That's exactly the point. It is theft, but is that theft really harming anyone? Usually not. The argument that piracy is "theft" or "takes something from x" is a strawman in itself-- it totally ignores the motives, reasoning, and pros and cons of piracy and seeks to falsely compare it to say, car theft (like those RIAA commercials) or muggings. It's like saying "murder is always bad", but not considering the need for self-defense. Of course pirates want to support artists. In an ideal world, everything that is created and then consumed would be supported by the appropriate monetary resources. But that isn't realistic or even possible in a capitalist society which automatically categorizes people into "winners" (of which there are few) and "losers" (of which there are many). A rich farmer can feed lots of poor farmers, but a poor farmer is going to have trouble feeding an equally poor farmer.
Of course it is! Apart from developing games for the love of gaming developers are also looking to make money. When someone pirates a developers game that is potential income lost for that developer. Of course I have heard and understand the argument that many pirates would never have purchased the game so it's not lost income. The fact of the matter is that if all means of piracy were instantly removed then a significant number of pirates would start legally purchasing their games. Some maybe but there are plenty who just want the games to keep on coming so they can keep on playing them for free. They don't care about the individual developer or how piracy might be affecting their continued existence. All they care about is themselves. Games are not a necessity of life. If you can't afford to purchase them legally then you should go without, just like many other things in life. It's not okay to steal things just because you can't afford them.
Music, movies, and books are all examples of a product the value of which comes from the information they convey. The nature of such a product is somewhat different than the nature of a cheeseburger or an automobile. Much of the value of a cheeseburger comes from things which were consumed to make it. This makes the rules a little different. I wasn't implying that any of these things mean piracy is right. I do NOT think piracy is right. All I am saying is that it's clearly a different kind of crime than theft. You could argue that piracy costs sales (not on a 1:1 ratio, by the way) and that it devalues the product (perhaps even to the point that after a certain amount of piracy, it can no longer be monetized at all, and thus, is as good as gone.) But the same rules clearly do not apply here. You can't "pirate" my cheeseburger, it's either stolen or not stolen. Therefore, it is a different crime.
I skipped over it because other people already said that Piracy is not theft, and explained why. It doesn't make sense to repeat the same thing over. You can't just make a blanket assumption about all pirates- each person has individual differences and different economic situations. I would, however, not be surprised if what you said does not come true. It doesn't make any sense for poor people (who have some sense) to buy things that are not directly related to survival. HOWEVER-- I'd like to make the very important point that art (and yes, that includes games) is indeed a necessity for life. Of course from a practical standpoint, all a person needs is food, water, and shelter. But life is much more complicated than that-- living includes not just eating, breathing, and sleeping, but learning about things, experiencing the world, and enjoying as much as possible. Which goes back to what I said earlier in the thread: You may believe that games are unnecessary, but even children need games to play to learn about the world, fight boredom, or experience different viewpoints. If you took a random sample of gamers, you would very hard pressed to find a person whose life has not been influenced by games (especially those with deeper meaning and value). All art serves to fill a void in the human consciousness, games included. There are philosophies, morals, and ideas in games- they have a special power that other forms of art don't have.
Very good point, SkyMuffin. Videogames are the fables of modern day. They are what tell us to keep trying to rescue the princess, even if she is in another castle. They encourage healthy (err, for the most part) competition, and help us sharpen our wits. I'm straying dangerously close to the original topic, but maybe the best answer to the piracy problem is something along the lines of perfecting freemium models. Motivate your players to spend money as they wish on things they enjoy, rather than paying an "entry fee," and you don't have to worry about piracy.
I think that this is part of the solution for piracy. It's definitely better than the current model where all you have to base your (extremely costly, in the case of all markets that are not the iDevice) decision on a lot of 3rd person sources. All the reviews, critical praise, and word of mouth in the world won't substitute for the first-hand experience of a game. Casual games have grown so much in recent years partly because they are more accessible simply by always having demos. There are a couple of issues that cause piracy, which need to be solved: 1) Lack of money, as we've touched on already. 2) Negative attitudes from developers - Large companies have taken over a huge part of the video game market. They operate on a business model instead of a model which aims to satisfy the customer- so instead of trying out new ideas or creating innovative and fun things, a lot of companies simply exploit the same tired ideas or franchises over and over again. There's certainly some cynicism here, and a lack of respect for the user-- all of which makes it easier to justify piracy. 3) Negative attitudes from consumers - Of course, you can't only blame it on developers-- a system can't work without the contributions of all of the parts. A lot of consumers buy into the franchises and boring games. I don't necessarily think that this is cynicism, but simply that people haven't had the opportunity to experience games of higher value. It's hard to break into 32-bit RPGs when you've grown up with First Person Shooters and Guitar Hero your whole life. 4) (related to 3) Lack of quality. People don't want to admit to this, but lots of games are throwaways. If a person truly feels passionate about something, they will want to support it. If piracy is widespread, it can only be because there are people without the resources to pay, or, if they do have the money, they lack the passion for it. Blizzard doesn't worry about piracy because they've created a near-bulletproof community of online, multiplayer gamers. They only have reason to fight it when independent hosts and servers crop up- usually because people are dissatisfied with some rule or regulation (xp rates in WoW, for example) or because they lack the funds to buy the game.
My view: Piracy isn't theft. Piracy definitely hurts the bottom line for independents and big studios alike. Frankly, I have a had time understanding how the two above statements are even something to debate. Piracy isn't theft simply because the merchant/distributor hasn't lost any physical copies. This means he can still sell as many copies as he likes to paying customers. Equally it should be obvious that it hurts the bottom line. Even arguments like "I buy the titles I really like" or "I'd pay if was less expensive" doesn't change this fact. (The second argument being particularly silly in a market like the App Store buy the way). If you've already downloaded 20 games, not paying for them my guess would be that you don't really have time to play anymore games. Subsequently you won't buy as many games as you otherwise would. I do believe however that copyright rules are probably too stringent in many countries. I personally see no harm in sharing a song or game within the family or with your closest friends. The big problem is digital distribution of pirated goods, or actually the really big problem is people's changing attitude towards pirating as a whole: When I was a kid, back in the 8-bit era, I pirated games just like everybody else. I also saved my allowance and bought a few games when I could afford it (ah, Summer Games, Uridium, Delta fond memories)! And even though we all copied we also knew that we were doing something wrong. This had the simply consequence that when I grew up and made some real money I stopped pirating... What's worrying me is that it seems like young people today no longer think they are doing anything wrong what-so-ever. This is worrying because then it is also unlikely that they will start paying for IP when they start making real money, meaning it will be even harder making money of creative work. I blame the heavy industry hitters for their over-aggressive attitude, as they behave in a manner so unfair that people simply take the stance that they are wrong about anything regarding piracy. But frankly I also blame people like you SkyMuffin as you actually defend a practice that most definitely hurt people, even though everyone obviously love getting stuff for free...
I came here to state exactly this, and I am glad that SkyMuffin beat me to it. A key problem with our culture and economy is the fact that people are REQUIRED to buy their culture. It isn't free. Think about it- the stories, the music, the art... none of it is free. For thousands of years, these are the things that brought us together. No wonder the underemployed and poor are fighting back. They want their culture, they want to be a part of society. I am not angry that junior high and high school kids are 'stealing' my game, I think they are taking what is rightfully theirs. Their culture. Now you can debate that the poor do not deserve to play games, or the fact that they own an iPod and they should have enough to buy the extras. There is evidence that piracy actually DRIVES these technologies, increasing the sales numbers. Cassette recorders sold in huge numbers because it gave the consumer a new way to obtain music. Would a teenager own an iPod if they could only put the music and games on the device that they purchased? Probably not. What value does it hold if they are able to purchase only 3 songs and 2 games? Furthermore, in most financial forms filled out by those with low SES (Social Economic Status), a few lines are usually included for leisure, pleasure and entertainment. These forms are usually seen in the employment offices or when applications for wellfare. This means that it is EXPECTED that the poor need these things. Some forms even include a special line for magazines, which are obviously not a requirement to survive. Maybe the poor don't need your games to survive, but you sure as hell don't (or shouldn't) need to make games to survive either. It isn't your birthright. For the record, I would like to state that I have never pirated an App for my iPhone. My phone is jailbroken, I know the methods, I simply don't do it. But I am certainly not opposed to those that do.
I believe the creator of any given cultural expression should have the right to decide how and to whom it is distributed. I have no problem with the following statement in general though: While I certainly agree with this principle I find it a little contrived to include anyone who can afford a computer and an iPhone among the "poor". My own (very personal) impression is that money not spent paying for this stuff is used for excessive wardrobes and whatnot. So, while I agree there are certainly grey areas I still have a hard time understanding why people feel the need to condone piracy as a force of good. That being said, I think the right to "quote" other material should be very liberal which is sadly not the case...
QFT. There are lots of devs who litterally say they are happy with their game being pirated. I'm ok with "understanding why some people fall into piracy", but come on ... being happy with it ? Do they really think every pirate is a starving 9-year old little smiling kid who doesn't have some pocket money ? LOL They should go outside a bit and see all those 100k$ engineers blatantly showing how they are having fun with their latest pirated game. This ass bending behaviour feels more like a cheap way to be noticed among the mass. You know, like : "Look at me, I'm the new Robin Hood ! Give your money to the poor and steal the rich !" Pathetic. This "is piracy good or bad ?" debate is unproductive. edit : oh and about the culture having to be free ... That's what Lite version are for, gentlemen. But do you really think it does stop piracy ? Numbers say no.
It's very disheartening to see someone argue against just one of the many different points that have been made in this debate, by both sides, I might add, and call the whole debate "pathetic" and "unproductive." I don't see the logic in that, nor do I see what it could possibly accomplish.
Maybe I made myself unclear : The debate of "is piracy good or bad ?" is unproductive. Not this thread. Sorry for the misdirection, correcting that right now. This very debate is popping every time the word "piracy" appears in a thread, and ends up just like this one : some devs say how they are disheartened to be pirated, and then some others bash them telling that they "should be happy to be pirated". What is disheartening in the end ?
Thanks for clarifying. That makes a lot more sense. I agree -- piracy is ultimately at least somewhat bad. I think that people who wholeheartedly defend piracy are really trying to stand up for more noble ideas, like giving everyone free access to certain kinds of IP. That, of course, can be achieved through much better means than piracy.
Sorry for the confusion yeah I totally agree with you. Giving access to culture is noble, and using the All-Free method is absolutely unsubtle and unadvanced (for an initially commercial product).
(there are other similar arguments throughout this thread, but that's just two examples.) I think it's interesting how people have so many different views of who pirates are or what kind of people they would be. It's flawed, of course, to assume that all members of Group X fit qualities A, B, and C. Yes, there are people who can afford things and who choose to pirate, and there there are also those who cannot. But making huge assumptions about everyone is not going to get us anywhere. The world is not built on black and white morality, and piracy/intellectual property isn't either.
Why do you charge for your game then? If its rightfully theirs, shouldn't you just give it to them for free? Why can't they just get a cheaper MP3 player ($30), and buy more songs instead? Do they really need a rather expensive ipod touch? Its like the people you see who live in a shack and have a Porsche parked in the drive way... I have no sympathy for them when they complain about a lower standard of living. If someone can't afford $1 games and songs, why are they shelling out money for a top of the line mp3 player (ipod touch) in the first place? While culture is a necessity for sure, there are many free or cheaper means to fulfill yourself in this area without pirating games and music. But even bigger then all that is the fact that there are tens of THOUSANDS of free games and apps to satisfy those users anyway! If someone is downright poor, they can fulfill their need to play games for free, they just have to be a bit more selective. Its called spoiled when someone is like "but I want THAT game!" and pirates it because they can't afford it. In the end I happen to think all of that has little to do with it anyway, and that most of piracy does not come because people can't afford it. I think its just so easily accessible, for many people its almost like: why not pirate? Its like if you were at a grocery store that had the same items free and paid side by side... Sure I would pay for the bread if that's the only choice I had, but why shouldn't I just grab the free loaf instead? And that's why I think piracy hurts. I think if there was no other choice, TONS of pirates would reluctantly pay the buck to get the game they want. I don't think they got an ipod touch to pirate stuff, they got an ipod touch to play games and listen to music.
Because I actually understand economies, culture and marketing. Maybe you don't. This is why a lot of developers fail: They fail to see who they can sell to and who they can't. If you are focused on piracy and fighting pirates, guess who you are catering to? You sure as hell aren't paying attention to your PAYING customers. The core problem is that developers are not capable of selling enough units to balance the rate of piracy. Who is your demographic? Do you even know? If you say "all iPhone/iPod users", then you are highly delusional. Cater to the teenage crowd and guess what happens? Gee, that is the same group that happens to have the highest piracy rate. Wow, that's amazing how that works. I've given away hundreds of thousands of copies of Flickitty. It doesn't matter to me. I sell my game because I can. I let people pirate it because I can. It doesn't need to be one or the other.
I was actually looking for an opportunity to say this. Thank you for addressing the issue. Consumers do not have unlimited funds, and evidence proves that disposable income is... well it is disposable income. They can buy your game or they can buy a burger. That money is flowing into the economy, REGARDLESS. Maybe that money is spent for gas, or food, or entertainment. It certainly isn't saved. The fact that games or music is pirated does not reduce the overall amount of money flowing through the economy. That money just goes toward other industries, industries that cannot be pirated. Ever try to pirate a hamburger? It's not easy. The best way for the music industry to recoup its costs would be to revive the concert circuit, and MAKE IT AFFORDABLE. Give people something they cannot pirate- an experience. For the gaming industry, the solution is not so simple.
