She hasn’t stopped though has she? and I can’t say that I trust her judgement when she says piracy was the main reason in the mid 90’s. A time when (see graph) sales were on an upward curve and didn’t peak until 2000.
And I very carefully did not say that “Spotify” was the reason, I was an early adopter in 2009 so I know exactly when it started. Please don’t misrepresent what I said. Just to be clear I stated
Whatever drop there was, as you can see from the chart I linked to, actually happened later in 2004-ish. Digital media and distribution become the preferred option and physical copies fall off a cliff.
Not entirely, but largely so compared to her pre-1994 output. I mean, it’s cute that you insist that you know better than her why she stopped but your reasons don’t really hold up.
By its nature, if you’re involved in torrenting then you’re likely involved in the distribution of the same material to umpteen other people stealing it. If you steal a physical copy and just use it personally then you are involved with that single copy. If you’re torrenting a copy, you’re distributing it even as it downloads.
But then, someone who steals a physical copy and then uploads it for other people to steal is just compounding the issue, much like someone who leaves their torrent client running 24/7 to further distribute their stolen content to the world. In any event, I’m not seeing much of an argument for how physical theft is notably worse than digital for the same content.
Really? If I go to gameshop and steal a physical copy of a game, they can no longer sell it. They have experienced a quantifiable loss.
If I go the the pirate bay and torrent it, gameshop can still sell that physical copy. If we want to torture the hypothetical a bit, it can easily be argued that me pirating it doesn’t prove that I haven’t already bought a copy (and then pirated it because of DRM issues) or that I will buy a copy in the future (because I’m using the pirated copy as a demo.) Therefore, there is no quantifiable loss here.
Based on the title, I was really hoping that it was going to be a rant about the ongoing over-sexualization of female video game characters. Oh well, one can dream. That said, anyone who is interested in that particular way that modern games continue to be disappointing should check outBikini Armor Battle Damage or http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/ for the comics version.
That doesn’t make it better, that just shifts the loss.
Software company pays people to make software. You steal it digitally instead of purchasing it digitally. Software company takes a loss because they still have to pay the producers and their potential customer stole it instead of buying it.
Software company pays people to make software and sells it wholesale to store. You steal it physically. Store takes a loss because they still have to pay for the wholesale product. For that matter, the store is hurt when you steal it digitally because now they have an unsalable copy of a game on their shelf but the potential customer stole it digitally instead.
“Quantifiable loss” is mainly bullshit handwaving away of responsibility by people who try to excuse their stealing things with “Well, I wasn’t going to buy it anyway (but I cared enough to steal it) so it’s not REALLY a loss…”, etc.
Also, the whole “But they could still sell the copy on the shelf!” thing maybe made a little more sense in 1996 or 1981 or whatever when we didn’t have digital distribution channels. The average consumer couldn’t give the producer money directly so they could assuage their conscience by directly comparing their copying of material to buying (or stealing) it off a shelf from a retail store. These days, most stuff is available in a much more direct fashion. Musicians sell music directly from their sites or Bandcamp, etc. Game producers get much better margins from digital distribution platforms. When you pirate stuff while you had a more direct channel to paying the producer directly, you are more directly affecting their profits and livelihood.
So, no, I don’t see “But… but the copy on the shelf!” as a notable difference between stealing it digitally or stealing it physically.
What loss? A pirated copy =/= a lost sale. I have bought software after I pirated it, because I am aware that game development of stuff I like won’t continue if it is unprofitable. I have also pirated software I paid for because of DRM issues that made the pirated copy better. In both cases, there is no loss. If you don’t want to accept that basic fact, than it’s pretty obvious why you consider copyright infringement the same as physical theft, and I’m not wasting any more time explaining why it isn’t to you.
Are you serious? You actually say “It’s okay if I steal something as long as I maybe pay for it later”? I mean, you say that as an argument for why it’s “not a loss”? Really?
For being a “basic fact”, you’re doing a really poor job making a case for it. But whatever makes you feel better about stealing stuff, kiddo.
I know, I know – every person who steals stuff has some adorable little “But it doesn’t count in MY case because…” story they use to convince themselves that they’re not really a shitty person.
Oh, I’m a shitty person. I’m not claiming a moral high ground, just the factual one, so you can put that ad hominem away. I at least have provided two examples of when pirating software didn’t lead to lost sales. All you have done is call everyone who disagreed with you a thief. Have fun with that.
If your best examples were “They didn’t lose money because I bought it later after I stole it” and “I needed to steal it because they put stuff on to prevent me from stealing it” then you probably should have stayed silent
I will append to say that, if you’re talking about downloading software that you have already purchased legally for the same system, then I don’t know why you’d even bring that up since the conversation was about pirating stuff you don’t own and Novelty Bobble’s question of whether stealing a digital game is more/less worse than stealing the same game on physical media. I wouldn’t even call that “pirating”.
So, uh, yeah I guess you got me there about “pirating” something you previously purchased and are going to use exclusively and not distribute but it’s also 100% irrelevant to the conversation.
Who the fuck died and made you the king of the pit, unilaterally declaring what a conversation is about and what it isn’t? Legally speaking, they are the exact same crimes, copyright infringement and (in the US) violating the DMCA. The fact that you insist one is “irrelevant to the conversation” says far more about the weakness of your argument than anything else.
I generally agree with all of this, but the bolded point is one thing that I’d quibble with. I don’t know if it’s possible to quantify, but the existence of piracy means that there is some amount of consumer surplus out there that could potentially be tapped to generate more revenue for the producers of content. If piracy was impossible, there would be some amount of people who would buy a game instead of just not play the game. And if more revenue was available to be had, it could incentivize a publisher to fund a game when it wouldn’t otherwise. I wouldn’t be surprised if more games that would have been released as console only are now also released on PC because of the existence of DRM schemes.
I would tend to agree that the industry is not likely being significantly harmed in the current state though, because the PC gaming industry (where pirating is relatively low-effort) is doing perfectly fine when compared to console gaming (where the platform makes pirating more cumbersome) - if control of piracy was still a significant factor, you’d think you’d continue to see console dominance. That being said, at least according to articles such as this one, it did take the advent of services such as Steam to make paid content on PC’s an attractive alternative to piracy (thus being able to extract some of that consumer surplus from the users).
I do see piracy as being fundamentally different from physical theft, as while theft causes net-zero total value increase (stealer gains value, but victim loses value) as well as clear harm to the victim, piracy increases total value (pirate gains value, victim doesn’t lose value), but the value is unfairly distributed - it only seems fair that the victim, often being the creator, should gain some value from the consumer enjoying their product. Most people recognize this, which is why they are willing to pay a certain amount to enjoy a product, even if they could pirate it. But when the price gets too high (either money or the cost of pain/inconvenience of an inferior product),some people will go back to pirating and the ability for the producer to extract revenue from them is diminished. Finding that line where the producer can maximize profits while minimizing the will of people to pirate is the key - services such as Netflix, Spotify, Steam, etc. seem to be doing a good job of it so far, but it will be interesting to see how that shifts over time. The other approach, limiting people’s ability to pirate, may also help the producer’s bottom line, but would significantly reduce consumer surplus, so it could be argued that it is limiting value creation (even if it might be increasing fairness).
Awwww, sorry I hurt your feelings. Fine, fine… we can talk about your “I had to pirate it because they tried to stop me from pirating it!” scenario.
It’s fucking stupid and you should be ashamed for presenting it. Happy now?
That would probably sound more cutting from someone who didn’t lead with “It’s not stealing if I maybe pay for it after I steal it” as his prime argument
