[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

On the other hand, why do you assume that if a person is willing to pay 20 dollars for a used game, he is willing to pay 50 dollars for it new.

I'm not sure. Why do some people who argue that piracy is significantly damaging assume that if a person downloads a game that means they would have purchased it if piracy was somehow entirely eliminated?

Peace & Luv, Liz

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

I'm not sure. Why do some people who argue that piracy is significantly damaging assume that if a person downloads a game that means they would have purchased it if piracy was somehow entirely eliminated?

Peace & Luv, Liz

That's a wrong assumption as well IMO. Just like it is a wrong assumption to assume that a person willing to pay 20 bucks for a game is willing to pay 50 bucks, it's also a wrong assumption to assume that a person who pirates is willing to buy the games.

[Tanukitsune]

There are people who buy pirated games, movies and music thinking it's the real thing for starters, they just see a cheaper product and think it would be stupid to pay more for the same thing....

I remember a videogame rental store had a pirated GBA game, it fooled me completely! I actually bought and I didn't notice it was fake until I put it in the GBA and got a "ROM hacked by..." screen...

The owner refused to believe the game was pirated as well...

My father has bought movies thinking they where the real deal, and then noticed they had no language options or extra features, it was pretty easy to spot that is was fake, but not for him....

In other words, there is a fool born every mintue, and that fool just bought a pirated game thinking it was the real deal...

[Jackal]

You can argue in theory that resales and pirating are similarly... unhelpful, let's say (we won't assume it's actually destructive). But in practice, that falls apart almost immediately. In the case of piracy, a game can be distributed infinitely, with absolutely no money ever finding its way to the industry. In the case of resales, the original purchase money does reach the publisher/developer, and that game will likely only change hands once or twice. (Then, of course, it has the added advantage of encouraging sales of further games through circulated money.) If a used game were resold at original value hundreds or thousands of times, they'd be more comparable.

A resale market is less than ideal for developers, sure. But then, game prices are less than ideal for consumers, too.

I'm certainly not arguing against publishers re-releasing games. I'd love it if they did. I just see that as a completely unrelated issue.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Just like it is a wrong assumption to assume that a person willing to pay 20 bucks for a game is willing to pay 50 bucks, it's also a wrong assumption to assume that a person who pirates is willing to buy the games.

Which is what I was getting at, really. I'm actually personally against warez and don't have any problems with reselling, but I think there's logical discrepancies no matter what side of the argument you look at.

Originally Posted by Jackal

In the case of resales, the original purchase money does reach the publisher/developer, and that game will likely only change hands once or twice. If a used game were resold at original value hundreds or thousands of times, they'd be more comparable.

As I said, it depends on how you want to look at it, whether from the perspective that you stated, or from the perspective of how much money a game company loses when someone buys an old copy instead of a new one.

Originally Posted by Jackal

I'm certainly not arguing against publishers re-releasing games. I'd love it if they did. I just see that as a completely unrelated issue.

Well, abandonware is its own unique piracy issue.

When someone pirates a game that can be easily purchased they obviously aren't interested in paying full retail for it. However, when someone pirates a game that is not still sold in stores, that person may very well have been willing to pay full retail for the game if it were available, but they either cannot find it or cannot/will not pay the ridiculous well-above-retail prices that second-hand games sometimes fetch in places like eBay.

So while I think it's easier to argue warez-piracy is mostly a crime against the game company, I think with abandonware-piracy it's easier to argue it's partly the game company's own fault.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

As I said, it depends on how you want to look at it, whether from the perspective that you stated, or from the perspective of how much money a game company loses when someone buys an old copy instead of a new one.

That perspective is pure conjecture, so I wasn't bothering to address it. As I said, you can argue the theory, but it's meaningless in practice. Resales and piracy are on entirely different scales regardless of whether one hypothetical "lost sale" is the same as another.

Well, abandonware is its own unique piracy issue.

Yes, abandonware is it own issue. I'm really not sure why you're quoting me, as I said nothing about abandonware.

[LauraMac]

The fact that a game can be re-sold as "used" goods has no bearing on whether it is okay to them take it for free by stealing it or worse selling this as pirated goods.

If that's the argument then anything that can be sold as "used" should be open to allowed theft.

Like books, movies, clothes, music

Anything that is bought as new can be re-sold. The fact that people can re-sell an item is not justification for stealing it. And ease of copying material does not justify it's theft either - just makes it easier to steal.

As for games no longer being published, the same applies to books out of print, if they become collector items they sell for prices higher than their original purchase price,. So if a book becomes rare and hard to get - should people use that shortage to justify copying it on a machine or downloading it to read for free? If a vintage shirt became pricy and hard to find, you would shoplift the shirt because - people are making money off a used shirt and taking advantage of the fact that it's popular and rare? How dare they!

so what you are saying is that if a game becomes "hard to find" meaning you can't afford a copy or find one - you should be able to get it by any means? There is no entitlement to something that is the product of another person's hard work and creativity - just because you want it. People who take something - just because they want it and can't or won't buy it - are thieves.

There are very few things that can't be obtained through legitimate means if you want it badly enough to pay the price, if you aren't willing to pay the price - then you do without, Assuming you aren't a child who thinks wanting something means you should have it - the law and others rights be damned.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Jackal

As I said, you can argue the theory, but it's meaningless in practice. Resales and piracy are on entirely different scales regardless of whether one hypothetical "lost sale" is the same as another.

Well, I don't think it's conjecture or meaningless... I mean, I find it obvious that if a customer gets an old copy that doesn't give the game company more money vs a new copy that would give the game company more money, the game company has lost potential money. And most people who are against piracy base their arguments around pirated games causing lost sales.

Neither piracy nor reselling takes already-made money from sellers AFAIK, so lost potential sales/monies are really all you have to argue with.

Originally Posted by Jackal

Yes, abandonware is it own issue. I'm really not sure why you're quoting me, as I said nothing about abandonware.

Well, you asked what game companies re-releasing games has to do with piracy. Re-releasing a previously out-of-print game makes it no longer abandonware, which solves at least that particular piracy angle.

Originally Posted by LauraMac

So if a book becomes rare and hard to get - should people use that shortage to justify copying it on a machine or downloading it to read for free?

Actually, I *can* most likely read a hard-to-find book legally for free. I just log on to a library network, find a copy somewhere, and have it sent to my local branch so I can check it out.

Same goes for music and movies... there are plenty of places available to rent or borrow those sorts of things.

Then there's things like art and clothing. Replicas and knock-offs of various sorts are legally possible and more easily obtainable than the originals.

It's true that if you want the originals of some things you need to cough up time, effort, and money. But if all you want to do is experience a given thing then many other creative art outlets have ways of doing so that are legal and more accessible than most software situations.

There's also the question of whether games qualify as artwork that should be preserved to prevent it from disappearing entirely. Such preservation is certainly not uncommon nor illegal in other creative art fields.

I don't think abandonware is a very good solution, but it seems to be the best one I know of available until the gaming culture catches up to the state of other creative art cultures.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[LauraMac]

Neither piracy nor reselling takes already-made money from sellers AFAIK, so lost potential sales/monies are really all you have to argue with.

Wrong. Arguing about who gets the money is a smoke screen.

Taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission or for a price is stealing. Re-sales are not part of the equation because they are sold by the "new" owner. The person who bought the game.

Who gets the money is completely irrelevant to whether pirating is theft.

If you had something you valued, the fact that you hadn't used it in a long time wouldn't make you think that some one who stole it from you was justified. - if they said, Hey it's cool, you have no right to complain or make me pay for what I did. I took it because you didn't seem to be using it anymore. I can't get it anywhere else without paying more than I think its worth. But even though I do';t think its worth that much - I still want it - so I took it" I think you would be pretty steamed about it being just taken from you because that other person wanted it and couldn't find it anywhere else.

Theft is theft - that's why it is illegal. Just because not everyone gets caught and lots of people steal doesn't make it legal or right.

[Tanukitsune]

Now that we've thrown abandonware in the misture I've notice nobody is talking about the real issue anymore...

Game store clerks that not only condone piracy but encourage it!

Most game stores have an online store AND a used games section, so telling someone that they should download a game that is probably (in this case it was) still in their catalogue IS WRONG and it IS trhowing stones on your own room!

Don't throw old games into the mixture, you KNOW games store don't deal with 20 year old games, so asking for one there is just plain silly...

Don't say that the law is wrong and it's OK just because "nobody" cares, getting something for free that you should/could pay for is wrong no matter how you look at it...

There is no such thing as legal abandonware! If the game is availible for download at the game companies site or the programmer's site, it's FREEWARE, dammit!

This is becoming a like a "No it isn't! Yes, it is!" thread, we will never agree on wether piracy is right or wrong, but it just can't understand how people can be OK will a game store clerk condoning piracy!

When you go to the cinema, does the ticket seller tell you that you can download the movie instead of watching it?

Do music store clerks tell you to dowaload music instead of buying a CD?

Do book store clerks tell you to download the book from the net?

If you say it's OK, then just consider piracy as the "competition", OK?

Would it still be OK?

[entranced]

Originally Posted by Tanukitsune

Now that we've thrown abandonware in the misture I've notice nobody is talking about the real issue anymore...

Game store clerks that not only condone piracy but encourage it!

I already responded to the "real issue" in your topic but I guess no one cared. As I already stated..piracy has become so mainstream and widely accepted (with peer to peer programs and what not) that you shouldn't be so surprised that game store clerks don't give a shit either. Most of them are getting paid by the hour...not by the amount of games they sell each day. The clerks could care less if you buy a game from them.

[Jackal]

Well of course a store clerk recommending piracy is being irresponsible, but lots of clerks feel very little accountability to their employer. If it was a store owner that did it, then obviously they figured the sale was "lost" to them already, so it made no difference to them. If they make a habit of it, they're being extremely stupid and short sighted.

[Argosphilia]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

It's extra if the original owner used it, then the second owner is using it as well.


Lynsie

.........hey hey, wait a minute

This makes no senses at all ! (no offence of course )

You see, let's say we are playing hockey. I replace my player #17 with #24.

Now, do you think I get one extra player because #17 played and then #24 is playing..........

[Tanukitsune]

Originally Posted by entranced

I already responded to the "real issue" in your topic but I guess no one cared. As I already stated..piracy has become so mainstream and widely accepted (with peer to peer programs and what not) that you shouldn't be so surprised that game store clerks don't give a shit either. Most of them are getting paid by the hour...not by the amount of games they sell each day. The clerks could care less if you buy a game from them.

For starters, it's not mainstream or widely accpted, and even it were it still wouldn't make it something legal, or morally right...

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by Argosphilia

.........hey hey, wait a minute

This makes no senses at all ! (no offence of course )

You see, let's say we are playing hockey. I replace my player #17 with #24.

Now, do you think I get one extra player because #17 played and then #24 is playing..........

If you were paying their salaries, you'd have to pay both players, wouldn't you?

Now back to my statement. Player X buys game, has a great deal of trouble getting it to run (certainly not unheard of today). He plays the game and then sells it to player Y. Player Y has all the same problems as X did, and, like X has multiple interchanges with the company. The company has just done twice the work for that one copy of the game - right? Yet they've received payment only once for that one copy. A certain portion of the cost of that game goes into customer service. That one copy just used twice its allocation. Does that make sense to you now?

Lynsie

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

Player X buys game, has a great deal of trouble getting it to run (certainly not unheard of today). He plays the game and then sells it to player Y. Player Y has all the same problems as X did, and, like X has multiple interchanges with the company. The company has just done twice the work for that one copy of the game - right? Yet they've received payment only once for that one copy. A certain portion of the cost of that game goes into customer service. That one copy just used twice its allocation. Does that make sense to you now?

While in this instance that would be the case, don't forget that a lot of people don't end up making calls to customer support, and some people may end up calling multiple times anyway because they've bought new computers or installed some other software that conflicts with the product. So it evens itself out in the end, and I wouldn't say that this alone is a good enough reason to declare second-hand sales as evil. After all, one could look at the company's willingness to continue to provide this support (which you'll probably find they're not required to) as an act of charity that provides some extremely favourable advertising.

[Jeysie]

Laura:

Piracy is an interesting conundrum because it technically is not theft, not according to the existing definition.

When I steal a car, a book, or anything else tangible, then I am actually depriving the original owner of use of the item.

When I download a copy or buy an illegal copy of a game the owner still has the original game that the copies were made from.

Therefore the only thing being stolen by piracy is potential sales, which leads us right back where we started.

If you look at the market in general then second-hand sales are not bad.

However if you look at it solely from the perspective of the game company then we're right back at my argument. Why do you think game companies have gotten so pissed at bigwig stores like Best Buy moving into the realm of selling used games?

I'm personally against warez and don't have an issue with reselling, but I don't think there's an easy answer.

As for abandonware, as I said, every single other creative media type has numerous ways that people can experience them, even out of print things, without having to pay more than retail unless you are a collector.

Every other creative media type has ways that students of the genres can experience and learn from the classics without having to resort to spending possibly exorbitant prices on eBay and similar sites unless they want to. For instance, how would a game teacher right now showcase something like Wasteland to students making RPGs or the non-Zork Infocom classics like A Mind Forever Voyaging to students making adventures?

Therefore, if one can argue that gaming is a legitimate creative media, then I see nothing wrong with asking why we treat it so differently in access than all the other creative medias.

I am happy to see things like GameTap coming into being. If outlets like this take hold and are expanded then I'll be happy to give abandonware the moral boot since its "moral" aspects (giving out-of-print games some of the same preservation and accessibility as other media) will no longer be necessary.

Tanukitsune:

I stated earlier that I think an employee has a duty to support their business no matter their personal beliefs, so you have no quarrel from me personally on that regard.

I don't think your choice of analogies is that great, however.

When you go to the cinema, does the ticket seller tell you that you can download the movie instead of watching it?

No, but if I am an honest clerk and think the movie sucks I have the legal option of suggesting the customer wait to rent the DVD instead.

Do music store clerks tell you to dowaload music instead of buying a CD?

No, but if I determine the customer really only wants one or a few songs from the CD I have the legal option to suggest they buy the songs off something like iTunes.

Do book store clerks tell you to download the book from the net?

No, but I could possibly tell the customer to look for it at the library. For instance, if there was only the hardcover available and the customer wanted the paperback version, but they wanted to at least read the book before then.

I think in order for your argument to fit the analogies you gave you'd really need to compare it to a game clerk from a store that only sells new games sending a customer to a store that sells used games. That's a slightly muddier question.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by LauraMac

Who gets the money is completely irrelevant to whether pirating is theft.

True. The only thing that determines whether copyright violation is theft is the law. And the law says that it's not theft. So stop claiming that it is.

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by Snarky

True. The only thing that determines whether copyright violation is theft is the law. And the law says that it's not theft. So stop claiming that it is.

It seems according to this (see 2319), it is.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Therefore the only thing being stolen by piracy is potential sales, which leads us right back where we started.

If you look at the market in general then second-hand sales are not bad.

However if you look at it solely from the perspective of the game company then we're right back at my argument. Why do you think game companies have gotten so pissed at bigwig stores like Best Buy moving into the realm of selling used games?

Okay let me try to take an extreme scenario to show you that the 2 are NOT the same. Suppose that everyone in the world pirated a game. what's the revenue to the software company? 0

Now suppose 3 people bought the game, and sold it. What's the revenue to the software company? 3 sales. You are forgetting that to have a re-sale, the owner must have bought the game to begin with (unless it was pirated which takes us back to the first point). So yes, maybe the software company won't get as much profit, but saying that reselling and pirating are identical is a little far fetched. In the first case, the software company is definitely not getting anything. In the second case, it is at least getting money from the person who is reselling the game, and could potentially get more if he spends that money on buying more games.