What's the best way to reduce piracy?

[Lingus]

For me, it's not really about how the data was obtained.

I'm not going to requote your whole post since it's so large, but this sentence is particularly important. I think this is the crux of the issue. Piracy is all about how you obtain the data. Piracy means you took something with out permission from the owner. Intellectual property can be pirated. It seems to me that you're making it out to be something that belongs to everyone. Once an idea or design is put out into public awareness, it belongs to the public. Sure, in an ideal world that would be great. Everyone shares everything. The problem is that it's just not the case. People create things in order to make money. Just because it happens to be non-physical doesn't mean they are any less entitled to the ownership of what they created. Whether that be music, software, a piece of code, the design for a house or piece of machinery or a gadget or whatever. You can't just take it. And just because you paid money in order to use it, doesn't entitle you to unlimited use. If you buy music, you can't use that music in a video unless the owner of that music gives you permission. If the owner wants to make more money off of that, then that is their right.

[ARTgames]

People create things in order to make money.

I'm not going to requote your whole post since it's so large, but this sentence is particularly important. This seems to be one of the biggest arguments for not having piracy. Don't get me wrong even without money I'm sure people will want to keep things behind locked doors but this is still one of the main points. I feel we should discuss why people sell things. I don't mean that skin deep, I know its to make money but I mean more than that.

[Lingus]

I feel we should discuss why people sell things. I don't mean that skin deep, I know its to make money but I mean more than that.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. People sell things to make money. Are you asking why people don't trade? Kind of getting into some of the basics of economy.

[ARTgames]

I feel we should discuss why people sell things. I don't mean that skin deep, I know its to make money but I mean more than that.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. People sell things to make money. Are you asking why people don't trade? Kind of getting into some of the basics of economy.

Oh my bad I will make it more clear. But the yeah the idea was to talk about money and maybe other systems that could suite peoples needs. You said it: basics of economy. How could we make it viable for people to make information "free"?

[Jake]

For me, it's not really about how the data was obtained.

I'm not going to requote your whole post since it's so large, but this sentence is particularly important. I think this is the crux of the issue. Piracy is all about how you obtain the data. Piracy means you took something with out permission from the owner. Intellectual property can be pirated. It seems to me that you're making it out to be something that belongs to everyone. Once an idea or design is put out into public awareness, it belongs to the public. Sure, in an ideal world that would be great. Everyone shares everything. The problem is that it's just not the case. People create things in order to make money. Just because it happens to be non-physical doesn't mean they are any less entitled to the ownership of what they created. Whether that be music, software, a piece of code, the design for a house or piece of machinery or a gadget or whatever. You can't just take it. And just because you paid money in order to use it, doesn't entitle you to unlimited use. If you buy music, you can't use that music in a video unless the owner of that music gives you permission. If the owner wants to make more money off of that, then that is their right.

To me, it's no different than somebody giving me a recipe, and telling me I can only make cookies with it 5 times and that I can no longer use it anymore. It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't carry any significance to someone like me. Whats to stop people from using the same argument you're using against piracy to support making it illegal to trade books, video games, etc. Technically they contain copyrighted information that is being distributed without paying the original creator and it does the exact same damage as piracy.

[ARTgames]

Whats to stop people from using the same argument you're using against piracy to support making it illegal to trade books, video games, etc. Technically they contain copyrighted information that is being distributed without paying the original creator and it does the exact same damage as piracy.

Well It depends what you mean by trade but I don't think that's the "exact same damage as piracy". If your trading physical copies then you are loosing your copy but whether or not that really matters to you is something else. Like if your not going to use it ever again. But my main point is just the matter of scale. Sharing a book or game with like 5 of your friends is different from sharing it with thousands of people on the internet. Regardless they probably would like it if you did neater and if they could stop you from doing it they would.  Some might consider it piracy at one share or copy and some might assume it will happen anyway to a certain extent.

[Lingus]

Art said what I would have said. The fact that the media is digital makes it kind of a different game. In theory, Jake, you're right. It shouldn't be any different. But in reality, you're talking about massive quantities. You're talking about someone buying a book and mass reproducing it, and then sharing those reproduced copies with their friends. If you could make that process free, then you would definitely have an issue with "sharing" books with your "friends" the same way you have a problem with "sharing" music with your "friends".

I also want to add that I would agree that morally or ethically this is a bit of gray area. I used to believe that there was really no harm done, especially when the person downloading the content was never going to buy the content in the first place. The argument though is that there are plenty of people (probably the majority) that download content just because they can, even though they could afford to buy it and probably would if pirating wasn't an option. That actually does harm the author since they are losing a potential sale.

[Jake]

I also want to add that I would agree that morally or ethically this is a bit of gray area. I used to believe that there was really no harm done, especially when the person downloading the content was never going to buy the content in the first place. The argument though is that there are plenty of people (probably the majority) that download content just because they can, even though they could afford to buy it and probably would if pirating wasn't an option. That actually does harm the author since they are losing a potential sale.

I've always understood that piracy is harmful, but I also don't like putting limits on data. Losing a potential sale is not reason enough to say something is bad though, because there are many different ways a business can lose a potential sale. If my friend was about to buy a game and I said that it was boring and they decided not to buy it, that is a lost potential sale. If I let my friend read my book, that is a lost potential sale. Each of these lost potential sales does the same damage as someone pirating something once. Obviously piracy is more damaging because it's usually done on a massive scale with thousands of downloaders, but on a case by case basis, it's not anymore damaging than anything that causes the loss of a potential sale.

If you look at the used game industry, it's killing profits almost as badly as piracy, and many corporations believe that too should be illegal. Eventually, we're going to be fighting to maintain ownership over our games, and they're going to use the same argument that they do against piracy: that they are supplying a service, and sharing a game, even if it is in physical form, is a breach of contract.

[Mr Pwnage]

I also want to add that I would agree that morally or ethically this is a bit of gray area. I used to believe that there was really no harm done, especially when the person downloading the content was never going to buy the content in the first place. The argument though is that there are plenty of people (probably the majority) that download content just because they can, even though they could afford to buy it and probably would if pirating wasn't an option. That actually does harm the author since they are losing a potential sale.

I've always understood that piracy is harmful, but I also don't like putting limits on data. Losing a potential sale is not reason enough to say something is bad though, because there are many different ways a business can lose a potential sale. If my friend was about to buy a game and I said that it was boring and they decided not to buy it, that is a lost potential sale. If I let my friend read my book, that is a lost potential sale. Each of these lost potential sales does the same damage as someone pirating something once. Obviously piracy is more damaging because it's usually done on a massive scale with thousands of downloaders, but on a case by case basis, it's not anymore damaging than anything that causes the loss of a potential sale.

If you look at the used game industry, it's killing profits almost as badly as piracy, and many corporations believe that too should be illegal. Eventually, we're going to be fighting to maintain ownership over our games, and they're going to use the same argument that they do against piracy: that they are supplying a service, and sharing a game, even if it is in physical form, is a breach of contract.

But when you tell your friend the game sucks and he doesn't buy it, they've lost a potential sale, but your friend didn't ever receive their game so there is no harm done. With pirating, yet again they've lost a potential sale, only problem is now you actually posses the game by illegal means so it isn't really the same...?

[Chaos]

I also want to add that I would agree that morally or ethically this is a bit of gray area. I used to believe that there was really no harm done, especially when the person downloading the content was never going to buy the content in the first place. The argument though is that there are plenty of people (probably the majority) that download content just because they can, even though they could afford to buy it and probably would if pirating wasn't an option. That actually does harm the author since they are losing a potential sale.

I've always understood that piracy is harmful, but I also don't like putting limits on data. Losing a potential sale is not reason enough to say something is bad though, because there are many different ways a business can lose a potential sale. If my friend was about to buy a game and I said that it was boring and they decided not to buy it, that is a lost potential sale. If I let my friend read my book, that is a lost potential sale. Each of these lost potential sales does the same damage as someone pirating something once. Obviously piracy is more damaging because it's usually done on a massive scale with thousands of downloaders, but on a case by case basis, it's not anymore damaging than anything that causes the loss of a potential sale.

If you look at the used game industry, it's killing profits almost as badly as piracy, and many corporations believe that too should be illegal. Eventually, we're going to be fighting to maintain ownership over our games, and they're going to use the same argument that they do against piracy: that they are supplying a service, and sharing a game, even if it is in physical form, is a breach of contract.

But when you tell your friend the game sucks and he doesn't buy it, they've lost a potential sale, but your friend didn't ever receive their game so there is no harm done. With pirating, yet again they've lost a potential sale, only problem is now you actually posses the game by illegal means so it isn't really the same...?

Even if they did 'receive the game', what is the harm done?  What relevance does having or not having the game have?  It's a 'lost potential sale' either way, regardless of whether you have a copy of the data or not.


(Incidentally, for the record, I put forth that the term 'lost potential sale' is bullshit.)

[ARTgames]

I've always understood that piracy is harmful, but I also don't like putting limits on data. Losing a potential sale is not reason enough to say something is bad though, because there are many different ways a business can lose a potential sale. If my friend was about to buy a game and I said that it was boring and they decided not to buy it, that is a lost potential sale. If I let my friend read my book, that is a lost potential sale. Each of these lost potential sales does the same damage as someone pirating something once. Obviously piracy is more damaging because it's usually done on a massive scale with thousands of downloaders, but on a case by case basis, it's not anymore damaging than anything that causes the loss of a potential sale.

They feel getting a game for free is a really big LOAPS (loss of a potential sale) :) . And really I understand why getting the game for free is a bigger deal to them than hearing a bad review. (but some try to control the press also) Its also hard to stop word of mouth. Downloading the data kinda forces them into a honor system and they don't trust people. And they want to do something about it. When you hear a bad review all your left with is a bad review. But when someone downloads it and tries it for themselves it leaves them with the game for free. Its possible they could buy it because they like it, just not buy it and like it, or not like it and get rid of it. And they feel people are picking the middle choice too much.

[Lingus]

I'd like to clarify that I don't think it is the "harm done" that is the issue here. It's a matter of principal. If you want to own something that is sold, then you have to buy it. It's one thing to say that your friend owns it and they want to loan it to you or give it to you. I have no problem with that. They bought it, they don't want to use it anymore, now they are going to give it to their friend. The issue here is that not what is happening. Nobody is going on the internet and asking their friend to give them a copy of a game. They're going online to services that are setup specifically to distribute copies of the game to anyone and everyone that wants it. Think about how that would seem if it weren't digital. There would be a store that you could walk into and just pickup anything you want and walk out without paying. No one would say anything and you would now own that product without having paid. How could that possibly be acceptable?

(Incidentally, for the record, I put forth that the term 'lost potential sale' is bullshit.)

Really? Do you mean the term itself, or the concept? I don't see what the problem with the term is... it sufficiently describes the concept. And the concept is pretty valid. A company would have made a sale if it weren't for a certain factor. It was a potential sale, and yet they did not get the sale. Do you mean saying piracy causes lost potential sales is BS? I'd argue that that's pretty valid as well...

And to answer the rest of your post, the point is that piracy causes the lost potential sale. The fact that piracy exists is the issue. If it weren't for piracy, there would be many many people who could potential buy the game, and the fact that there is no other method available for obtaining the game means that they will buy the game. The only reason that these people don't buy the game right now is because they don't have to in order to have the game. So really, them having the game without paying for it is the only reason why it is a lost potential sale. Understand, I am not referring to people who would not have bought the game under any circumstance, either because they can't afford it, choose not to buy it because they don't want to spend the money, or (as is the case with you sometimes) are making a stand against either the company, the game itself, or something about the game/company (such as DRM). In this case, it is not a lost potential sale, and you are correct that it really doesn't make a difference if they end up having the game or not... except for my comments above about it being the principal of the matter.

[Chaos]

The concept is bullshit.  Why?  I have a simple two word rebuttal.

"Piracy is a potential lost sale, which is harmful to the industry!"

"Prove it."

And don't bother trying, because you can't.  The term 'potential' guarantees you can't prove it caused harm.  You don't know whether they would have bought it if they hadn't pirated it, and you don't know they won't buy even THOUGH they pirated it.  You have to make sweeping assumptions about an entire population to make the concept even begin to float.

[Scotty]

I love how a legitimate discussion can so easily become nothing but a challenge of semantics and technicalities to see who can get the final laugh.

[sayers6]

The concept is bullshit.  Why?  I have a simple two word rebuttal.

"Piracy is a potential lost sale, which is harmful to the industry!"

"Prove it."

Ask me if I would have bought a game if I hadn't had the ability to pirate it. Yes. Yes I would've.