open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Would you pirate......
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.04.22 21:35:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: blodimary
Edited by: blodimary on 22/04/2009 21:30:14
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

Alright then, for the sake of argument, don't movies normally come on disc carried inside of a case?

Don't video games, if bought from a store, come neatly packaged with several disc, an instruction manual, and maybe a map or something? The same for major computer programs where as you can buy the product online and have the box version shipped to you.

Or how about music cd's at the store?

Each of those items carry material cost as well but by removing the material cost and having the basic product online it somehow changes its status of physical property to intellectual property therefor making it 'ok' to be pirated?

I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I just want to know if you could answer that.
By removing all material cost and all materials, there is no "physical property" to speak of.


So with that statement what you are saying it is alright then?
So say, I want Fallout 3. If I go to the store and tell them that I am going to simply take the game and if I like it then I'll come back and pay for it, that this will be immoral and counted as stealing, BUT, if I just download the game from someone who cracked the code and started distributing the game himself, either for free or for his own reduced price profit, without the associated items that normally come with the game, then it is ok to do so.

Brea Lafail
Posted - 2009.04.22 21:46:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

So with that statement what you are saying it is alright then?
So say, I want Fallout 3. If I go to the store and tell them that I am going to simply take the game and if I like it then I'll come back and pay for it


Man, a satisfaction guarantee on games would make me weep with joy, unfortunately, with the quality being put out recently...

Now, say you did what you say, but you actually pay the real costs of making the disk, package, shipping, store clerks, etc. and have the option of making a donation if the game is actually good. That might be comparable.

Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:03:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Brea Lafail
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

So with that statement what you are saying it is alright then?
So say, I want Fallout 3. If I go to the store and tell them that I am going to simply take the game and if I like it then I'll come back and pay for it


Man, a satisfaction guarantee on games would make me weep with joy, unfortunately, with the quality being put out recently...

Now, say you did what you say, but you actually pay the real costs of making the disk, package, shipping, store clerks, etc. and have the option of making a donation if the game is actually good. That might be comparable.


I'm not sure what your getting at. The way I'm reading that is the only portion you do not pay is the company itself (other than production cost) which would mean the time that the developers put into the game itself is unpayed unless some one gives a donation.

What I am confused about is how it is comparable just taking a ripped copy from the internet where as no payment at all is made.

Brea Lafail
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:10:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

I'm not sure what your getting at. The way I'm reading that is the only portion you do not pay is the company itself (other than production cost) which would mean the time that the developers put into the game itself is unpayed unless some one gives a donation.

What I am confused about is how it is comparable just taking a ripped copy from the internet where as no payment at all is made.


If you just take a copy from a shop, they're out the cost of what it took to make that disk. If you download a copy of the 1's and 0's, they are out nothing. Trucking companies and the like might lose out, but they can ship a load of cabbage or something instead.

Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:28:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Brea Lafail

If you just take a copy from a shop, they're out the cost of what it took to make that disk. If you download a copy of the 1's and 0's, they are out nothing. Trucking companies and the like might lose out, but they can ship a load of cabbage or something instead.


If you take a copy from a store, they are out of a purchased item. If you download it from a pirated website, they are out of a purchased item. In both scenarios, you gain something and the maker does not.

So I ask again, what difference is there between taking a game in box form in a store and it being morally wrong and counted as stealing as opposed to just downloading the basic data from someone other than the company itself who is distributing it for free? How is one morally wrong and the other is alright?

Brea Lafail
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:33:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
So I ask again, what difference is there between taking a game in box form in a store and it being morally wrong and counted as stealing as opposed to just downloading the basic data from someone other than the company itself who is distributing it for free? How is one morally wrong and the other is alright?


1 d/l != 1 lost sale

masternerdguy
Gallente
Meerkat Maner
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:37:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Brea Lafail
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
So I ask again, what difference is there between taking a game in box form in a store and it being morally wrong and counted as stealing as opposed to just downloading the basic data from someone other than the company itself who is distributing it for free? How is one morally wrong and the other is alright?


1 d/l != 1 lost sale


people who pirate (ive had some friends who did) would never buy something anyway, so this is true.

Kaeten
Hybrid Syndicate
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:39:00 - [38]
 

aaah

Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:46:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Brea Lafail
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
So I ask again, what difference is there between taking a game in box form in a store and it being morally wrong and counted as stealing as opposed to just downloading the basic data from someone other than the company itself who is distributing it for free? How is one morally wrong and the other is alright?


1 d/l != 1 lost sale


I'm a dummy with secret symbols so does != mean the same as =/=? And if so then my question is still not answered. What makes it different? What is the difference between taking a box from a store without paying and just simply downloading a cracked version? Either way I still end up with a game, and the company gets nothing. So how is it different?

masternerdguy
Gallente
Meerkat Maner
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:51:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: Brea Lafail
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
So I ask again, what difference is there between taking a game in box form in a store and it being morally wrong and counted as stealing as opposed to just downloading the basic data from someone other than the company itself who is distributing it for free? How is one morally wrong and the other is alright?


1 d/l != 1 lost sale


I'm a dummy with secret symbols so does != mean the same as =/=? And if so then my question is still not answered. What makes it different? What is the difference between taking a box from a store without paying and just simply downloading a cracked version? Either way I still end up with a game, and the company gets nothing. So how is it different?


thats not a secret symbol, that the disequality sign used in software programming.

if(red != blue) {
system.out.println("red is not equal to blue, im sorry I hurt you with this lame lame example");
}Very Happy

Blane Xero
Amarr
The Firestorm Cartel
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:52:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Blane Xero on 22/04/2009 22:53:45
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: Brea Lafail
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
So I ask again, what difference is there between taking a game in box form in a store and it being morally wrong and counted as stealing as opposed to just downloading the basic data from someone other than the company itself who is distributing it for free? How is one morally wrong and the other is alright?


1 d/l != 1 lost sale


I'm a dummy with secret symbols so does != mean the same as =/=? And if so then my question is still not answered. What makes it different? What is the difference between taking a box from a store without paying and just simply downloading a cracked version? Either way I still end up with a game, and the company gets nothing. So how is it different?
It costs the company to distribute it physically, but these costs are all nullified with digital distribution. Yet the cost is almost exactly the same.

Also with Physical copies, the actual developers/companies are paid off the minute the stores buy the product for shelves.

The fact is, when production costs are next to nil, why do the companies still charge the same as a physical product (sometimes they charge more). When it costs them nothing to "sell" a million digital copies, why do they still try to justify the pricing?

MyOwnSling
Gallente
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:56:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Alright then, for the sake of argument, don't movies normally come on disc carried inside of a case?

Don't video games, if bought from a store, come neatly packaged with several disc, an instruction manual, and maybe a map or something? The same for major computer programs where as you can buy the product online and have the box version shipped to you.

Or how about music cd's at the store?

Each of those items carry material cost as well but by removing the material cost and having the basic product online it somehow changes its status of physical property to intellectual property therefor making it 'ok' to be pirated?

I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I just want to know if you could answer that.
This is a fair and valid question and I understand what you are getting at. Others have addressed it and I will too, within the context of my example.

A CD or DVD is simply the means of distribution of someone's IP. The TV, on the other hand, is not (you still view others' IP through it but distribution is handled via cable/satellite service and there are other things you can do with a TV that don't have anything to do with someone's IP). A CD/DVD is a static storage device whose purpose could be replaced by some other means of distribution (i.e. the internet). A TV, on the other hand, while also being in the "media" category, is an interface (between an analog/digital feed and the human sensory organs know as "eyes") whose materials and required manufacturing techniques go far beyond that of the CD/DVD (materials for one of these costs on the order of cents and has for years) and cannot be replaced by anything akin to the internet. They are, conceptually and physically, two different items altogether with different uses and purposes.

Does this answer the question? I may have rambled and missed some stuff, so don't hesitate to piont anything out.

Brea Lafail
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:57:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

I'm a dummy with secret symbols so does != mean the same as =/=? And if so then my question is still not answered. What makes it different? What is the difference between taking a box from a store without paying and just simply downloading a cracked version? Either way I still end up with a game, and the company gets nothing. So how is it different?


I think I answered you multiple times now. If you pay for the cost of producing the physical object, then it is the same as downloading for free. I think neither is immoral. May or may not be illegal and unethical, but I can still sleep sound at night.

Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:59:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Blane Xero
It costs the company to distribute it physically, but these costs are all nullified with digital distribution. Yet the cost is almost exactly the same.

Also with Physical copies, the actual developers/companies are paid off the minute the stores buy the product for shelves.

The fact is, when production costs are next to nil, why do the companies still charge the same as a physical product (sometimes they charge more). When it costs them nothing to "sell" a million digital copies, why do they still try to justify the pricing?


So by that understanding then that means that when I purchase a product from the store, I am only paying for the cardboard box or plastic casing that it comes in and not for the product itself. Which means that since I can get the product online it should automatically be free as there is no material cost at all.

But then developers are no longer being paid off by the store then as the product is now online. So if I download it from a pirated sight, how do they get paid?

MyOwnSling
Gallente
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.04.22 23:04:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Blane Xero
The fact is, when production costs are next to nil, why do the companies still charge the same as a physical product (sometimes they charge more). When it costs them nothing to "sell" a million digital copies, why do they still try to justify the pricing?
This is one reason I do not buy from Steam. The actual cost of a CD/DVD, as I said in my previous post, is pennies. Some of the other costs incurred include printing of manuals, shipping, and boxing material. I still don't think these costs amount to much, but I would still expect it to be a few dollars cheaper for a digitally distributed game over a physically shipped one.

Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.04.22 23:06:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Brea Lafail

I think I answered you multiple times now. If you pay for the cost of producing the physical object, then it is the same as downloading for free. I think neither is immoral. May or may not be illegal and unethical, but I can still sleep sound at night.


If you pay for the produced product then there is nothing wrong. What I am talking about though is walking into a store, grabbing the item and telling them I will pay for it IF I like it, and leaving.
Now, I know that at least in my state that is considered stealing, and frowned upon by most. I paid nothing to obtain that box, I simply grabbed it and went on my way.
But I can save myself the trouble of a foot chase and possible fines if I just download it from a pirated sight without paying for it.

How are the 2 different? Or are you actually telling me that the 5 finger discount is actually ok as well?

Blane Xero
Amarr
The Firestorm Cartel
Posted - 2009.04.22 23:09:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Blane Xero on 22/04/2009 23:10:34
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: Blane Xero
It costs the company to distribute it physically, but these costs are all nullified with digital distribution. Yet the cost is almost exactly the same.

Also with Physical copies, the actual developers/companies are paid off the minute the stores buy the product for shelves.

The fact is, when production costs are next to nil, why do the companies still charge the same as a physical product (sometimes they charge more). When it costs them nothing to "sell" a million digital copies, why do they still try to justify the pricing?


So by that understanding then that means that when I purchase a product from the store, I am only paying for the cardboard box or plastic casing that it comes in and not for the product itself. Which means that since I can get the product online it should automatically be free as there is no material cost at all.

But then developers are no longer being paid off by the store then as the product is now online. So if I download it from a pirated sight, how do they get paid?
Free? No. I Don't think we pay £20 / $35 and upwards for boxing materials. But it is part of the cost. And as i said in the post, what i (And maybe other people) mainly object to is the following.

A physical Copy has all the following extra costs that warrent the price;

Making the box, Disc, Manual, etc, and then Labour costs for the previous.

Digital Distribution has none of the above. There is no increasing cost for the copies that are sold. There is nobody else to share the pie with, since the producers can sell it from their own back yard. There is no "material costs" per copy.

But now i'm repeating myself.

MyOwnSling
Gallente
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.04.22 23:11:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: Brea Lafail

I think I answered you multiple times now. If you pay for the cost of producing the physical object, then it is the same as downloading for free. I think neither is immoral. May or may not be illegal and unethical, but I can still sleep sound at night.


If you pay for the produced product then there is nothing wrong. What I am talking about though is walking into a store, grabbing the item and telling them I will pay for it IF I like it, and leaving.
Now, I know that at least in my state that is considered stealing, and frowned upon by most. I paid nothing to obtain that box, I simply grabbed it and went on my way.
But I can save myself the trouble of a foot chase and possible fines if I just download it from a pirated sight without paying for it.

How are the 2 different? Or are you actually telling me that the 5 finger discount is actually ok as well?
In my opinion, they are effectively the same. As I said before, what they charge for digital and physical distribution is roughly the same and the actual cost for physical production is not that great. What you are paying for is the right to the IP. I personally don't think that either method is ethical, but then again, I don't think the prices being charged for some of this stuff are reasonable either. Solution for me: I don't get it, I find a replacement, or I just deal with it and pay for it if I really need it.

Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.04.22 23:26:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Blane Xero
Free? No. I Don't think we pay £20 / $35 and upwards for boxing materials. But it is part of the cost. And as i said in the post, what i (And maybe other people) mainly object to is the following.

A physical Copy has all the following extra costs that warrent the price;

Making the box, Disc, Manual, etc, and then Labour costs for the previous.

Digital Distribution has none of the above. There is no increasing cost for the copies that are sold. There is nobody else to share the pie with, since the producers can sell it from their own back yard. There is no "material costs" per copy.

But now I'm repeating myself.



ok then, with that in mind maybe the companies should be asked why they keep the same price on a hard copy and a digital copy. The only thing I can fathom is Steam charging for storage space and server quality but that's about it.

BUT, what I am asking is does it still make it ok to download from a pirated website then, for free, meaning the company gets no money at all for the product they are selling. And how does that differ from a grab and go as people keep stating that the 2 are different and I want to know what makes the 2 different other than material and electronic possession. Every time I draw it out on a marker board in my mind I see that the pirater gets a product, and the company gets nothing.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.04.22 23:26:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
If you pay for the produced product then there is nothing wrong. What I am talking about though is walking into a store, grabbing the item and telling them I will pay for it IF I like it, and leaving.
Now, I know that at least in my state that is considered stealing, and frowned upon by most. I paid nothing to obtain that box, I simply grabbed it and went on my way.
But I can save myself the trouble of a foot chase and possible fines if I just download it from a pirated sight without paying for it.
How are the 2 different? Or are you actually telling me that the 5 finger discount is actually ok as well?


Disregarding the "IP theft" for this first paragraph, there's a major difference already : in the "5 finger discount" case, you have actually taken away a physical object that had an associated cost for the current owner (the shop), while in the oher example you simply used up some of your own "downstream" internet bandwidth for which you already paid, and somebody else's "upstream" bandwidth who they willfully give away to you for free. It's the difference between taking pictures of a statue (then recreating that statue at home for your own private enjoyment) and taking the statue away from the place it's been put by its owners.


Now, on to the issue of "IP theft" which is not theft in the classic sense... most IP staunch defenders would lead you to believe that each and every "pirated" copy equates to a lost physical goods sale, and that they physically lost the retail value of the product that way.

First off, the most obvious thing, no, they don't lose the retail value. The retail value includes parts of cost for a lot of other people that are not the IP holder, from the manufacturer of the physical support to the people handlig deliveries and the actual shop the software was being marketed. While THEIR loss might seem regretable right now, it has absolutely nothing to do with the "theft of IP", so from the start up, equating "an illegal download" with a loss of the retail value of one copy of the item in question is at best misleading.

Second, one download does NOT equal one lost sale, regardless of value of that sale. More often than not, the person that downloaded the game/movie/music/whatever would have NOT purchased it anyway if he would have been unable to "illegaly download" it, and moreover, would be less likely to buy ANY OTHER similar products because he wouldn't be aware of their existance, or would simply not care at all about them. They wouldn't buy the game/movie/song/whatever now, they would wait until they could get a used copy the original purchaser no longer needs, or loan it from somebody else just to look at it, or wait until it's broadcasted "for free" so he can see it or listen to it, and so on and so forth.
Truth be told, I would be quite shocked if on average even 10% of dowloads would equate into lost sales, would downloading be impossible.
More likely, downloading barely affects sales numbers to begin with... or actually... see next point.

And finally, there's the issue of "word of mouth", which pretty much equates with publicity.
If anything, anybody who ever pirated a copy of a software and gave it good reviews, reviews that generated increased sales of that product, by the same logic used by the big software/music/movie houses should be PAID BY THE IP OWNERS for advertisment.
Are they ? Nope. Quite the contrary. Even if they actually GENERATE a lot of sales by their so-called "piracy", they're still regarded as thieves. Well, who are the thieves in reality, one might ask ?


So... yeah.

Jacob Mei
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.22 23:30:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Malvaceae Veri
Originally by: Jacob Mei
While I agree with a lot of what you say Akita in my opinion it boils down to this: the value of the object is for the creator to decide when it comes to intellectual property.



Well, this rules the music industry out....



Musical artists that are part of a record label sign a contract which outlines what both sides expect to get out of the deal so in a sence the musical artist set his price and the label buys the work for the purposes of promoting the artist and selling the work.

Originally by: MyOwnSling
Originally by: Jacob Mei
the value of the object is for the creator to decide when it comes to intellectual property
I disagree. In a free market, the consumers decide something's value. The artist can put on it what he believes the value to be, but, when someone looks into buying it, it is ultimately up to that consumer whether or not he thinks that the asked value is worth it to him. Does it make it right to take a digitally distributed version without paying? According to the law in some places, no. Morally? That's not as black-and-white.


Cherry picking FTW. I basicly said what you just said. Pricing in a free market is give and take. The artist puts his work up at price X and lowers when need be.

Out of curiosity please explain to me how taking someoneís product, be it material or an idea recognized by society to be an object worth paying for, is a moral issue as to if it should be stolen or not because the price is too high for your liking.

Originally by: Brea Lafail
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

So with that statement what you are saying it is alright then?
So say, I want Fallout 3. If I go to the store and tell them that I am going to simply take the game and if I like it then I'll come back and pay for it


Man, a satisfaction guarantee on games would make me weep with joy, unfortunately, with the quality being put out recently...

Now, say you did what you say, but you actually pay the real costs of making the disk, package, shipping, store clerks, etc. and have the option of making a donation if the game is actually good. That might be comparable.


With services like gamefly, gametap, many console games having demos being offered on their market place system these days there is really no excuse for not knowing what you are buying. Donít know about fallout 3? Rent it from gamefly. If you like it buy a full copy, if not, it was just one game on your subscription queue.



I think we are all dancing around an important question and that is what price do we assign for sweat. It seems to me that a lot of people who justify intellectual piracy in the recent threads use the statement that because it was either copied or doesnít have a physical form that it is somehow cheaper or outright worthless than their physical counterparts and that that cheapness somehow makes theft of the work okay.

Itís a small wonder that individuals like Da Vinci booby trapped their designs.

Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.04.22 23:58:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Akita T

Disregarding the "IP theft" for this first paragraph, there's a major difference already : in the "5 finger discount" case, you have actually taken away a physical object that had an associated cost for the current owner (the shop), while in the oher example you simply used up some of your own "downstream" internet bandwidth for which you already paid, and somebody else's "upstream" bandwidth who they willfully give away to you for free. It's the difference between taking pictures of a statue (then recreating that statue at home for your own private enjoyment) and taking the statue away from the place it's been put by its owners.


Well I've already paid for my running shoes and I'm using the floor that the mall had built for me and several other shoppers and I'm still getting the product for free as I would downloading a pirated copy.

As for the statue, in order to recreate it you would need resources like clay/cement/ or whatever the statue was made of and you would have to build it yourself. But you are not rewriting the code for a computer game after you download it are you?


Originally by: Akita T
Now, on to the issue of "IP theft" which is not theft in the classic sense... most IP staunch defenders would lead you to believe that each and every "pirated" copy equates to a lost physical goods sale, and that they physically lost the retail value of the product that way.

First off, the most obvious thing, no, they don't lose the retail value. The retail value includes parts of cost for a lot of other people that are not the IP holder, from the manufacturer of the physical support to the people handling deliveries and the actual shop the software was being marketed. While THEIR loss might seem regrettable right now, it has absolutely nothing to do with the "theft of IP", so from the start up, equating "an illegal download" with a loss of the retail value of one copy of the item in question is at best misleading.


So far what I've been gathering is that people are trying to tell me that manufacturing and shipping of a $50 cost $50 and that the actual product that you are buying is free.
But as far as I've been aware, Retail in a store has the same meaning as Retail online, being the transfer of goods between company and customer.

Originally by: Akita T
Second, one download does NOT equal one lost sale, regardless of value of that sale. More often than not, the person that downloaded the game/movie/music/whatever would have NOT purchased it anyway if he would have been unable to "illegally download" it, and moreover, would be less likely to buy ANY OTHER similar products because he wouldn't be aware of their existence, or would simply not care at all about them. They wouldn't buy the game/movie/song/whatever now, they would wait until they could get a used copy the original purchaser no longer needs


Original purchaser, one who had already purchased the product.

Originally by: Akita T
, or loan it from somebody else just to look at it

Borrowing wasn't a crime last I heard. I've borrowed things from friends that they have purchased and used them for a short time before returning it, but in the end I do not keep it, because then it would go from borrowing to taking.

Originally by: Akita T
, or wait until it's broadcasted "for free" so he can see it or listen to it, and so on and so forth.


At which point I would think that it wouldn't matter as the company has received its money and is allowing it to be broadcasted.

So the way I'm reading that is that they would not bother paying for a product anyways as they only wish to attain it for free by any means possible, like a 5 finger discount.

Originally by: Akita T
Cut down for character space



I've had people rave about their pirated copy of X product yes. But then they offered to give it to me for free. I didn't see how that generates the company money

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.04.23 00:41:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 23/04/2009 00:41:40
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Well I've already paid for my running shoes and I'm using the floor that the mall had built for me and several other shoppers and I'm still getting the product for free as I would downloading a pirated copy.

Ah, but you are NOT getting the exact same product.
For starters, you don't get the support that goes along with the legitimate purchase (or, not all of it), you don't get the physical mementos that might be in the box, and so on and so forth.

Quote:
As for the statue, in order to recreate it you would need resources like clay/cement/ or whatever the statue was made of and you would have to build it yourself. But you are not rewriting the code for a computer game after you download it are you?

Or you could hang the picture of the statue on your wall, if you're so hung up on a perfect analogy.

Quote:
But as far as I've been aware, Retail in a store has the same meaning as Retail online, being the transfer of goods between company and customer.

Actually, retail of downloadable-only games is usually slightly above half of brick-and-morter retail value, so your awareness was wrong.

Quote:
Original purchaser, one who had already purchased the product.

How many games you never replay, how many movies you never rewatch and so on and so forth do you have ?
If you would know there would be a booming business of used stuff, you would be very tempted to get rid of them.
The funny thing is, IP owners nowadays are trying to make the sale of a used copy of something also illegal.

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Borrowing wasn't a crime last I heard.

So downloading stuff from the internet isn't a crime either ?
Because downloading something then deleting it is pretty much the same as borrowing it from somebody (but somehow magically you give it back instantly while you still have it, until you decide to return/delete it).


Quote:
Originally by: Akita T
, or wait until it's broadcasted "for free" so he can see it or listen to it, and so on and so forth.

At which point I would think that it wouldn't matter as the company has received its money and is allowing it to be broadcasted.

It's not ALLOWING it to be broadcased, it's BEING PAID to allow it to be broadcasted. Just because you personally don't pay for it doesn't mean they are not getting paid for the fact you are listening/watching it "for free" (you pay in your enduring of commercials, for instance).


Quote:
So the way I'm reading that is that they would not bother paying for a product anyways as they only wish to attain it for free by any means possible, like a 5 finger discount.

Then you're reading it wrong.
People would gladly pay some fee they would consider FAIR to legally "borrow" or "lease" the right to use the product... problem is, what the user feels like "fair" is far below of what IP owners hope to get ("infinity" would be their ideal), and the inability of the IP owner to comprehend the fact that by lowering the unit value they would actually make more money overall hurts both the clueless IP owner AND the consumers in general.

Quote:
I've had people rave about their pirated copy of X product yes. But then they offered to give it to me for free. I didn't see how that generates the company money

So, you never listened to a song, then bought the whole album ?
Or you never played a game at a friend, then bought the game for yourself, or bought other game from the same company, or at least a similar style of game ?
Also, it falls under your "borrowed" rule anyway, what if they raved about a game they finished playing and BORROWED their legally obtained physical copy of the game to you ? There's no practical differene FOR YOU in that scenario, so basically you either admit borrowing is wrong, or that software piracy isn't such a big deal.

MyOwnSling
Gallente
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.04.23 00:53:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Jacob Mei
Out of curiosity please explain to me how taking someoneís product, be it material or an idea recognized by society to be an object worth paying for, is a moral issue as to if it should be stolen or not because the price is too high for your liking.
I think a lot of it comes down to opinion. "Morals" are a subjective thing dependent upon a person's perspective. In our society, we try to enforce the moral opinion of the majority with our laws. That brings us again to the issue of trying to change the current laws to be more in-line with public sentiment.

This is my perspective.

When someone makes something like MSOffice, they create it with the intent to simultaneously provide a usable product and to make money in order to support themselves. When someone illicitly obtains this software for which you generally pay a fee for the creation of (seeing as it isn't your work and it was created by someone with the intent to make money), they are arguably robbing the creator of money. This also introduces the viewpoint of someone who wouldn't have bought the software anyway and would have gone open-source or with a competitor. I still think the principal applies: you are still using something created by someone else and they simply do not want you to use it without paying them (similar to a patent). Is this a valid line of thought? I don't know, but it seems to me they have a right to ask something from you to use it if they put their own time, effort, thought, and money into it.

There have got to be holes in that wall of text, so bring them up as you see them.

MyOwnSling
Gallente
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.04.23 00:57:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: MyOwnSling on 23/04/2009 01:08:04
Edited by: MyOwnSling on 23/04/2009 00:57:32
Originally by: Akita T
It's the difference between taking pictures of a statue (then recreating that statue at home for your own private enjoyment) and taking the statue away from the place it's been put by its owners.
I had to comment on this analogy. I don't think it fits. When you recreate a statue, you are putting your own time and work into it. When you copy a digital version of some software/music/etc. you are not putting any effort into a recreation (i.e. you are not carving or chiseling or playing a series of instruments or coding), you are just carbon-copying bits. The key here is the effort that went into creating the item in question. I don't think the "hang the picture on a wall" is a good way to think about it because then it isn't a recreation and the analgy is void.

Originally by: Akita T

Quote:
I've had people rave about their pirated copy of X product yes. But then they offered to give it to me for free. I didn't see how that generates the company money

So, you never listened to a song, then bought the whole album ?
Or you never played a game at a friend, then bought the game for yourself, or bought other game from the same company, or at least a similar style of game ?
This is a good point. I have seen this happen and have had it happen to me (though generally not with pirated material, but the general point stands). This is an argument for music producers to give away free songs or discs in a limited capacity. I don't know how many times I've heard a song somewhere and bought a CD or played a game demo and bought a game.

Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.04.23 01:17:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Akita T

Ah, but you are NOT getting the exact same product.
For starters, you don't get the support that goes along with the legitimate purchase (or, not all of it), you don't get the physical mementos that might be in the box, and so on and so forth.


So there IS more than just boxing and shipping which everyone has been trying to put out there.

Originally by: Akita T
Or you could hang the picture of the statue on your wall, if you're so hung up on a perfect analogy.


Now it is no longer the same thing but rather an image of the statue. Had the statue been part of a fountain than the image would not be able to reproduce the same effect.

Originally by: Akita T
Actually, retail of downloadable-only games is usually slightly above half of brick-and-morter retail value, so your awareness was wrong.


I thought that my awareness was that retail meant the transfer of goods between company and consumer. Even if the price varies would it not still hold the same definition?

Originally by: Akita T
How many games you never replay, how many movies you never rewatch and so on and so forth do you have ?
If you would know there would be a booming business of used stuff, you would be very tempted to get rid of them.
The funny thing is, IP owners nowadays are trying to make the sale of a used copy of something also illegal.


BUT I still payed for them. How about food? I use it only once but I pay for it repeatedly. Pawn shops and yard sales actually are a booming business last I saw. Hell, half the things I own are second hand but at some point in time somebody paid full value for that, I just paid them what they asked for it.

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Borrowing wasn't a crime last I heard.

So downloading stuff from the internet isn't a crime either ?
Because downloading something then deleting it is pretty much the same as borrowing it from somebody (but somehow magically you give it back instantly while you still have it, until you decide to return/delete it).


So now you are calling it borrowing when you download a pirated game? And the company has no issue with this 'borrowed' game not being paid for? Maybe they won't have a issue if I 'borrow' the game from the store shelves if I return it right?

I fail to see how borrowing from somebody is the same as downloading your own copy of something.

Originally by: Akita T
So, you never listened to a song, then bought the whole album ? Or you never played a game at a friend, then bought the game for yourself, or bought other game from the same company, or at least a similar style of game ?


Note what I have bolded. Buying =/= downloading a pirated game.

Originally by: Akita T
Also, it falls under your "borrowed" rule anyway, what if they raved about a game they finished playing and BORROWED their legally obtained physical copy of the game to you ? There's no practical difference FOR YOU in that scenario, so basically you either admit borrowing is wrong, or that software piracy isn't such a big deal.



First off, they wouldn't borrow it to me, they would lend it to me. Lending implies that I'll be giving it back. Do you intend to give back your pirated game to the company who made it?
Criminals don't really steal cars, they just borrow them.
Now if my friend said I could keep the game then he would be giving it to me. Now he has already purchased the game and what he does with his copy is his thing (aside from making copies and distributing it as noted by the copyright law that is imprinted everywhere). By giving it and not asking for money he takes a loss but the loss is his, not the company who made the game.

From what I have learned so far is that taking the product from a store shelf is a crime according to everyone here. But by removing the shipping and industry portion and downloading the digital copy, the actual part that every consumer is going to use, nullifies the crime effect.

Jacob Mei
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.23 01:59:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: MyOwnSling
Originally by: Jacob Mei
Out of curiosity please explain to me how taking someoneís product, be it material or an idea recognized by society to be an object worth paying for, is a moral issue as to if it should be stolen or not because the price is too high for your liking.
I think a lot of it comes down to opinion. "Morals" are a subjective thing dependent upon a person's perspective. In our society, we try to enforce the moral opinion of the majority with our laws. That brings us again to the issue of trying to change the current laws to be more in-line with public sentiment.

This is my perspective.

When someone makes something like MSOffice, they create it with the intent to simultaneously provide a usable product and to make money in order to support themselves. When someone illicitly obtains this software for which you generally pay a fee for the creation of (seeing as it isn't your work and it was created by someone with the intent to make money), they are arguably robbing the creator of money. This also introduces the viewpoint of someone who wouldn't have bought the software anyway and would have gone open-source or with a competitor. I still think the principal applies: you are still using something created by someone else and they simply do not want you to use it without paying them (similar to a patent). Is this a valid line of thought? I don't know, but it seems to me they have a right to ask something from you to use it if they put their own time, effort, thought, and money into it.

There have got to be holes in that wall of text, so bring them up as you see them.


I dont think you actually answered my question or at the very least you only answered half of it.

MyOwnSling
Gallente
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.04.23 02:08:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: MyOwnSling on 23/04/2009 02:18:17
Originally by: Jacob Mei
Originally by: MyOwnSling
Originally by: Jacob Mei
Out of curiosity please explain to me how taking someoneís product, be it material or an idea recognized by society to be an object worth paying for, is a moral issue as to if it should be stolen or not because the price is too high for your liking.
I think a lot of it comes down to opinion. "Morals" are a subjective thing dependent upon a person's perspective. In our society, we try to enforce the moral opinion of the majority with our laws. That brings us again to the issue of trying to change the current laws to be more in-line with public sentiment.

This is my perspective.

When someone makes something like MSOffice, they create it with the intent to simultaneously provide a usable product and to make money in order to support themselves. When someone illicitly obtains this software for which you generally pay a fee for the creation of (seeing as it isn't your work and it was created by someone with the intent to make money), they are arguably robbing the creator of money. This also introduces the viewpoint of someone who wouldn't have bought the software anyway and would have gone open-source or with a competitor. I still think the principal applies: you are still using something created by someone else and they simply do not want you to use it without paying them (similar to a patent). Is this a valid line of thought? I don't know, but it seems to me they have a right to ask something from you to use it if they put their own time, effort, thought, and money into it.

There have got to be holes in that wall of text, so bring them up as you see them.


I dont think you actually answered my question or at the very least you only answered half of it.
Read into it a bit more. It says price is irrelevant. Keep in mind this is my opinion. I think it's a moral issue regardless of how the consumer views the price, but outrageous prices are more likely to incite pirating and, if it's something that has no good alternative, it could drive some to piracy who otherwise wouldn't because they believe that the price is immoral.

In short, I think price is irrelevant, but because what is "moral" is subjective, others may not.

Sorry for the ninja edit in case it matters.

masternerdguy
Gallente
Meerkat Maner
Posted - 2009.04.23 10:46:00 - [59]
 

interestingVery Happy

KingsGambit
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.04.23 11:11:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: masternerdguy
Ok would you pirate these...(They step up the price scale to see just where the line is)

1 thru 10 - Yes

Although I realise it is naughty, it doesn't particularly bother me. I still pay for a lot of music, movies, books and games I consider worth buying. In addition, I'll buy when I specifically want a physical copy or for a gift, for example. If I were to use a software program for something 'official' like in business, I would buy it legitimately without hesitation, but for playing about with at home, I'm not spending several hundreds on photoshop. Even when I do buy legitimate games, I still use cracks to avoid the need to use my DVD but use my genuine key.

IMO, the figures industries usually quote, such as "x millions in lost revenues due to piracy" is mostly rubbish. That is the amount they would have made had that many copies been purchased instead of pirated, but there is no way to know how many would have been bought had it been impossible to get for free. For example, I download a song, it hasn't actually cost the industry a single cent and I would never have bought it even if I couldn't get it for free. I pay for what I consider worth buying, I download when I can't find/buy something, when I can download before official release (and buy later) or when I wouldn't have bought. Some stuff is so bad I won't even download it, free or otherwise.

There is also a difference in downloading and taking a physical copy from a store/someone else. In the latter case, the item has a physical value and the original owner is being deprived of it. In the former, noone is being deprived of anything of worth whatsoever (except perhaps arguably the potential lost sale, see point above). If companies didn't charge exorbitant prices (in many cases well above what the product is really worth) for many products, piracy wouldn't be so widespread.

In pacific rim and many middle eastern countries for example, piracy is actually the norm. In Bahrain for example, the poor immigrant workers make approx $200 per month. A genuine DVD costs $20. That is 10% of their monthly income, the equivalent of us paying $150 for a movie. That same money will feed their families for days, so obviously they don't buy the films. Now pirates sell those same films (in many places, with actual stores in shopping malls) for $2...suddenly it's affordable and they sell plenty of copies. Big companies like Microsoft actually realise there's little to be done to prevent this however.

It's down to economy and affordability. And in the Internet age, there's no excuse for charging crazy prices when things cost so little to distribute, knowing they can be had for free illegally. Value is not what the creator perceives it to be, but the customer, and this may not reflect the item's worth, or its price.

Worth - The actual, material value of a good or service
Value - What we consider or perceive something to be worth
Price - The amount being asked for a good or service

A downloaded file is worth nothing whatsoever, whereas a store purchased product has a matieral worth for the physical product and the sales/support service the store provides. The value of an item is what we consider it to be. I consider that it is worth paying £8 to see X-Men: Origins in the cinema, but that the new Crank movie is not, thus I will pay the asking price for the former, but not for the latter. I wouldn't pay £1 for the latter actually. IMO where piracy crosses the line is when people make money from someone elses IP as I believe that that money should rightly go to the owner/creator, as bad as stealing, albeit not the same thing. Obviously this isn't the same as being an authorised reseller.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only