ESA's Michael Gallagher: 'Piracy is a scourge!'

Governments will stop piracy if idiots let it get out of hand. Then absolutely no one wins since liberties must die to "legitimately" prosecute pirates. You can see it happening in Europe already and once we get a "hip" republican president, you can bet it'll encroach here too. (Nothing against republicans, I'm a moderate, but you can't refute that most republicans favor business and preservation of said business)

So, the best tool is to make piracy socially unacceptable because, well, it is. If it really was "sharing" people would buy what they pirate. Some do, most don't.

Of course, the best way to kill piracy is to alter public domain laws. Basically, reduce the amount of time it takes to make something public domain. So, say when a game or movie is no longer available from the publisher for like 1-5 years, it becomes public domain. It'll encourage preservation since the easiest way to make it available is digitally. That's the Pirate's mating call isn't it? TO PRESERVE IT!

Sure, this idea is full of holes and lack of legality, but at least i'm thinking about it!

Republicans try to make it easier on businesses, but Democrats are generally in favor of more regulation. Combine that with the track record of both parties and you'll have a hard time finding the bad guy of the two when it comes to this stuff.

Heck, look at Obama's appointments as proof enough that Dems are not the party of personal freedom.

Good point. I didn't mean to make it sound like that. Thank you for clarifying. ;)

On the PC, nothing can be done. They tried embedding encryption and DRM into hardware nearly 10 years ago to get the jump on the pirates, the uproar was immense and no hardware manufacturer DARED introduce it into the wild.
And Vista's attempts to embed it into the OS have been a disaster.

On the console side though Sony appear to have cracked it, the PS3 appears completely pirate-proof, ironic considering how broken the model is in the PSP v.1.

The 360 would be fine too if the pirates hadn't been able to hack the firmware of the DVD drive. I haven't checked in a while, but AFAIK homewbrew still isn't possible on the 360. That actually makes me a bit sad though as I really enjoyed the homebrew scene on the original XBox. As it stands pirates can play copied games but we don't get the benefit of homebrew.

one of these days

come on wayne... come on... say "FUCK YOU COMMIE!"

Just so you know Ezio, you pretty much ruined any chance of him doing that after your comment, or at least it being cool.

i'm a douche like that :)

I should also mention that this comment is pointed at the ESA guy, not the Joystiq guys who are just playing around with the trope.

Yes, tell this to the people who worked their whole lives to create things for others, only to see some punks say "screw you! I don't think your work is worth anything! Ha ha!"

My soap box broke months ago. My theory that people should pay for what they enjoy is constantly eclipsed by the harsh reality that many people simply don't bother buying things anymore because no one is made to feel guilty for pirating something. That sense of guilt was obliterated the day Napster went down, and I don't think it is ever going to come back.

All I'll say is this; Please support small developers (or film makers, musicians, etc) because they certainly aren't making money hand over fist, and every pirated copy of their work does hurt them directly.

I'm going to go watch music videos on youtube and pretend that somehow, someway, the artist I'm enjoying listening to is actually profiting from me watching.

Change your avatar to red, because you're promoting COMMUNISM!!

Seriously, instead of sharing and spreading MONEY you wish to do it with GOODS.

If you can't afford it, you can't have it. People these days think everything is owed to them whether or not they deserve it.

It's called Capitalism. If people don't like it, go red and be honest with yourselves.

Well, nowadays most music labels are monetizing uploaded music videos anyway. Most likely they make more money from the Youtube ads then from direct sales.

The current reality of content sales is that for a while now (not just in the last 10 years) artists don't see much money from direct sales until they get popular and get to renegotiate their contract. Music's an industry that predicates itself on subsidizing the large salaries of financially successful artists by short-changing the mid-list artists.

That said I've probably bought more songs for Guitar Hero then actual CDs.

Rob, the very fact they are pirating these games shows they believe they are worth something (I've never been tempted to download an Imagine: Kittehz ROM, for instance).

I would suggest that calling it "pirating" is a bad idea because pirates are so cool in popular culture, despite their horrible awful historical reality. Same problem with "ninja looting" in MMOs.

Then let's call it douchebaggery. I'm sick of these hacks screwing up games for the rest of us. It's people like that that give us drm and take away our psp trophies.

The labels make money on ads when you watch a video they've posted. I doubt they make any money when you watch a music video uploaded by some random guy on youtube. They wouldn't throw takedown notices around so frequently if they could just monetize every view.

I agree that the labels have lobbied for and succeeded in making sure that they have a death grip on copyrights even after the artist is dead. They've also managed (through the reality of wide scale distribution) to become the defacto "you are either signed or you aren't making money" juggernaut of the music "industry" (instead of the music "art form"). That doesn't make not paying for things morally justified though, especially when you can afford those things (we probably couldn't afford them if not for the same capitalist economy that puts money in our pockets. To decry them for being capitalist is misguided. If you are going to decry them for anything, let it be because they ruthlessly pursued legal action against innocent senior citizens and children)

When you pirate a triple A game, a blockbuster movie, or a chart topping CD, no one really suffers. When you take a game like World of Goo or Braid, the developer actually suffers. That's the point I'm trying to make.

"When you pirate a triple A game, a blockbuster movie, or a chart topping CD, no one really suffers. When you take a game like World of Goo or Braid, the developer actually suffers. That's the point I'm trying to make."

If that isn't a double standard I don't know what is...

A larger company certainly has a larger margin for failure and fiscal losses but they are still supported by PEOPLE and still need to make money.

If a married couple has three kids they need to support and choose to do so through "corporate" jobs are they more dispensable than a single person doing the hip thing by being "independent" and having jobs at small companies? Of course not, and the same is true vice-versa. There is no distinction.

What you are complaining of (in my humble opinion) are people in corporate positions who make vast sums of money for seemingly doing nothing. I don't know my position on that since I have not been that high up in any setting to truly understand or see what these "fat cats" actually do. But that's also kind of like saying that an Actor shouldn't be given royalties for their work. I mean, the corporate person GENERALLY got up there for a reason, so shouldn't they earn "royalties"? Well, I don't know, but it is something to consider.

People who are capable of purchasing what they "pirate" hurt any company, period. No discussion needed.

People who are not capable of purchasing what they pirate are still hurting companies because they are blurring the lines and making it socially acceptable to steal in a modern setting because it's largely faceless. So even though a pirate copy is not always a lost sale, it still can amount to one in the end. Some discussion open on that...

> Stop calling it piracy. Piracy is the act of stealing goods from ships on the seas.

The word "piracy" has a variety of definitions. One definition I sometimes hear from pirates is that making selling copyrighted material is "piracy", but filesharing is not "piracy". Which just goes to show: even many free-pirates believe in definitions of "piracy" that don't involve ships. The word "piracy" can also be applied to other things, like "cable piracy".

Besides, the "Pirate Bay" and "Pirate Party" obviously don't believe in your definition. Or do you think the "Pirate Bay" is involved in stealing goods from ships? You can't lecture us about the definition of piracy if even the Pirate Bay won't buy into your definition.

> Copyright infringement is the act of violating a government monopoly;

Copyright infringement is the act of undermining the ability of people to earn a living from their creative work. It is a reasonable system, and benefits society by supporting the development of creative works.

> Not everyone who copies a game is causing a loss, in many cases they can't afford it anyway.

Irrelevant. If a company's sales drop from 100,000 copies to 10,000 copies because of 500,000 pirates, you can still make the statement that 500,000 acts of piracy only resulted in a loss of 90,000 sales. But, it also resulted in the loss of 90% of a company's revenue, which means they're probably bankrupt. Copyright allows companies to earn-back some of the value they've created for society through the production of creative works. It also allows them to exist. If you want to see a lot of creative and valuable work disappear from society, then widespread copyright infringement is a good way to do it.

@MassMass - There are more non-pirates than there are pirates in this world. The next Halo game for example, will make a boatload of money whether or not you, me, or anyone else reading this buys it. This is true because the market is so enormous for that type of game, that the general buying public can easily carry a game to profitability. For something like Braid though, there is no mass market. We (hardcore gamers, I suppose) literally are the market, and if we hadn't stepped up and bought it, the developer could have been in deep financial trouble.

So yeah, there is a huge difference between an indie developer and a large developer. I agree with you that taking things which don't belong to you is wrong (thanks, pre-school ethics class) but since there is no convincing people not to pirate AAA games, I'd rather lobby and do everything I can to make people appreciate that indie devs are in desperate and constant need of support from us.

If you want to know the lengths I go to keep my integrity when it comes to not pirating things, ask me how many Securom laden games I simply haven't played because I refuse to either buy them or pirate them.

This begs the question though, if they were not willing to pay money for a game, why would they want to play it? I mean if they thing it's worth nothing then what worth is it as a gaming experience?

Rob, the point is that while these people appreciate the value in what they are stealing, they wouldn't necessarily have purchased it in the first place. In a similar analogy, I like a lot of the games I get from GameFly, but I never would have played them otherwise because they weren't worth the retail price.

> To assume that pirates would have purchased a game to begin with is intellectually dishonest.

And many of us (in the game business) do not believe that every incident of piracy = one lost sale. However, in order to say piracy is harmless, you have to argue that all incidents of piracy (combined) = zero lost sales. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that. Even if you could argue that only 10% of piracy equals a lost sale, that can add up to something very big. Take Demigod or World of Goo as examples. Both were claiming that 90% of their users were pirates. (At launch, only 10% of Demigod's 120,000 connections were real buyers.) Now, if only 10% of piracy = a lost sale, then that means World of Goo and Demigod would've doubled their sales if piracy didn't exist.

You don't have to believe that every act of piracy = one lost sale to believe that piracy is harmful.

Theft is the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny. With theft the original object is gone.

Piracy (or copyright infringment) is the act of COPYING something. While you obtain the object for free the actual object is not destroyed or moved in any way. It is still there.


There have been studies showing no link between music piracy and sale drops. [1][2] While this doesn't talk about video game piracy I assume the results are more or less the same. The plain fact is is that a large majority of those who pirate a game would not have bought it alternatively.

Because of this often times we can say that in theft, the thief takes the object and the owner no longer owns it. It is not only a lost sale BUT a lost object.

In piracy it is the lost CHANCE of a sale. Notice I say chance, because there is no hard evidence that Mr. Pirate would have walked down to the store and bought it if he wasn't able to.

[1] http://www.kn.com.au/networks/2004/03/net_music_pirac.html
[2] http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01462.html

@Nadril

DUH! Of course the piracy sales are a lost chance of a game sale but nonetheless the reason it's such a problem is because what they're doing is illegal and it provides a way for many people to get a copy of something they don't legally own. And don't just assume music industry sales and the video game sales are the same, that just makes you sound like an idiot.

@Nadril

From article [1]: "nternet music piracy is not responsible for declining CD sales, claim the researchers behind a major new statistical study."

The first thing they tell you in any statistics class is that if you work the numbers right you can come up with any statistical data you like. That guy was probably trying to rationalize his actions like other people on this thread. I will admit that at least the music industry has things like ticket sales to fall back on, but in the video game industry profit for developers comes from games sales. They rely on software sales to keep afloat, there is not anything else for them.

The argument that the individuals would not have bought the game alternatively holds no water either. Consider this sentence: "I do not buy goods and services from Wal-Mart regularly, so it is okay for me to take them without payment, since they would not normally receive money from me anyways." How retarded does that sound? Why should it be any different for music or games other than the fact that media deals with intellectual property, not tangible goods and services. That is why there are Federal copyright laws protecting that property. Rationalize how you will, but using a legally protected goods that that you did not pay for is illegal and unethical.

@Dave: I'm not getting into a discussion of the illegality or morality issues of piracy, but only trying to say they don't effect video game sales as much as industry heads would make you believe.

@Frank: in your example, again, you TAKE THE ITEM and they NO LONGER OWN IT. They STILL OWN THE ITEM in piracy. It's not me trying to justify anything morally or legally, just saying that if the pirate would not have bought it then it is not a lost sale or a lost, well, anything for the company.

So again, it is not a lost sale if the pirate would not have bought the item in the first place. This can NOT be compared to theft because theft is the removale of something, and piracy removes nothing.

Again lets leave the morality argument aside for this, as that is a whole other ballpark entirely and something I'm not going to get into.

Nadril, the problem with that line of thought is that it is a rationalization. An incorrect one too, in my opinion.

If someone pirates something it means they are interested in the item in question. Not many people pirate for the sake of pirating. (Yes some do, but lets not split hairs)

If someone pirates something and doesn't like it, thus chooses not to buy it; Technically that is the definition of a lost sale. Justification and rationalization put aside.

If someone who pirates something because they can't afford it; Technically, that is not a lost sale because the person didn't have the purchasing power to begin with. HOWEVER it is still STEALING. Taking/using an item that you do not own and do not tender money/goods/services for use of said item. A lost sale can still be made because it was stolen. Although no "stock" was taken from the company it was still a situation in which a person didn't buy what they consumed.

There used to be a time, not too long ago, that when a person couldn't afford something they did without or they made of point of affording it.

Or, they shared with another person.

This is where the rationalization and justification of "piracy" gets all fuzzy and gobbled up. However, now we're not really talking about "piracy" but something that is attributed to it since they share the same distribution networks. Until networks (NOT ISPs) are clarified and monitored (just like in real life) this will always make monitoring true piracy impractical.

Nadril

How do you know they didn't account for that in their estimation?

Nadril, to help clarify further:

If someone "rents", key word - RENTS, a movie/game/book and proceeds to copy it, is that not the definition of theft? Both legally and socially acceptable? I believe it is. Technically, nothing physical was stolen, but someone still gained merchandise they didn't pay for. And when someone gets prosecuted for that I NEVER see a consensus online where people believe that was unfair. No, most like to throw out the word "douche".

Just because something is digital doesn't mean it isn't capable of being stolen. It's copyrights. COPYRIGHTS - The exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.

Right now, they are not written very well in legalese for this generation and technology but they still exist in principle and distribution methods do not change those principles.

IMO, the argument over the use of the words "stealing" or "theft" versus "copyright infringement" (or whatever) is nothing more than a red herring. Perhaps it is technically correct, but it has absolutely no bearing on the various issues of piracy. As much as I hate all these corporate groups and their dishonest piracy loss numbers, arguing over semantics by the group on the other side is just as asinine.

Despite your insistence that the owner still has their property, you have to remember that it is intellectual property. There are different rules and definitions for "taking" it, by law. The original owner may still have their property, as you continue to point out, but that is irrelevant. If the game developer has a product with the intent to make commercial profit, then by copying their product you are denying them that profit. The commercial value of the gross $60 (notice I said gross, I do not know the net profit on a game bought from a store) is what you are depriving the company of, which is at the end of the day stealing $60 from them, even if they never had the $60 in the first place.

At least someone understands.