, faceless corporation are lots of people who actually make the content. If you steal from the huge, faceless corporation, you're stealing from the designers, programmers, artists, etc., too.

Most of the people I've come across who are pro-piracy are not too poor to afford anything. They think it's okay to pirate games and movies... but they can somehow afford a computer to play them on. They think it's okay to pirate e-books... but they can somehow afford a Kindle. Sorry, but I'm not buying the whole "they're too poor" argument. If anything, they're just cheap... and ignorant about where the stuff they use actually comes from.
Scholar
#84 Old 18th Aug 2010 at 6:24 PM
DevilsAdvocate: Your assumption is not true. My anti-piracy views are a matter of morality. As I said before, no one is entitled to anything. Just because you can't afford something, doesn't mean that you should be able to get it for free. This view has prevented me from getting several books and video games that I would have loved to have. It's not a matter of availability because I know where I can get several of those things for free online, but I won't. And whether there are repercussions or not, you should still follow the law as much as is possible. Law enforcement won't always catch up to you, but, unless the law is unjust (which can't be said about anti-piracy laws), you are obligated to follow it. Even if the law is unjust, the proper course of action is to break it in an open and honest manner and to accept the consequences in order to provide a motive to have it changed.
Field Researcher
#85 Old 20th Aug 2010 at 1:49 PM
I think it's worse to download it off the internet. Then the person who uploaded it will know they are being successful and upload more stuff for people to download. If you steal from a store it's almost as bad, but they will still go on selling it perfectly legally.

"If the human brain was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it."

"Some things I cannot change, but till I try I'll never know."
Lab Assistant
#86 Old 21st Aug 2010 at 5:53 AM
I don't have a huge problem with piracy. Usually if i download a cd, it's usually so i can try it and then i'll go buy it if i like it. Maybe not everyone who downloads has that outlook but i believe that programs like Napster could have actually been helpful to musicians. However, greedy corporations (if that's not redundant, i don't know what is) seem to go out of their way to gouge customers and irritate them so the rate of online piracy does not surprise me at all. I think most people do it because they can.

Also, since a lot of non-wealthy people have to work their asses off at sometimes 2 or 3 jobs just to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table, it is easier (and i'm not saying necessarily right) to download a movie. I don't agree with the "people who can't afford it don't deserve it" mentality. If someone is lucky and has a good paying job (totally different topic i have a strong opinion on) and can afford a comfortable lifestyle including going to see movies or frequently buying video games, why does that mean that the person, who works their butt off because they weren't so lucky in a job situation, deserves to be bored and miserable? Not entirely excusing the "stealing". I just don't like that snobby mentality.

I do NOT believe that downloading is anywhere near as bad as stealing from a store though. I think downloading is probably slightly immoral but there are many reasons (not excuses) for it happening and it is a consequence of those.
Scholar
#87 Old 21st Aug 2010 at 8:47 PM
amandeata: To reverse your example, why is it that people who worked hard to produce an album, movie or video game are deserving of having their product pirated just because someone can't or thinks they can't afford to buy it legally? As you pointed out, there are people that pirate simply because they can. Those people are denying the artists the proper reward for their work. One of the consequences of this is that the artists may not make enough money to be able to continue producing entertainment. There are very few people who are capable of working for free. If you think that a particular artist isn't deserving of your money even if you use his/her product, you are indirectly pressuring them to seek greener pastures in another field of work.

There are also places you can get free music, movies, etc. The library typically has a nice variety of movies and music. There are also computers there where you can go to websites that offer music, movies, and video games for free (they do exist). If you happen to have a personal computer (which is true of the majority of people), you have even better access to those sites. There are ways to get free entertainment, it just means that you're not likely to get the newest, coolest thing that comes out. But what makes you entitled to have that newest, coolest thing? If you want that, you have to earn it.

I agree that there are people out there who are unfairly paid. It's just something that happens. The responsibility for that doesn't lay on the shoulders of the entertainers, though, so you can't say that they are deserving of the pay cut they get when their products are pirated.
Lab Assistant
#88 Old 21st Aug 2010 at 10:43 PM
I can agree with all of that.

I was simply saying, there are consequences for things. I, personally would rather download, say, an album, from an artist and pay them directly online than buy a cd at a store. There are a lot of extra costs attached to most forms of entertainment that make the prices insanely high. I am saying that the big companies and DRM have really done a lot to tick off a lot of people and not made them very sympathetic. It's not an excuse to pirate... but it's one of the reasons it happens.
Forum Resident
#89 Old 22nd Aug 2010 at 5:11 AM
If we're migrating to the idea of a license, then it baffles me as to why one isn't allowed to download a copy of a game they've already purchased. Confused? Let me give an example:

A few years back, I had a PowerPC-based iMac. I purchased a game and an expansion for it. A few years later, I decided to upgrade to an Intel-based iMac. My game was now useless on this machine, but the company had come out with a "gold" version that included the game, expansion, and compatibility with both PowerPC and Intel Macs. However, there was no extra content.

Why, then, should I not be allowed to simply torrent a compatible version of a game I previously bought?

I'd like to just throw in the fact that Steam is wonderful about this issue. I accidentally received the Windows version of Portal from a friend this year, but when I connected to Steam, it quickly let me register the game and download the Mac version. Joy!
Mad Poster
#90 Old 22nd Aug 2010 at 12:58 PM
I really don't get why people think the "can't afford it/wouldn't buy it anyway" excuse makes the crime justifiable.
Test Subject
#91 Old 22nd Aug 2010 at 8:19 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Element Leaf
If we're migrating to the idea of a license, then it baffles me as to why one isn't allowed to download a copy of a game they've already purchased. Confused? Let me give an example:

A few years back, I had a PowerPC-based iMac. I purchased a game and an expansion for it. A few years later, I decided to upgrade to an Intel-based iMac. My game was now useless on this machine, but the company had come out with a "gold" version that included the game, expansion, and compatibility with both PowerPC and Intel Macs. However, there was no extra content.

Why, then, should I not be allowed to simply torrent a compatible version of a game I previously bought?

I'd like to just throw in the fact that Steam is wonderful about this issue. I accidentally received the Windows version of Portal from a friend this year, but when I connected to Steam, it quickly let me register the game and download the Mac version. Joy!


I can concur with that, except for maybe the part where you said "allowed" to torrent. In the case that you meant in such a situation you're entitled to do so, based on the laws of your country you may not be, and that's just that.

Let me give a counterpoint to what I just said though. Me and my brother put in a joint effort to buy Spore a couple of days after it was released. We installed it once each on his computer and mine. We didn't know until later that we were only allowed 3 installs from the same disc. Long story short, his Windows XP installation was borked after clueless downloading, so I helped him get his data and files and reformat Windows (believe me I've been doing computer troubleshooting for 5 years, there was nothing else I could have done at that point). He installed Spore on the new Windows, and all was good for a while.

However after a while his terrible, 8-year-old hard drive itself went kaput. Yes, normally hard drives last longer than that, but we're talking a crummy computer made of crummy computer parts.

So he installs Spore on our parents' computer temporariily (I had to use mine for work a lot) only to find out the installation won't finish because he's used all three installs on the disc.

At this point we both knew this was ridiculous. We paid 50 dollars for that thing. We contacted EA customer support many times, but got different people each time, saying different things including that we "didn't buy a warranty for the disc" and "have no proof that we had used it legally". I was fed up when the last one said that we are "in no way entitled to another 3 installations".

What.

I'm not a piracy advocate, but this is ridiculous. If I buy a wallet, and carry it around with me enough, and then it suddently bursts into flames (along with my driver's license, credit cards, etc) just because I used it beyond the "alotted limit" given by the manufacturer, what did I do so wrong? I paid the full price for the item itself, not the temporary use of the item. I know a spontaneously combusting wallet isn't a very realistic analogy, but it's the best I could think up.
Field Researcher
#92 Old 22nd Aug 2010 at 8:39 PM
I have donwloaded video games several times, and I can't say I'm ashamed of it. When World Adventures came out, I downloaded it and played with the downloaded (pirate) game for a few hours. Then, I decided that I liked it enough and bought it. It is just that I will not spend 40 euros on I game when I don't even know if I like it.
When games have a trial version or a demo or something like that, then I'll play the demo and buy the game if I like it, but if there is no demo anywhere... well, I prefer to play first, before buying a game that I might not like afterwards.
Alchemist
#93 Old 23rd Aug 2010 at 6:08 PM
If you steal from a store, it's most likely that they catch you the next day. While downloading from torrent sites is veeery unlikely to get caught. My sister never bought games from shops, she always downloads them. And since 2000, she never got caught. And, probably, she'll never get.

Evil doesn't worry about not being good. - The Warden, Dragon Age Origins
Mad Poster
#94 Old 23rd Aug 2010 at 7:16 PM
Quote: Originally posted by TheCreeper
If you steal from a store, it's most likely that they catch you the next day. While downloading from torrent sites is veeery unlikely to get caught. My sister never bought games from shops, she always downloads them. And since 2000, she never got caught. And, probably, she'll never get.


Just because you don't get caught doesn't mean it's okay.
Alchemist
#95 Old 23rd Aug 2010 at 9:50 PM
Quote: Originally posted by TheCreeper
If you steal from a store, it's most likely that they catch you the next day. While downloading from torrent sites is veeery unlikely to get caught. My sister never bought games from shops, she always downloads them. And since 2000, she never got caught. And, probably, she'll never get.


I personally have no issue with downloading something that someone else bought and decided to share. Games, music , and software online for download were bought by someone, they don't just appear online. Someone bought it and shared it. That means the retail store was paid, as was the game company.
Scholar
#96 Old 23rd Aug 2010 at 10:47 PM
Quote: Originally posted by el_flel
I really don't get why people think the "can't afford it/wouldn't buy it anyway" excuse makes the crime justifiable.


I've never maintained it makes pirating justifiable; however, coroporations can't use the excuse that x number of downloads means they have lost the full retail value of said downloads. If a pirate never intended to purchase in the first place, the company would have never made the money anyway. Their financial "loss" isn't as great as they'd like to claim. Many corporations also have insureance on "loss" that helps make up said "loss", and if you don't think game prices are padded so that the paying customer helps make up a portion of that "loss" too, you'd be greatly mistaken. (Just remember the US$49.99 price for Sims 3.) Piracy and it's prevention only hurts the paying customer.

And for those touting how much the artist or worker looses, unless they are selling direct, thay aren't getting that much in the first place from corporations:

Quote:
Generally speaking about US$1.25 per sale of an album and US$0.03 per sale of a single goes to artist/writer . However the songwriter gets US$0.03 every time a song that they wrote is played on the radio - the singer gets nothing.


The average price of a single is US$1.09 and an album is US$12.19. It's obvious the corporations are recieving the bulk of the monies.

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Mad Poster
#97 Old 23rd Aug 2010 at 11:08 PM
Quote: Originally posted by kennyinbmore
I personally have no issue with downloading something that someone else bought and decided to share. Games, music , and software online for download were bought by someone, they don't just appear online. Someone bought it and shared it. That means the retail store was paid, as was the game company.


So it's okay for a game developer to make just $39.99 for months (if not years) of work? If a game only needs to be bought once for "sharing" to be okay in your mind, then that's all the developers are going to get.

That kind of payment makes minimum wage look awesome. I wonder what the developer (not the company) actually gets paid in such a scenario. $0.0005 per hour?

Is that fair?
Scholar
#98 Old 23rd Aug 2010 at 11:47 PM
Quote: Originally posted by fakepeeps7
That kind of payment makes minimum wage look awesome. I wonder what the developer (not the company) actually gets paid in such a scenario. $0.0005 per hour?

Is that fair?


If the final retail price relates to the wage paid to the developer in the same manner as the wages in my music example, it may be already fairly close. I'm sure that corporate bosses use piracy as a reason to keep wages down, ("Piracy costs us too much money, we need to give you a pay-cut.) yet I have yet to see many CEO's, CFO's, VP's, etc. of a company take a voluntairy pay-cut in order to assure that their employees continue to recieve a fair wage.

From EA wiki:
Quote:
In 2004, Electronic Arts was criticized for employees working extraordinarily long hours—up to 100 hours per week— and not just at "crunch" times leading up to the scheduled releases of products. The publication of the EA Spouse blog, with criticisms such as "The current mandatory hours are 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.—seven days a week—with the occasional Saturday evening off for good behavior (at 6:30 p.m.)". The company has since settled a class action lawsuit brought by game artists to compensate for unpaid overtime. The class was awarded $15.6 million. As a result, many of the lower-level developers (artists, programmers, producers, and designers) are now working at an hourly rate. A similar suit brought by programmers was settled for $14.9 million


It appears that while EA got better for a time afterward, they are beginning to fall back into old patterns:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/ne...php?story=18621

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Alchemist
#99 Old 24th Aug 2010 at 4:41 PM
Quote: Originally posted by fakepeeps7
So it's okay for a game developer to make just $39.99 for months (if not years) of work? If a game only needs to be bought once for "sharing" to be okay in your mind, then that's all the developers are going to get.
That kind of payment makes minimum wage look awesome. I wonder what the developer (not the company) actually gets paid in such a scenario. $0.0005 per hour?

Is that fair?


The likelyhood that a game would only be bought once is absurd. The Sims is a great example of that. Despite "pirating" it's the #1 selling computer game franchise of all time. No one at EA or on it's development teams are going broke because some people download the game instead of buying it. I personally know two game designers, one who works for Ubisoft, and he makes a great living despite the fact that many people download the latest Rainbow Six game whenever it comes out. His salary isn't dependent on sales or non sales.
Field Researcher
#100 Old 27th Aug 2010 at 3:53 AM
PPfffft. To be honest the little twerps downloading it from the internet for free are just a bunch of pussies. All these 14 year olds act like shoplifting is a dying art. If I wanted to go get the newest metallica album, would I go on youtube and download all of the songs? HELL NO! I would go put in my boots, get on the bus, pay the fare, sit next to a racist idiot, go into the music store, take the music, go into the home department, lay on a couch with my walkman(Or later in the decade my CD player), slip out the tape, put it into the walkman(Or CD player), then put the tape(Or CD) back. It was fun! Adrenaline pumping! Now what is it? A bunch of pimpily faced teens left clicking the mouse over and over and rarely getting caught. Come on! Life used to be like grand theft auto, running from the po po becasue you just smoked weed infront of them, and then not realising that your pants fell off a quarter of a mile ago.

Ugh, people stealing from the internet and not getting consequences. Sure would've been cool back in the day. You know, when we had original movie ideas? See this is why kids in america are getting fat, you don't have to go to the store anymore to shoplift. All you have to do is go to youtube and download songs. Ugh.

American Rocker Bomb, similar to an Irish car bomb, take a shot glass and fill it with five hour energy, then take a pint glass and fill it with your choice of energy drink. Drop in the shot glass and chug, then wait for SVT to set in.
 
Page 4 of 6
Back to top