[gillyruless]

The same old debate and the same old arguments. I just cannot accept the argument that the copyright laws are broken and they only award big corporations and not the original creator so it's ok for anyone to ignore them and use copy righted materials anyway they want. You go and talk to the creators, be they game devs, musicians, artists, or writers, and give them that argument. Assuming that they have created something that others demand, most of them will tell you that that argument is a big stinking pile of BS.

If the copyright laws are broken then they need to be fixed but the spirit of such laws, which is to protect the right of the creators so that they can be rewarded for their creation and the contribution they made to the society, is still valid. Copyright laws being broken does not give anyone the moral right to use/enjoy other people's creations without compensating them when they do not want you to. Make no mistake about it, that's what piracy of any type amounts to. Legal and linguistic semantics be damned. That to me spells theft.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by [toj.cc]Phantom

Actually it has a huge affect on sales. So huge and popular in fact that some Mafia organizations hvae stopped seeling drugs and now sell/make/traficc pirated games.

That's false. The newest (and most importantly impartial) studies show that it has very little affect on the sales. (At least in Europe). Record companies blame piracy for their loss of album sales when in fact the sales have raised instead of lowered. And there's so many artists and different music styles today, it's not a wonder why nobody sells the way they used to. It's not that black and white. In my country, the biggest problem is the price.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Tanukitsun

Is it ethical to copy another's work?

Yes. Is it ethical to want to control ideas and content completely?

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Yes. Is it ethical to want to control ideas and content completely?

Neither is ethical. That's why the society need to strike the balance between the two. I am willing to admitt that the current copy right laws have swung way too much to favor the owner of the IP and it is necessary to restructure the copy right regime. But once again, that does not justify some one to go and use/enjoy what others created without compensating them for their effort.

This is just my HO BTW.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

The same old debate and the same old arguments. I just cannot accept the argument that the copyright laws are broken and they only award big corporations and not the original creator so it's ok for anyone to ignore them and use copy righted materials anyway they want. You go and talk to the creators, be they game devs, musicians, artists, or writers, and give them that argument. Assuming that they have created something that others demand, most of them will tell you that that argument is a big stinking pile of BS.

If the copyright laws are broken then they need to be fixed but the spirit of such laws, which is to protect the right of the creators so that they can be rewarded for their creation and the contribution they made to the society, is still valid. Copyright laws being broken does not give anyone the moral right to use/enjoy other people's creations without compensating them when they do not want you to. Make no mistake about it, that's what piracy of any type amounts to. Legal and linguistic semantics be damned. That to me spells theft.

What if the creators are big corporations like EA, that are screwing all the other creators I care about, and sucking the fun out of the hobby we all enjoy. I can argue that EA is not contributing to the society except negatively. They are stifling creativity, crushing those people that the copyright laws were there to protect, enslaving people enthusiastic enough to work in the gaming industry. My stand is that of against piracy, but only for people like Tim Schafer and Valve, not for companies like EA or Microsoft, who would care less to contribute than seeing their pockets fuller than they are.

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

What if the creators are big corporations like EA, that are screwing all the other creators I care about, and sucking the fun out of the hobby we all enjoy.

Big corporations suck. They are soulless oligarchies that only care about their bottom line. But, are copying games a way to 'stick it to them?' It seems reactionary and more vengeful than productive. I think the methodology of someone like Greg Costikiyan, who is trying to circumvent the big publishers, will be much more beneficial in the long run.

In terms of games that are no longer published, I like the challenge of being able to track them down (on eBay e.g.).

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

Big corporations suck. They are soulless oligarchies that only care about their bottom line. But, are copying games a way to 'stick it to them?' It seems reactionary and more vengeful than productive. I think the methodology of someone like Greg Costikiyan, who is trying to circumvent the big publishers, will be much more beneficial in the long run.

In terms of games that are no longer published, I like the challenge of being able to track them down (on eBay e.g.).

Greg Costikiyan's methedology is definitely productive from a developer standpoint, and I am all for it. But what can we as consumers do about fighting these massive soulless corporations?

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Greg Costikiyan's methedology is definitely productive from a developer standpoint, and I am all for it. But what can we as consumers do about fighting these massive soulless corporations?

In areas like retail, you would support small businesses. Unfortunately, I don't think there are small independent game publishers out there (I may be wrong) to support. So I guess the next step would be for someone with courage and some money to set up a small publishing business and court game developers. Costikiyan started in the right direction and it's up to the next person to continue it (now if I were rich.....).

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

In areas like retail, you would support small businesses. Unfortunately, I don't think there are small independent game publishers out there (I may be wrong) to support. So I guess the next step would be for someone with courage and some money to set up a small publishing business and court game developers. Costikiyan started in the right direction and it's up to the next person to continue it (now if I were rich.....).

There's Majesco who were brave enough to support such a brilliant game as Psychonauts, but look what happened to them

I really believe the gaming industry is very immature, and it definitely needs a shakeup. Maybe pirating the big corporations' products is not going to fix it, but buying them is not helping either.

[RLacey]

Leaving aside the fact that if nobody bought games then these evil, demonic publishers™ wouldn't have any money with which to give developers their first break (don't forget, EA helped to fund Battlefield, Take Two helped to fund GTA and so on), I'd be wary of suggesting that loads of people have no problem with you copying their work. Did you email/phone/write to each person involved on every product you illegally obtained to make sure? Because if you didn't, then you may well be working against at least some of those repsonsible for producing the product, and that's unethical.

I don't quite understand the whole "piracy is ethical" thing. Do you photocopy books? Do you expect to get into the cinema for free?

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

There's Majesco who were brave enough to support such a brilliant game as Psychonauts, but look what happened to them

I really believe the gaming industry is very immature, and it definitely needs a shakeup. Maybe pirating the big corporations' products is not going to fix it, but buying them is not helping either.

There are two separate issues involved here and we need to separate them, act of committing piracy and the negative impacts of propagation of big corporations. Yes, I do realize that they are somewhat linked, especially in the gaming industry, but justifying the former using the latter makes no sense in my book.

Rob brings up a good point. Random House is a big corporation that might benefit from the work of the authors without providing much benefit but you try distributing digital copy of Shalimar the Clown on the Internet illegally. Do you think Salman Rushdie will applaud you for fighting the big evil corporation? I think not.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by RLacey

Leaving aside the fact that if nobody bought games then these evil, demonic publishers™ wouldn't have any money with which to give developers their first break (don't forget, EA helped to fund Battlefield, Take Two helped to fund GTA and so on), I'd be wary of suggesting that loads of people have no problem with you copying their work. Did you email/phone/write to each person involved on every product you illegally obtained to make sure? Because if you didn't, then you may well be working against at least some of those repsonsible for producing the product, and that's unethical.

Just like these demonic publishers funded developers like Dice, (they bought DICE by the way, so there you go for giving them a break), they also helped crush other developers by buying them out. When was the last time we played a westwood game, or a bullfrog game? Where's Ultima? How about Jane Jenssen's GK, or all the quest franchises? and Al Lowe? Making a Leisure Suit Larry game and not involving the original creator, the guy who himself came up with the idea of Larry in the first place???? and the guy wanted to be involved??? You don't see anything unethical here?

Originally Posted by Gilly

Rob brings up a good point. Random House is a big corporation that might benefit from the work of the authors without providing much benefit but you try distributing digital copy of Shalimar the Clown on the Internet illegally. Do you think Salman Rushdie will applaud you for fighting the big evil corporation? I think not.

If EA publishes a Double Fine game or even a Valve game, it is very different to me from them making and publishing the latest Madden NFL (which surprise, you can only buy from them). In the first case I'm hurting both the original developer and EA but mainly the original developer. In the second case, I'm purely hurting EA.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by RLacey

Do you photocopy books?

I'm sure if it wasn't so tedious to photocopy whole books, people would do it.

[Aurebesh]

Well, if piracy will affect sales so much that there won't be any sales anymore, then there wouldn't be piracy anymore either. Problem solved!

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Snarky

Exactly. When even the people who supposedly benefit from copyright don't care if you break it, that just means that there's something wrong with the copyright system.

Are you assuming that people always act ethically, reasonably and in their best interest? If so, I beg to differ.

In the same way, most of the inventors I know think the patent system should be scrapped, and most software developers support open source. And of course, many musicians openly encourage bootlegging and online distribution of their music.

The real opposition comes from the big corporations, because they are the ones who in fact reap the benefits from restricting the freedom of intellectual works. Not the creators themselves.

Originally Posted by RLacey

if nobody bought games then these evil, demonic publishers™ wouldn't have any money with which to give developers their first break (don't forget, EA helped to fund Battlefield, Take Two helped to fund GTA and so on)

Exactly. I'm surprised this point must be brought up anew every time we have a discussion about copyrights. I wanted to develop a game, but couldn't afford it. So the publisher chimes in with his money, but will fund my game only if he gets something in return. So I gave him exclusive rights to the title (or fair share of income, or whatever). Tough luck! Now the game is done it's very easy for me to complain about the Greedy Corporation™ which is gaining profits from my work.

And what does the point about your inventors and musicians prove, Snarky? It's not like they are forbidden to release their own work as a public domain!

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Just like these demonic publishers funded developers like Dice, (they bought DICE by the way, so there you go for giving them a break), they also helped crush other developers by buying them out. When was the last time we played a westwood game, or a bullfrog game? Where's Ultima? How about Jane Jenssen's GK, or all the quest franchises? and Al Lowe? Making a Leisure Suit Larry game and not involving the original creator, the guy who himself came up with the idea of Larry in the first place???? and the guy wanted to be involved??? You don't see anything unethical here?

I guess you could just as well blame Ken Williams for most of those things. What exactly was he expecting selling Sierra to a soulless conglomerate like that?

BTW, as for the latest Larry and other sequels getting made without the original creators, strangely enough I never hear of it being unethical in cases when the sequel in question ends up actually good...

If EA publishes a Double Fine game or even a Valve game, it is very different to me from them making and publishing the latest Madden NFL (which surprise, you can only buy from them). In the first case I'm hurting both the original developer and EA but mainly the original developer. In the second case, I'm purely hurting EA.

I don't get it. Somebody does develop the Madden games, right?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

I don't get it. Somebody does develop the Madden games, right?

EA develops and publishes them, and owns the IP, wheras it is only a publisher for games like Half Life 2 or Oddworld Stranger's Wrath. And I would really buy Half Life 2 from Steam actually, but if I had no choice what so ever, I wouldn't mind it as much as buying a Madden game.

[AFGNCAAP]

How can you say you wouldn't be hurting the original developer of Madden, then?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

How can you say you wouldn't be hurting the original developer of Madden, then?

The original developer of Madden IS EA. Okay let me rephrase:
"In the first case I'm hurting both the original 3rd party developer and EA but mainly the original 3rd party developer. In the second case, I'm purely hurting EA."

That's what I meant.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

The original developer of Madden IS EA. Okay let me rephrase:
"In the first case I'm hurting both the original 3rd party developer and EA but mainly the original 3rd party developer. In the second case, I'm purely hurting EA."

That's what I meant.

Ah, so you were originally saying that it would be ethically worse to pirate self-developed Madden than to pirate a game developed by a 3rd party! I read it the other way round. My mistake.

[Fairygdmther]

The part of this that I still have trouble dealing with is the resale of games on places like eBay. Neither publishers, nor developers get a cent from this yet it is ethically okay since the original game was bought. I would rather buy it new for a number of reasons, but in many cases this is impossible. Why can't older games be made still available for us today? It's even better if they are upgraded, but even without that, the games would sell, and maybe they wouldn't generate huge profits, but income is income.

Why is buying a used game any different than pirating it?

Lynsie