106 réponses à ce sujet

[Lennard Testarossa]

But I think your argument is against the assertion that "pirated copy == lost sale". But in this, you're flying in the face of repeated studies. People that pirate also buy more. They download a lot to sample what's out there, and spend more (than those who don't pirate) on purchases - buying what they like and ignoring the rest. So that offsets the "freeloaders" who just pirate and don't buy.

 

How do you know that it offsets the freeloaders? How do you know that people who buy some games and pirate some other games wouldn't be buying even more if they didn't pirate at all?

 

The notion that people who pirate also buy more doesn't mean that no revenue is lost, because the tendency to pirate isn't uncorrelated with the level of interest in the medium.

 

 

On the morality of pirating games:

What differentiates piracy from theft, apart from the legal definition, is the fact that digital media doesn't have any marginal costs. If a poor person doesn't have enough money to buy a game and pirates it, who loses anything due to that? 

 

I'm guessing that sooner or later, games will also have to adapt to the fact that the pricing mechanisms of the traditional economy for physical goods simply aren't all that sensible for products without marginal costs. It artificially limits wealth.

 

So what piracy is doing is somewhat ambigious:

One the one hand, it deprives people who worked hard on a given product of their well earned reward and infringes on property rights (which are central to any democracy).

On the other hand, it drives the industry to develop models for distributing their products that are better suited to the kind of products they are creating, just like it did for music and movies.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

I don't think the study means what you claim it means.

To me, it just means that those who consume digital music buy some and pirate some.

 

In essence - you don't like what the study reports, so you're going to reject logic and reason - and go with what you think is right.

 

Brilliant. Ignore the evidence. Ignore the analysis from academics. You must be right because you think so.

 

This is like debating religion with a fanatic. It doesn't matter what the evidence says, they'll always stick with faith.

 

"music and movie industries have been exaggerating the impact digital file sharing has had on their bottom line and found that for some creative industries, copyright infringement might actually be helping boost revenues"

 

"sharing of films and music online generates marketing benefits and sales boosts that often offset the losses in revenue from illegal sharing of content"

 

Yup. Let's go with what you say, and not the London School of Economics. You're far more reliable source of information than them.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

How do you know that it offsets the freeloaders?

 

That's what the study concluded.

 

"sharing of films and music online generates marketing benefits and sales boosts that often offset the losses in revenue from illegal sharing of content"

 

 

The notion that people who pirate also buy more doesn't mean that no revenue is lost, because the tendency to pirate isn't uncorrelated with the level of interest in the medium.

 

So, you know better than the London School of Economics on how to interpret market data? Because that's EXACTLY what they say. This isn't a question of your opinion v mine. This is the conclusions of academics who've devoted their time to studying the data... versus your feelings.

 

I strongly suggest you go and read the article. And the cited study as well. It shatters a lot of corporate propaganda.

[Lennard Testarossa]

That's what the study concluded.

 

"sharing of films and music online generates marketing benefits and sales boosts that often offset the losses in revenue from illegal sharing of content"

 

So, you know better than the London School of Economics on how to interpret market data? Because that's EXACTLY what they say. This isn't a question of your opinion v mine. This is the conclusions of academics who've devoted their time to studying the data... versus your feelings.

 

I strongly suggest you go and read the article. And the cited study as well. It shatters a lot of corporate propaganda.

 

...the study doesn't say anything of the sort. It says that people who pirate spend on average more on media that people who buy everything legally. This does not mean that the people who pirate buy more because they pirate. Correlation does not equal causation.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

...the study doesn't say anything of the sort.

 

I quoted directly from the article.

 

You're just ranting.

[Lennard Testarossa]

I quoted directly from the article.

 

You're just ranting.

 

Claiming that other people are 'ranting' still doesn't make correlation equal causation. So, no, they don't 'say EXACTLY that'.

[helpthisguyplease]

 Piracy on pc will never be combated it sucks but that is the truth. And on consoles you can also but you have to do some tweaking to the hardware on the bright side no more origins there. On the bad side I can not cheat on consoles and I have to play fair so pc is the way to go. Also better to tweak with software then with hardware.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

Claiming that other people are 'ranting' still doesn't make correlation equal causation. So, no, they don't 'say EXACTLY that'.

 

Again, with feeling this time - I quoted directly from the article. I really don't see what you're arguing about.

 

You challenged whether or not "freeloader" effects are being offset, and there's the answer. This isn't about correlation of causation - it's the authors' conclusion.

 

If you claim to know more about economics and interpreting data than the authors - then you should challenge their conclusion in a peer-reviewed academic journal. You seem to be claiming to be more knowledgeable than the academic authors.

[giveamanafish...]

Again, with feeling this time - I quoted directly from the article. I really don't see what you're arguing about.

 

You challenged whether or not "freeloader" effects are being offset, and there's the answer. This isn't about correlation of causation - it's the authors' conclusion.

 

If you claim to know more about economics and interpreting data than the authors - then you should challenge their conclusion in a peer-reviewed academic journal. You seem to be claiming to be more knowledgeable than the academic authors.

Which article are you referring to? The London School of Economics study pointed out that revenues in the music industry increased when the industry found ways to use file-sharing to promote their films and music sales -- that is because of their reaction to piracy not because of  people stealing stuff -- how would that ever work? Like Leonard Testorossa said you are confusing correlation with causation. Youtube sharing of gameplay videos not same pirating a game for personal consumption.

 

You should be able to figure it out by looking at your own situation. Assuming you have pirated  a game. Do you tell all your friends (given your attitude, you must have thousands) : "Hey I just pirated a game. You should buy a copy"?.

 

Yeah London School of Economics. You obviously don't have a degree in Econ. Any one in that field will tell you that most economic studies are done at a high level of aggregation and require a circumspect approach when applying any findings to different situations or when drawing broader generalizations -- like the ones you claim. No longitudinal cohort studies here.

 

Again, none of these studies show that priacy is directly linked to increased revenues for the industry being pirated never mind individual companies.

[Pasquale1234]

In essence - you don't like what the study reports, so you're going to reject logic and reason - and go with what you think is right.
 
Brilliant. Ignore the evidence. Ignore the analysis from academics. You must be right because you think so.
 
This is like debating religion with a fanatic. It doesn't matter what the evidence says, they'll always stick with faith.

Yes, there may be a fanatic here who reads whatever they want into the results of a study.

I was responding to this link to an article titled "Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music."

The article states:
"The Norwegian study looked at almost 2,000 online music users, all over the age of 15. Researchers found that those who downloaded "free" music – whether from lawful or seedy sources – were also 10 times more likely to pay for music. This would make music pirates the industry's largest audience for digital sales."

... which begs the question, what were those other online music users - the ones who did not download free content - doing? Streaming/sampling and/or buying, apparently. There is no indication that the piracy actually resulted in greater revenues for the content producers.
 
Yet you used that article to respond to someone who said, "!) None of the studies state that people who illegally download music than turn around and buy music from the same band and that the initial losses to the producer of that music are  offset by future purchases of other music. Someone always loses."
 
... which was disingenuous at best.

And by the way, such hostility toward people attempting to engage in a discussion with you is really not helpful.
 

"music and movie industries have been exaggerating the impact digital file sharing has had on their bottom line and found that for some creative industries, copyright infringement might actually be helping boost revenues"
 
"sharing of films and music online generates marketing benefits and sales boosts that often offset the losses in revenue from illegal sharing of content"
 
Yup. Let's go with what you say, and not the London School of Economics. You're far more reliable source of information than them.

I haven't actually said anything except that the "evidence" you present does not support your conclusions.

I read the actual study that spawned the linked article, and it spends the first several pages talking about the emergence of a sharing culture on the internet, and the fact that quite a few content creators have moved to creative commons licensing and collaboration instead of individual copyright ownership. It also questions copyright owners' claims of losses from piracy, and suggests that new revenue streams from digital distribution have offset some of those losses. I didn't see any evidence to support the notion that "copyright infringement might actually be helping boost revenues," although it may have been buried in one of the footnotes. I didn't follow all of them.

Their recommendations are mostly asking for laws and the enforcement of such (and business models) to adapt to the file sharing culture.

[giveamanafish...]

I would like to apologize to all the women. "Panties in a knot". is using gender as a way to to insult someone, persumably a man or young fella. Next time I will go with "Underwar (or small clothes) all atwist".

[MooseheadMcMoose]

... which begs the question, what were those other online music users - the ones who did not download free content - doing? Streaming/sampling and/or buying, apparently. There is no indication that the piracy actually resulted in greater revenues for the content producers.

 

It would be grossly dishonest to - as you suggest - that piracy and purchasing habits can be decoupled. That if they were strictly prevented from piracy that their purchasing habits would be unaffected. Unless you can show that they can be decoupled, your suggestion that they can, cannot be given any credibility.

 

To further show the problem with your argument - let's examine blind people. They generally have more acute hearing and touch. If we accept your argument, then their hearing and tactile sense acuity has nothing at all to do with their blindness.

 

I don't think it's difficult to see the absurdity of your suggestion.

 

 

Yet you used that article to respond to someone who said, "!) None of the studies state that people who illegally download music than turn around and buy music from the same band and that the initial losses to the producer of that music are  offset by future purchases of other music. Someone always loses."
 
... which was disingenuous at best..

 

No, I was referring to the CBC article - which quoted the authors as suggesting the damage of piracy is grossly exaggerated and piracy may actually benefit them. If you disagree with the conclusions - then argue with the authors of the study, not with me.

 

I think it's interesting that I've cited sources to support my argument, yet you have not cited a single source of your own. Yes, very interesting.

 

 

I haven't actually said anything except that the "evidence" you present does not support your conclusions.

 

I disagree. And so do many other articles which cite the same and similar studies. If I am mistaken on the interpretation of the article - then so are many authors, including the CBC reporter who seems to have interviewed the authors.

 

Apparently you know how to interpret the study better than the authors themselves. Fantastic. Go and apply for a job at LSE.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

Youtube sharing of gameplay videos not same pirating a game for personal consumption.

 

First off, if you look at the copyright strikes against YouTube channels which post gameplay footage - yes indeed, it is the same thing. They're citing the same laws and the same copyright ownership. Same thing. Despite your claim to the contrary.

 

I don't know how you get from a discussion on piracy and cracking games - to YouTube. The flow of your logic baffles me.

 

You should be able to figure it out by looking at your own situation. Assuming you have pirated  a game. Do you tell all your friends (given your attitude, you must have thousands) : "Hey I just pirated a game. You should buy a copy"?

 

You're being absurd. I wouldn't suggest anyone buy a copy because I had pirated it. I would suggest they consider it, if the game was decent - or avoid it if it was rubbish - regardless of how I had acquired it myself.

 

Your suggestion that people will enthusiastically encourage the purchase of a game purely because they happened to download it, is patently ridiculous. Maybe your mind works this way - so maybe this is how you see the world.

[jumpinghermit]

you can talk till next year about the motivation of people pirating games and you would still not agree. this is the same debate as it is with movies. shitty movies don't sell, good movies sell. it's as simple as that. 

 

want facts ? 

 

games have been increasingly getting bigger budgets in the past years because the industry has been growing like crazy. revenues are also up, as a whole - for the industry. people have systematically been paying more and more for games - either in the base price or via dlc's and various other crap.

 

so ... you draw the conclusion as to what effect, if any, piracy has on the industry.

i'm not defending or accusing pirates ... i'm just saying that shitty people are on both sides of this argument ( gamers and developers ). but the industry ... it couldn't care less, it will go on keeping on.

 

oh ... and give me a freaking demo ... i don't want much ... just the first level or the first 30-60 minutes of a game ... you know .. to make sure it actually works. especially for pc games, and especially for big budget games where specs are sometimes pretty high ... 

[MooseheadMcMoose]

games have been increasingly getting bigger budgets in the past years because the industry has been growing like crazy. revenues are also up, as a whole - for the industry. people have systematically been paying more and more for games - either in the base price or via dlc's and various other crap.

 

According to this article, the games industry is growing about 4x faster than the rest of the US economy. Which makes it pretty hard to swallow the claims that piracy is destroying the industry and bankrupting developers.

 

But I suppose it's easy to blame pirates, estimate your lost sales in the trillions and point to TPB as the source of your game's dismal sales.... while ignoring the meteoric growth in the industry that's breaking sales records all the time. It's easier to blame pirates than admit your game blows and was released in a barely beta-quality state.

[brzoz]

i prefer to pay artists for their contribution than to pay companies such as RIAA to be the middleman (who has that much in common with art as the cow has with hats, same applies to EA). maybe they perceive internet as a threat because the need for physical distribution no longer exists, artists can sell their creations directly to consumers. perhaps RIAA-like companies wish we're stuck in dark ages.

 

some of the artists don't have a problem with RIAA policy, i find that baffling. how the industry can evolve if it's based on archaic principles (revenue isn't based only on the number of sales; "consumer trust"? anyone? no? huh...) and very little people have the courage to say 'gtfo with your filthy business model'? or... just simply 'gtfo'.

 

i'd love to just travel back in time to when this part of the universe (software developement) was a bit more idealistic and a lot less greedy

[Lennard Testarossa]

Again, with feeling this time - I quoted directly from the article. I really don't see what you're arguing about.

 

You challenged whether or not "freeloader" effects are being offset, and there's the answer. This isn't about correlation of causation - it's the authors' conclusion.

 

If you claim to know more about economics and interpreting data than the authors - then you should challenge their conclusion in a peer-reviewed academic journal. You seem to be claiming to be more knowledgeable than the academic authors.

 

I wasn't talking about that, though. I was talking about the 'pirates buy more'-statement.

 

And the offset quote really only applies to movies and music. How do you know it also applies to video games? Furthermore, how did they actually calculate this? The study itself doesn't show the data. What did they compare?

[Maboroshi]

To all those in a panic because hackers "cracked" DAI's in-game DRM, step back, take a deep breath and have a reality check: 1) No "crack" has yet been released for DAI. 2) For all its evils, piracy has not kept "poor" EA from earning billions of dollars worth of annual revenue (.3.79 BILLION in 2013 according to wikipedia), so don't go shedding tears for this corporate behemoth, which by the way is considered the 3rd largest videogame company in the WORLD BY REVENUE after Nintendo and Activision Blizzard ( again according to wikipedia).  3) Oddly enough, even their billion-dollar profits were not enough to keep them from being voted the "Worst Company in America"  two years in a row (2012-2013) by the renowned consumer-advocacy publication "The Consumerist",  based on their consumer-satisfaction research data. 4) Maybe if EA allowed their studios to make quality games AND devoted more time and resources to improving their own QA to ensure their products come out FINISHED and ready to be played rather than be bugfests to be BETA TESTED by their consumers, instead of obssesing about even more ways to "protect" their games, maybe more people would be inclined to actually BUY them and make them an EVEN BIGGER profit!!!

 

Of course, once unfettered corporate capitalism takes absolute hold in the mindset of individuals and organizations, common sense and decency tend to fade away rather quickly.

[helpthisguyplease]

To all those in a panic because hackers "cracked" DAI's in-game DRM, step back, take a deep breath and have a reality check: 1) No "crack" has yet been released for DAI. 2) For all its evils, piracy has not kept "poor" EA from earning billions of dollars worth of annual revenue (.3.79 BILLION in 2013 according to wikipedia), so don't go shedding tears for this corporate behemoth, which by the way is considered the 3rd largest videogame company in the WORLD BY REVENUE after Nintendo and Activision Blizzard ( again according to wikipedia).  3) Oddly enough, even their billion-dollar profits were not enough to keep them from being voted the "Worst Company in America"  two years in a row (2012-2013) by the renowned consumer-advocacy publication "The Consumerist",  based on their consumer-satisfaction research data. 4) Maybe if EA allowed their studios to make quality games AND devoted more time and resources to improving their own QA to ensure their products come out FINISHED and ready to be played rather than be bugfests to be BETA TESTED by their consumers, instead of obssesing about even more ways to "protect" their games, maybe more people would be inclined to actually BUY them and make them an EVEN BIGGER profit!!!

 

Of course, once unfettered corporate capitalism takes absolute hold in the mindset of individuals and organizations, common sense and decency tend to fade away rather quickly.

Yeah that shows what we really care about as consumers that we vote EA as the worse company 2 years in a row and it seems 3 years in a row. There far worse companies with way worse services and prices and products then this one. Also the ones who cracked the game said it will release it to the public only next week.

[Iceyone]

Maybe I come from a generation that believed that taking anything without permission or by underhand means was just plain wrong as I just can't agree with pirating atall. I'm not interested in some reported justification for it, it shouldn't matter the wealth or status of the party the item has been taken from, I see it as theft, plain and simple, regardless of what it is, you are taking something you haven't paid for and thus aren't entitled to have. The fact it's digital doesn't wash for me either, I don't care if the cost to the developer is nil or minor, if there is a price tag or value attached to a product and you take it, without permission, without paying, it's stealing.

Games like DAI are so huge that many people even if they enjoy it will only complete it once, if that once has been a crack/copy version, then no further sales would come from that anyway. I can't imagine many hackers speaking with friends and saying "I cracked this game, it's awesome, you should totally buy it, even although I didn't " it's more likely to be "I cracked this game, it's awesome, here, do you want a copy?".

A compromise may have been a free trial, limited hours or missions but let's be honest here, cheats and hackers would rarely if ever be satisfied with that. They want the game, don't want to pay for it so they take it by whatever means and justification they can

[helpthisguyplease]

Maybe I come from a generation that believed that taking anything without permission or by underhand means was just plain wrong as I just can't agree with pirating atall. I'm not interested in some reported justification for it, it shouldn't matter the wealth or status of the party the item has been taken from, I see it as theft, plain and simple, regardless of what it is, you are taking something you haven't paid for and thus aren't entitled to have. The fact it's digital doesn't wash for me either, I don't care if the cost to the developer is nil or minor, if there is a price tag or value attached to a product and you take it, without permission, without paying, it's stealing.

Games like DAI are so huge that many people even if they enjoy it will only complete it once, if that once has been a crack/copy version, then no further sales would come from that anyway. I can't imagine many hackers speaking with friends and saying "I cracked this game, it's awesome, you should totally buy it, even although I didn't " it's more likely to be "I cracked this game, it's awesome, here, do you want a copy?".

A compromise may have been a free trial, limited hours or missions but let's be honest here, cheats and hackers would rarely if ever be satisfied with that. They want the game, don't want to pay for it so they take it by whatever means and justification they can

I think that is just you not your generation, even of you are old enough to be the grandfather of a grown adult man that generation still stole still did crappy things to their friends and family and arguably they where more racist then the younger one. I understand your opinion but do not say it a generation thing say its my thing. The fact that there are so many entitled people people that wanna take without paying is not a generation thing is just that when your generation when they formed their values did not had access to internet or it was not that widespread to challenge those values.

You see people are more forgiving to others when they did the same thing at some point so I wonder if you had access in the time your values and principles were in the making  to the internet and to so many things we can get for free but we should not would you still be saying on this forum what you said now?

My guess is deep down you do not know either.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

I wasn't talking about that, though. I was talking about the 'pirates buy more'-statement.

 

And the offset quote really only applies to movies and music. How do you know it also applies to video games? Furthermore, how did they actually calculate this? The study itself doesn't show the data. What did they compare?

 

Peas and carrots. I've already dealt with this. Same entertainment budget. That's the practice of Nielsen for evaluating entertainment expenditures. Go argue with them.

 

As to the raw data of the studies - go ahead and challenge the conclusions of the authors straight to them. It's trivial enough to find their academic email addresses. It's their conclusions, not mine - so don't ask me for their numbers - ask them. They're academics writing about a highly contentious topic - and since you seem to think you've caught them out fudging the numbers, academic fame and stardom await!

 

Your brilliance seems to grow with every post. Surely you must have academic institutions falling over themselves to recruit you.

[Iceyone]

You are correct that I didn't have access to the internet whilst growing up, however, regardless of generation, or online or not, I would have hoped that the moral compass remained the same in regards to taking something that doesn't belong to you.

Just because something can be gotten for "free" doesn't make it right to get it when it was never intended to be free to begin with. What the pirates, hackers etc are doing isn't a legitimate getting of "freebies", they are taking something by underhand methods that they have no right to have without paying for it.

It shouldn't matter if it's something taken online (digital) or not, that's the problem I see here, we seem to want to excuse that kind of action just because it's online. You couldn't march into your local game shop, fire up your laptop and copy a physical game disc or cd, I don't understand why it should be alright to do it just because it's digital or online.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

Maybe I come from a generation that believed that taking anything without permission or by underhand means was just plain wrong as I just can't agree with pirating atall.

 

Aah, yes. The good old days when people had real moral values.

 

Like when women couldn't charge their husbands for raping them.

Like when women were chattel - denied the right to vote or hold public office.

Like when blacks were being lynched and their murderers the same police officers who were supposed to uphold the law (ok, this one hasn't changed at all)

Like when we had righteous people protecting our society - like Joseph McCarthy and his vigilant protection from communism.

 

Yes indeed. The good old days. Much better morals.

 

 

The fact it's digital doesn't wash for me either, I don't care if the cost to the developer is nil or minor, if there is a price tag or value attached to a product and you take it, without permission, without paying, it's stealing.

 

First off, I suggest you invest in a dictionary. "stealing" requires theft. And theft is different from copyright violation. English. You're doing it wrong.

 

Second, if there's no cost, no value, then there's no harm and no reason to bicker. So your opposition to someone taking something that has no value, is as justifiable as someone rummaging through your rubbish bin.

 

Third, since your argument hinges on "take without permission"... where's the "take"? Where does anyone who makes a digital copy actually "take" something? This ties in with the first point, but you should be able to see that the grammar of your argument falls on its face.

 

 

I can't imagine many hackers speaking with friends and saying "I cracked this game, it's awesome, you should totally buy it, even although I didn't " it's more likely to be "I cracked this game, it's awesome, here, do you want a copy?".

 

Actually, with my experience it's been more of "I've removed that intrusive, buggy DRM. Now you can play it without it thrashing your CD drive (old days) or hogging your internet bandwidth."

 

People who crack games do it for a variety of reasons. To over-simplify it is to make ignorant assumptions.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

I would have hoped that the moral compass remained the same in regards to taking something that doesn't belong to you.

 

Yes, let's go there. Since you're questioning the morality of piracy - let's address the other side of the coin - the morality of companies that turn out buggy, substandard, untested pieces of rubbish, sold on a wagon-load of lies and deceptive marketing.

 

If you want to question the morality of the pirate, then you must address the morality of the corporate suits who sell games they know are worthless - and hide behind online sales and Steam store-fronts to protect them from consumers who'd be beating their door down in a brick-and-mortar business model.

 

You can't say the pirate is immoral without looking at the morality of companies that are (supposedly) wronged.