Piracy in the Indie Community
by Jacob Dankovchik · 07/31/2010 (5:49 am) · 76 comments
With piracy being such a mainstream issue now involving all forms of media I took a moment to think about how this may affect people like us small-time indie guys.
My catalyst for this line of thought came from me thinking about how to distribute my Torque 3D Environment Pack. I'm not much for developing websites, truth of the matter is I don't know a damn thing about it, so I don't feel like making a complex system of extra security and user accounts, I simply don't have the time to learn all of that with college on the side as well. Eventually I came up with a way to do it that will be easy enough, but definitely not secure. I figure just make a password protected download page. Someone makes a purchase, they receive an email with the download link and password. Nice and simple.
However as you can guess, this leaves things open to piracy, if people should be so inclined. All someone has to do is hand out the link and password to other people and anyone could download my work for nothing. Which of course led me wonder about the impact piracy may have on our entire community.
There's of course no need to be so naive as to think none of us here have ever done some level of piracy. A lot of times it's justified in the sense that major companies really won't lose much through some small-time piracy. Download a movie or some songs? The people who worked on that are still going to be millionaires with more money than they know what to do with. But what about the indie game scene like us here?
Obviously starting from the top source, Torque itself, a quick piratebay search shows 3 torrents. One that doesn't have a version, a TGE 1.5, and a T3D 1.0.1. So clearly Torque itself isn't safe from pirates which means we have to have a few right here in this community itself. (especially considering there's a significant amount of people seeding the torrent)
So, what about stepping it down a bit to something more specific? Well, as I was writing the previous paragraph I had the thought to search for Marble Blast and sure enough, a Marble Blast Gold torrent. Also multiple torrents come up for various model and art packs, no immediate way to tell if some did or did not come from this very site. So while obviously there's no doubt people here who occasionally pirate some form of media from some major company, there also those around here who actually are providing some of the stuff here to BE pirated.
This all concerns me so much because soon I'll be apart of that which may be pirated off of. When people pirate software or other media they justify it in that the other person really doesn't NEED it however for some of us here this is very far from the truth. I use for example my own situation. Last November I was discharged from the military 3 years early for a shoulder injury. I had two large surgeries and more physical therapy than I ever want to think of in an attempt to fix it and in the end it wasn't enough and I was kicked out way soon than was planned, also leaving me with a right arm that is virtually useless for any real physical work. Last time I tried, I was able to do an entire 1 pushup before it gave out. So I get removed for a steady source of income, thrust into the outside world during difficult economic times, greatly limited in what I can do. Obviously my only practical option was to go to college, military helps pay for it and I'm going to need the degree. Still doesn't fix the fact though that money isn't exactly easy for me to come by due to my injury and that I was thrust out of my previous job sooner than expected.
With this environment pack I'm working on, I'm hoping to come up with a few extra bucks. Nothing super special, but every dime helps, you know? I'm working on a degree in game design, one of my favorite things to do, next to engineering. However with my shoulder the way it is, things with engineering usually are just painful anyhow as soon as physical work comes into play, so... game design is the safer path. So I figure make a few dollars doing something I love while tryin to make things work everywhere else in my life.
So, that there is the rundown of my story here and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a story like this to tell. Maybe not those exact ways but I'm sure there are others here just like me hoping to use this stuff as an outlet for their practice and love for the art while getting a small amount of compensation.
I'm sure we have pirates here, some people reading this may be the very ones guilty. People that, given the chance, will take any game, movie, or artwork for free and pass it on to others. If anyone like that IS reading this, think about mine and everyone else's situations first...
Download the DVD rip of Avatar, James Cameron will still be able to afford the 10 brand new sports cars for his mid-way birthday. But steal the work of people like myself or others here and you actually ARE taking food out of someone's mouth.
I don't support piracy but in the full corporate world, it has minimal impact. In the indie world though, it is the death of all that we work for. Don't do it. :(
My catalyst for this line of thought came from me thinking about how to distribute my Torque 3D Environment Pack. I'm not much for developing websites, truth of the matter is I don't know a damn thing about it, so I don't feel like making a complex system of extra security and user accounts, I simply don't have the time to learn all of that with college on the side as well. Eventually I came up with a way to do it that will be easy enough, but definitely not secure. I figure just make a password protected download page. Someone makes a purchase, they receive an email with the download link and password. Nice and simple.
However as you can guess, this leaves things open to piracy, if people should be so inclined. All someone has to do is hand out the link and password to other people and anyone could download my work for nothing. Which of course led me wonder about the impact piracy may have on our entire community.
There's of course no need to be so naive as to think none of us here have ever done some level of piracy. A lot of times it's justified in the sense that major companies really won't lose much through some small-time piracy. Download a movie or some songs? The people who worked on that are still going to be millionaires with more money than they know what to do with. But what about the indie game scene like us here?
Obviously starting from the top source, Torque itself, a quick piratebay search shows 3 torrents. One that doesn't have a version, a TGE 1.5, and a T3D 1.0.1. So clearly Torque itself isn't safe from pirates which means we have to have a few right here in this community itself. (especially considering there's a significant amount of people seeding the torrent)
So, what about stepping it down a bit to something more specific? Well, as I was writing the previous paragraph I had the thought to search for Marble Blast and sure enough, a Marble Blast Gold torrent. Also multiple torrents come up for various model and art packs, no immediate way to tell if some did or did not come from this very site. So while obviously there's no doubt people here who occasionally pirate some form of media from some major company, there also those around here who actually are providing some of the stuff here to BE pirated.
This all concerns me so much because soon I'll be apart of that which may be pirated off of. When people pirate software or other media they justify it in that the other person really doesn't NEED it however for some of us here this is very far from the truth. I use for example my own situation. Last November I was discharged from the military 3 years early for a shoulder injury. I had two large surgeries and more physical therapy than I ever want to think of in an attempt to fix it and in the end it wasn't enough and I was kicked out way soon than was planned, also leaving me with a right arm that is virtually useless for any real physical work. Last time I tried, I was able to do an entire 1 pushup before it gave out. So I get removed for a steady source of income, thrust into the outside world during difficult economic times, greatly limited in what I can do. Obviously my only practical option was to go to college, military helps pay for it and I'm going to need the degree. Still doesn't fix the fact though that money isn't exactly easy for me to come by due to my injury and that I was thrust out of my previous job sooner than expected.
With this environment pack I'm working on, I'm hoping to come up with a few extra bucks. Nothing super special, but every dime helps, you know? I'm working on a degree in game design, one of my favorite things to do, next to engineering. However with my shoulder the way it is, things with engineering usually are just painful anyhow as soon as physical work comes into play, so... game design is the safer path. So I figure make a few dollars doing something I love while tryin to make things work everywhere else in my life.
So, that there is the rundown of my story here and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a story like this to tell. Maybe not those exact ways but I'm sure there are others here just like me hoping to use this stuff as an outlet for their practice and love for the art while getting a small amount of compensation.
I'm sure we have pirates here, some people reading this may be the very ones guilty. People that, given the chance, will take any game, movie, or artwork for free and pass it on to others. If anyone like that IS reading this, think about mine and everyone else's situations first...
Download the DVD rip of Avatar, James Cameron will still be able to afford the 10 brand new sports cars for his mid-way birthday. But steal the work of people like myself or others here and you actually ARE taking food out of someone's mouth.
I don't support piracy but in the full corporate world, it has minimal impact. In the indie world though, it is the death of all that we work for. Don't do it. :(
#22
So based on that argument, does that mean that when I have a consultation with my lawyer, I can decide not to pay him and expect no consequences since he has produced no tangible product and the information provided could be infinitely reproduced? All it took was his time and knowledge, so I have the right to place my personal value on it, and in fact disregard his value placed on that information?
We have always had portions of our economy that have been paying for non-tangible assets, whether that be information, consultation, counseling, etc. The problem is that we have developed a disassociation between a moral obligation to a debt based upon our own understanding of the value of any product, tangible or intangible. And as a result as a culture we have become happily ignorant of the fact that time has, in fact, always be part of the economic equation.
Because some levels of our culture and society don't understand the value and effort required to produce intellectual property, it is delegated to the erroneous concept that "information should be free".
Does an operating system require $119 for every license to in fact pay back the thousands who worked on it's development? How about Photoshop at $650? If you believe as most consumers do, it shouldn't cost much more than the price of the pressed disc...blissfully ignorant of the thousands of man hours many, many folks have poured into that 30 cent disc. Eliminate the disc, and it should be free is that thinking, but it flies in the face of the true understanding that time indeed does have value and their is both a moral and economic obligation to recompense that value.
I calculate that exact reasoning into the packs that I make. When a pack is released, I have absolutely no compensation for the hundreds of hours put in. I'm not working for pennies on the dollar, I'm working for free. But based on previous sales and a known market, I can roughly calculate the life cycle, and eventual compensation for the hours initially invested.
I'm not going to sell an infinite number of packs, I have a weekly, monthly and annual estimate and that determines my pricing, marketing and distribution. The fact that someone can reproduce that product infinitely in no way devalues the time and talent necessary to produce a particular digital product...that value is determined by an appeal to some level of culture, morality and reasoning in a society that has always placed value on intangibles, but has done so less as our society and the technological gap continues to expand.
That belies so well the disassociation between the understanding of a true moral and economic obligation to assets, tangible or intangible and a culture technologically illiterate to the point that if they can't touch it, it has no value. We shouldn't have to "entice" someone who truly understands the value of thousands of lines of code, the arrangement of brushes and textures to produce the image of a model or any other "intangible" thing.
The sad thing is that we would even have to consider the concept, it speaks volumes of the failings of our world in valuing information and ideas over materialism and "things".
08/01/2010 (8:52 pm)
@Dustin,So based on that argument, does that mean that when I have a consultation with my lawyer, I can decide not to pay him and expect no consequences since he has produced no tangible product and the information provided could be infinitely reproduced? All it took was his time and knowledge, so I have the right to place my personal value on it, and in fact disregard his value placed on that information?
We have always had portions of our economy that have been paying for non-tangible assets, whether that be information, consultation, counseling, etc. The problem is that we have developed a disassociation between a moral obligation to a debt based upon our own understanding of the value of any product, tangible or intangible. And as a result as a culture we have become happily ignorant of the fact that time has, in fact, always be part of the economic equation.
Because some levels of our culture and society don't understand the value and effort required to produce intellectual property, it is delegated to the erroneous concept that "information should be free".
Does an operating system require $119 for every license to in fact pay back the thousands who worked on it's development? How about Photoshop at $650? If you believe as most consumers do, it shouldn't cost much more than the price of the pressed disc...blissfully ignorant of the thousands of man hours many, many folks have poured into that 30 cent disc. Eliminate the disc, and it should be free is that thinking, but it flies in the face of the true understanding that time indeed does have value and their is both a moral and economic obligation to recompense that value.
I calculate that exact reasoning into the packs that I make. When a pack is released, I have absolutely no compensation for the hundreds of hours put in. I'm not working for pennies on the dollar, I'm working for free. But based on previous sales and a known market, I can roughly calculate the life cycle, and eventual compensation for the hours initially invested.
I'm not going to sell an infinite number of packs, I have a weekly, monthly and annual estimate and that determines my pricing, marketing and distribution. The fact that someone can reproduce that product infinitely in no way devalues the time and talent necessary to produce a particular digital product...that value is determined by an appeal to some level of culture, morality and reasoning in a society that has always placed value on intangibles, but has done so less as our society and the technological gap continues to expand.
Quote:What scarce goods can we tie to our games that will entice people to pay us?
That belies so well the disassociation between the understanding of a true moral and economic obligation to assets, tangible or intangible and a culture technologically illiterate to the point that if they can't touch it, it has no value. We shouldn't have to "entice" someone who truly understands the value of thousands of lines of code, the arrangement of brushes and textures to produce the image of a model or any other "intangible" thing.
The sad thing is that we would even have to consider the concept, it speaks volumes of the failings of our world in valuing information and ideas over materialism and "things".
#23
You're assuming that the supply will be used, and it won't be. The supply is finite because as a video game that applies to certain segments of a population, it's not the number of times you can copy a digital thing that counts but the number of potential customers you can get. Whenever an engine, tool, game or piece of digital content is created, the creator balances the amount of time and skill used to create it with the expected or estimated number of copies that will be bought. So the scarcity is not in the product itself, but in its potential number of sales. It's pretty much how discounts work- both with physical and digital content. No matter how much you throw that supply and demand equation at this, you cannot erase the need to compensate people for their time and effort.
Not as uncharted as you think. Look at Facebook games: Many are now becoming rehashes of each other, or other shareware games, and so they do things like asking you to drag your neighbors in. They do that because, if you're not paying, your new neighbor might. And what do they pay for? When it comes down to it, they pay for the ability to advance. Otherwise, your game becomes time-limited, space-limited, or limited in some other way, causing you to leverage others in order to advance.
This way of doing things works, and works fantastically, or else Zynga wouldn't be as big as they are. Whether or not people agree with this is another matter, and it's not the only way of doing things.
Also, pirating is not the recourse of the majority of gamers, either. If it were, then most game developers would simply be out of business. The box channel is not folding because of pressures from torrents, but from Steam and other digital distribution. And Facebook games didn't turn to the methods that they did because people don't value their time and effort, but because of the delivery method. Plenty of games are given away free, and the user is bombarded with ads, and they reject that. But Starcraft II is selling like hotcakes- well beyond what it cost to create it, and while it is surely being pirated, the majority of the game development community who has access to that piracy simply don't do it.
If you have to convince someone that they need to pay you for something other than your product, however, then your product has failed. If my MMO is released (oh God, I said "if" self-flailing), and the micro-transaction model doesn't hold up, then my product has failed, hasn't it? It isn't because the exe can be copied multiple times.
What I notice with the arguments put forward for this is that they all sort of dehumanize the process, and that is because there is a need for people to justify their actions. Just like the "corporations are evil" cliche that so many people lean on to make sweeping comments when it is too hard to analyze a situation to properly apportion blame, saying that digital products are not as real as physical ones attempts to parry the theft argument by debasing the product being stolen.
Any train of thought that states that you can just take from someone because you do not see value in it is morally bankrupt, because if the thing has no value, then why do you want to take it? The answer, of course, is that it has value to you, and you take it because you believe that your desire trumps the rights of others. Having grown up where I did, I've heard people use this exact line of reasoning to justify several kinds of crimes, so to me, it's all the same crap.
08/01/2010 (9:22 pm)
Quote:Since there is potentially an infinite number copies that can be made, the cost of each copy is essentially nil.
You're assuming that the supply will be used, and it won't be. The supply is finite because as a video game that applies to certain segments of a population, it's not the number of times you can copy a digital thing that counts but the number of potential customers you can get. Whenever an engine, tool, game or piece of digital content is created, the creator balances the amount of time and skill used to create it with the expected or estimated number of copies that will be bought. So the scarcity is not in the product itself, but in its potential number of sales. It's pretty much how discounts work- both with physical and digital content. No matter how much you throw that supply and demand equation at this, you cannot erase the need to compensate people for their time and effort.
Quote: At this point it would be reasonable to surmise that the game is just a tool to connect you to your customers and get their attention. It's like an advertisement, but more powerful. We know that because gamers are very emotionally attached to their beloved games... This is uncharted territory.
Not as uncharted as you think. Look at Facebook games: Many are now becoming rehashes of each other, or other shareware games, and so they do things like asking you to drag your neighbors in. They do that because, if you're not paying, your new neighbor might. And what do they pay for? When it comes down to it, they pay for the ability to advance. Otherwise, your game becomes time-limited, space-limited, or limited in some other way, causing you to leverage others in order to advance.
This way of doing things works, and works fantastically, or else Zynga wouldn't be as big as they are. Whether or not people agree with this is another matter, and it's not the only way of doing things.
Also, pirating is not the recourse of the majority of gamers, either. If it were, then most game developers would simply be out of business. The box channel is not folding because of pressures from torrents, but from Steam and other digital distribution. And Facebook games didn't turn to the methods that they did because people don't value their time and effort, but because of the delivery method. Plenty of games are given away free, and the user is bombarded with ads, and they reject that. But Starcraft II is selling like hotcakes- well beyond what it cost to create it, and while it is surely being pirated, the majority of the game development community who has access to that piracy simply don't do it.
If you have to convince someone that they need to pay you for something other than your product, however, then your product has failed. If my MMO is released (oh God, I said "if" self-flailing), and the micro-transaction model doesn't hold up, then my product has failed, hasn't it? It isn't because the exe can be copied multiple times.
What I notice with the arguments put forward for this is that they all sort of dehumanize the process, and that is because there is a need for people to justify their actions. Just like the "corporations are evil" cliche that so many people lean on to make sweeping comments when it is too hard to analyze a situation to properly apportion blame, saying that digital products are not as real as physical ones attempts to parry the theft argument by debasing the product being stolen.
Any train of thought that states that you can just take from someone because you do not see value in it is morally bankrupt, because if the thing has no value, then why do you want to take it? The answer, of course, is that it has value to you, and you take it because you believe that your desire trumps the rights of others. Having grown up where I did, I've heard people use this exact line of reasoning to justify several kinds of crimes, so to me, it's all the same crap.
#24
I know it sucks that people take the things we create without paying what we ask for it. I admit that I've done so myself, mainly out of convenience. It provides me with an unrestricted copy of the game and if I ever needed another copy, I can simply download it again. I first downloaded a game I already owned, but had lost the disc for it. Then I realized I could try games out before buying, or avoid dealing with annoying DRM measures of games I owned. It's nice to be able to try a game before I spend money that I won't get back if it sucks. Since I started this behavior, I've purchased more games than I used to. Most of them I get from Steam. I haven't bought many games recently, but then I haven't downloaded any either.
@Alan
I see your point and it does make some sense, but I think you're forgetting that you hire people that provide services. You specifically come to them and ask for them to do something for you. You make a verbal or written contract that you will pay for certain services. In the digital world, I don't come to you and say, "would you make me a game?" If I did that, I'm making an agreement that I will pay for your services. When hiring out services, you've already agreed to pay them before receiving services. So yes, they don't provide anything tangible per se, but they don't do the work and then ask you to agree on payment after the fact.
That's what happens with digital goods. You make it first, then you ask for payment. Nobody hired you to make it (unless you work for a studio).
Let me be clear, because I think you missed my meaning. Your time and effort is valuable. It is valuable to those that want use your skills. The things you create have value too, but in a different way. You can create something that people enjoy and it gets some interested in your skills as a game designer. Most will buy your game outright. Others will download it without paying. Those people are not customers, but those that download and then decide to buy are your customers. It's counter productive to assume that every download is money out of your pocket, because it's not. Either they will buy (or bought) it, they try it first, or they never would have bought at all.
People who download Photoshop don't typically do so to get it for free, they do it because it's the de facto image manipulation package and it's valuable to learn it. The same goes for 3DS Max or Maya. Businesses pay people who have skills in software they use and the easiest way to get in the door is to learn the software. What good is software if only a small segment of the population can afford learn it?
@Ted
If the customers are the scarce resource, then you should be paying the customers to play your game. Your reasoning is a bit backwards. The reason supply and demand affect it as it does is because everyone can have a copy if they cared to acquire it. It's simply a fact that if there is an abundance of something there is no demand because everyone can have it. In order to establish a price, you need a finite supply and customers that want it. If there is enough for everyone, there just isn't any demand. Without demand, there is no price.
I also want to stress once again that copying a game, paid for or not, is not stealing. The law does not view the reproduction of copyrighted materials as theft under the law. They don't try these cases in criminal court because it is infringement of rights and it is tried in civil court. Were unauthorized copying a criminal offense, you would be arrested, charged with theft, and tried in a criminal court. That is why you only get sued if you're caught. The law does not view copyrighted works as property.
08/02/2010 (4:59 am)
First of all, I'd like to say this has been a very interesting discussion and I'm glad that we have been able to debate this without it devolving into a flame war. You've all made strong and interesting points. Some of which, I had not considered.I know it sucks that people take the things we create without paying what we ask for it. I admit that I've done so myself, mainly out of convenience. It provides me with an unrestricted copy of the game and if I ever needed another copy, I can simply download it again. I first downloaded a game I already owned, but had lost the disc for it. Then I realized I could try games out before buying, or avoid dealing with annoying DRM measures of games I owned. It's nice to be able to try a game before I spend money that I won't get back if it sucks. Since I started this behavior, I've purchased more games than I used to. Most of them I get from Steam. I haven't bought many games recently, but then I haven't downloaded any either.
@Alan
Quote:So based on that argument, does that mean that when I have a consultation with my lawyer, I can decide not to pay him and expect no consequences since he has produced no tangible product and the information provided could be infinitely reproduced?
I see your point and it does make some sense, but I think you're forgetting that you hire people that provide services. You specifically come to them and ask for them to do something for you. You make a verbal or written contract that you will pay for certain services. In the digital world, I don't come to you and say, "would you make me a game?" If I did that, I'm making an agreement that I will pay for your services. When hiring out services, you've already agreed to pay them before receiving services. So yes, they don't provide anything tangible per se, but they don't do the work and then ask you to agree on payment after the fact.
That's what happens with digital goods. You make it first, then you ask for payment. Nobody hired you to make it (unless you work for a studio).
Quote:If you believe as most consumers do, it shouldn't cost much more than the price of the pressed disc...blissfully ignorant of the thousands of man hours many, many folks have poured into that 30 cent disc.
Let me be clear, because I think you missed my meaning. Your time and effort is valuable. It is valuable to those that want use your skills. The things you create have value too, but in a different way. You can create something that people enjoy and it gets some interested in your skills as a game designer. Most will buy your game outright. Others will download it without paying. Those people are not customers, but those that download and then decide to buy are your customers. It's counter productive to assume that every download is money out of your pocket, because it's not. Either they will buy (or bought) it, they try it first, or they never would have bought at all.
People who download Photoshop don't typically do so to get it for free, they do it because it's the de facto image manipulation package and it's valuable to learn it. The same goes for 3DS Max or Maya. Businesses pay people who have skills in software they use and the easiest way to get in the door is to learn the software. What good is software if only a small segment of the population can afford learn it?
@Ted
Quote:The supply is finite because as a video game that applies to certain segments of a population, it's not the number of times you can copy a digital thing that counts but the number of potential customers you can get.
If the customers are the scarce resource, then you should be paying the customers to play your game. Your reasoning is a bit backwards. The reason supply and demand affect it as it does is because everyone can have a copy if they cared to acquire it. It's simply a fact that if there is an abundance of something there is no demand because everyone can have it. In order to establish a price, you need a finite supply and customers that want it. If there is enough for everyone, there just isn't any demand. Without demand, there is no price.
I also want to stress once again that copying a game, paid for or not, is not stealing. The law does not view the reproduction of copyrighted materials as theft under the law. They don't try these cases in criminal court because it is infringement of rights and it is tried in civil court. Were unauthorized copying a criminal offense, you would be arrested, charged with theft, and tried in a criminal court. That is why you only get sued if you're caught. The law does not view copyrighted works as property.
#25
By the terms of copyright law, authors are granted temporary rights for the chance to profit from their works, but ultimately the works belong to everyone. This is why creative works are not property. I'm not trying to justify the taking of creative works. I'm just pointing out that some people are too possessive of what they create. In fact, copyright law doesn't even have any language that people have to pay for what you create, only that you have the right to choose who gets a copy of your works. It was worded as such, so that people could still have accesses to protected works that are offered for free. So, if you think of it that way, when someone appropriates your works without permission, they have violated your freedom of choice, not violated your property.
I'd like to impress upon you all that I do not advocate that people not be paid for the work they do because works of art are not property. Everyone who does their job deserves to be paid for it, but the unique nature of creative works requires those that create be willing to accept that unauthorized copying is not something to fight because it's a fight that you can't win by resisting it. Find a way to make it work for you and you won't be complaining when your work gets copied, you'll celebrate it. Take pride when people take your work. It means that you've been noticed and others felt you are worthy of being shared
08/02/2010 (5:00 am)
Actually, the arts are considered by the law a possession of the public domain, but they use copyright to grant creators exclusive temporary rights to control distribution and sale of their works to offer incentive to create more works. In other words: We, the people, grant you the right to exploit works you create for X number of years in order to promote the progress of the arts. In return, these creations become part of the public domain (free for all to enjoy) after the author has had a chance to profit from it.By the terms of copyright law, authors are granted temporary rights for the chance to profit from their works, but ultimately the works belong to everyone. This is why creative works are not property. I'm not trying to justify the taking of creative works. I'm just pointing out that some people are too possessive of what they create. In fact, copyright law doesn't even have any language that people have to pay for what you create, only that you have the right to choose who gets a copy of your works. It was worded as such, so that people could still have accesses to protected works that are offered for free. So, if you think of it that way, when someone appropriates your works without permission, they have violated your freedom of choice, not violated your property.
I'd like to impress upon you all that I do not advocate that people not be paid for the work they do because works of art are not property. Everyone who does their job deserves to be paid for it, but the unique nature of creative works requires those that create be willing to accept that unauthorized copying is not something to fight because it's a fight that you can't win by resisting it. Find a way to make it work for you and you won't be complaining when your work gets copied, you'll celebrate it. Take pride when people take your work. It means that you've been noticed and others felt you are worthy of being shared
#26
Whatever helps you sleep, but last time I checked, my mortgage company doesn't take "pride" when my payment is due.
The way it "works" for me is I expend effort and time and skill and a moral and upright individual, who recognizes this as a "product" of MY work compensates. Anyone else is simply a thief hiding behind sophistry and self justification, simple as that.
08/02/2010 (5:33 am)
@Dustin,Whatever helps you sleep, but last time I checked, my mortgage company doesn't take "pride" when my payment is due.
The way it "works" for me is I expend effort and time and skill and a moral and upright individual, who recognizes this as a "product" of MY work compensates. Anyone else is simply a thief hiding behind sophistry and self justification, simple as that.
#27
Just have to make one comment ... Piracy (whether against large corporations or not) is still Stealing and as such Illegal.
It affects the industry across the board and should never be condoned just because the big companies can afford it.
Never be hypocritical about it ... you other STEAL or you DON'T ... there is no middle ground (like The Force). 8-}
Rant over.
Now, doing websites is relatively straightforward with tools like Drupal and Joomla. If necessary, I will put some time aside to do a proper Drupal tutorial (1 for installation and configuration) and (1 for customer themeing). 8-}
08/02/2010 (9:12 am)
Hi,Just have to make one comment ... Piracy (whether against large corporations or not) is still Stealing and as such Illegal.
It affects the industry across the board and should never be condoned just because the big companies can afford it.
Never be hypocritical about it ... you other STEAL or you DON'T ... there is no middle ground (like The Force). 8-}
Rant over.
Now, doing websites is relatively straightforward with tools like Drupal and Joomla. If necessary, I will put some time aside to do a proper Drupal tutorial (1 for installation and configuration) and (1 for customer themeing). 8-}
#28
I'm not trying to justify infringement. I'm only trying to say that some see it only as a stealing something that belongs to them. My point is that viewing the issue from this perspective is not productive and will only result in an "us vs. them" scenario. I want to encourage people to see it from another angle and not fear the market because some don't bother paying. I'm trying to make it clear that concepts we apply to physical property cannot and do not apply to imaginary goods, but that isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. The nature of what we create and that of the internet gives us the power to reach many millions of people, to which we can make ourselves known.
Fighting piracy is just a waste of our time and creative effort, so why don't we just find a way to take advantage of it? There's millions of pirates out there far more talented in breaking the restrictions that the handful of DRM makers create than we can deal with. Isn't it time for a truce?
08/02/2010 (5:05 pm)
@AlanI'm not trying to justify infringement. I'm only trying to say that some see it only as a stealing something that belongs to them. My point is that viewing the issue from this perspective is not productive and will only result in an "us vs. them" scenario. I want to encourage people to see it from another angle and not fear the market because some don't bother paying. I'm trying to make it clear that concepts we apply to physical property cannot and do not apply to imaginary goods, but that isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. The nature of what we create and that of the internet gives us the power to reach many millions of people, to which we can make ourselves known.
Fighting piracy is just a waste of our time and creative effort, so why don't we just find a way to take advantage of it? There's millions of pirates out there far more talented in breaking the restrictions that the handful of DRM makers create than we can deal with. Isn't it time for a truce?
#29
if you steal a car you can only sell it or give it away one time
if you crack some software and or make copies of it you can steal the same thing many times over, and those you pass it on to can steal it and pass it on many times over.
So in my mind stealing or making unauthorized copies of digital work has a higher impact on the economy! It has a high influence on our societies because Pirates and thieves don't pay taxes! -Health care and education, -education which may give children higher ethichs regarding what is other people's property! and health care and reasearch which may cure people of all kinds of ilnesses, including busted joints ;-)
-and the ability to pay disabled people who can't work could have been better if people had paid for the games or films or programs!
so no truce, fight it with any means available! if not for yourself then for your neighbor or your children!
08/02/2010 (7:38 pm)
physical vs digitalif you steal a car you can only sell it or give it away one time
if you crack some software and or make copies of it you can steal the same thing many times over, and those you pass it on to can steal it and pass it on many times over.
So in my mind stealing or making unauthorized copies of digital work has a higher impact on the economy! It has a high influence on our societies because Pirates and thieves don't pay taxes! -Health care and education, -education which may give children higher ethichs regarding what is other people's property! and health care and reasearch which may cure people of all kinds of ilnesses, including busted joints ;-)
-and the ability to pay disabled people who can't work could have been better if people had paid for the games or films or programs!
so no truce, fight it with any means available! if not for yourself then for your neighbor or your children!
#30
Very bad logic and absolutely no reasonable basis for a defense. Some folks see having sex with children as their right. Doesn't change the fact that it is moral bankruptcy and wrong and I have no obligation to "change my perspective" and consider it ok. The same with the theft of intellectual property, it is wrong no matter what the perpetrator "thinks" is ok. And I will not lower my moral standards to adjust to their lack of them.
I am under no obligation to go along with it and say, "hey it's going to happen so it's ok." You are absolutely missing the underlying moral point. Any attempt to pass it off as something "new" and so you merely have to deal with it is a go pass to those who would look for any justification to take something that is NOT rightfully theirs.
"imaginary goods?" what in the world is that? Because you possibly cannot grasp that digital information still resides in a material world, you may think it is "imaginary" but I can assure you that it is real.
Try this experiment. Take a ten pound sledge hammer to your hard drive and then "imagine" your current work back into existence as it exists in a tangible, material world today. It may be all digital on that thin platter, and you might be able to move it rapidly all over the world, but I guarantee that it will be sudden clear that it is not "imaginary."
Just as a potter would have to remold a shattered jar with time and effort, you too would have to expend time effort and talent to re-create your work. Understand that things we cannot put our fingers on are still very real.
Because there are millions of folks out there that can pick a lock, when they go through my home it is still a crime. Does that mean that I need to base my standard of right and wrong on the number of folks who are capable and willing to commit a particular crime?
What it comes down to is that I think you are so missing the point, but it's not the first time I've come up against folks who seem to think because it's easy, it's ok. Quite frankly I'm not at all bothered by folks who steal and have at least the moral uprightness to call it what it is, but I do have a BIG issue with those who try and justify it by saying it's going to happen, there has been no offense committed and that it's a "good thing".
Let's look at that statement, not with some type of moral ambiguity but with some level of moral standard:
"Fighting child abuse is just a waste of our time and creative effort, so why don't we just find a way to take advantage of it?"
"Fighting murder is just a waste of our time and creative effort, so why don't we just find a way to take advantage of it?"
Sound ridiculous? Unfair comparison? Bad logic? Not any worse than saying that piracy is going to happen so we just need to find ways of taking advantage of it.
To be as flat up honest as I can be with you, my issue is not with the fact that work that I have labored over is taken, as I've said before, I believe I've never lost content to someone who took it who would have been a potential customer. My outrage is over those who have so lost their moral rudder to now call criminal acts ok, because the perpetrators have no sense of the investment required to produce the product. And then in an effort to justify that crime by saying there was no offense. It is indicative of a world that has lost fundamental understanding of right and wrong that are absolutes and can, and will in the end, attempt to justify any manner of offense to satisfy themselves.
As much as you insist you are saying that you are not trying to justify infringement, at least be honest enough with yourself to admit that you are.
08/02/2010 (7:44 pm)
Quote:I'm only trying to say that some see it only as stealing something that belongs to them.
Very bad logic and absolutely no reasonable basis for a defense. Some folks see having sex with children as their right. Doesn't change the fact that it is moral bankruptcy and wrong and I have no obligation to "change my perspective" and consider it ok. The same with the theft of intellectual property, it is wrong no matter what the perpetrator "thinks" is ok. And I will not lower my moral standards to adjust to their lack of them.
I am under no obligation to go along with it and say, "hey it's going to happen so it's ok." You are absolutely missing the underlying moral point. Any attempt to pass it off as something "new" and so you merely have to deal with it is a go pass to those who would look for any justification to take something that is NOT rightfully theirs.
Quote:I'm trying to make it clear that concepts we apply to physical property cannot and do not apply to imaginary goods
"imaginary goods?" what in the world is that? Because you possibly cannot grasp that digital information still resides in a material world, you may think it is "imaginary" but I can assure you that it is real.
Try this experiment. Take a ten pound sledge hammer to your hard drive and then "imagine" your current work back into existence as it exists in a tangible, material world today. It may be all digital on that thin platter, and you might be able to move it rapidly all over the world, but I guarantee that it will be sudden clear that it is not "imaginary."
Just as a potter would have to remold a shattered jar with time and effort, you too would have to expend time effort and talent to re-create your work. Understand that things we cannot put our fingers on are still very real.
Because there are millions of folks out there that can pick a lock, when they go through my home it is still a crime. Does that mean that I need to base my standard of right and wrong on the number of folks who are capable and willing to commit a particular crime?
What it comes down to is that I think you are so missing the point, but it's not the first time I've come up against folks who seem to think because it's easy, it's ok. Quite frankly I'm not at all bothered by folks who steal and have at least the moral uprightness to call it what it is, but I do have a BIG issue with those who try and justify it by saying it's going to happen, there has been no offense committed and that it's a "good thing".
Quote:Fighting piracy is just a waste of our time and creative effort, so why don't we just find a way to take advantage of it?
Let's look at that statement, not with some type of moral ambiguity but with some level of moral standard:
"Fighting child abuse is just a waste of our time and creative effort, so why don't we just find a way to take advantage of it?"
"Fighting murder is just a waste of our time and creative effort, so why don't we just find a way to take advantage of it?"
Sound ridiculous? Unfair comparison? Bad logic? Not any worse than saying that piracy is going to happen so we just need to find ways of taking advantage of it.
To be as flat up honest as I can be with you, my issue is not with the fact that work that I have labored over is taken, as I've said before, I believe I've never lost content to someone who took it who would have been a potential customer. My outrage is over those who have so lost their moral rudder to now call criminal acts ok, because the perpetrators have no sense of the investment required to produce the product. And then in an effort to justify that crime by saying there was no offense. It is indicative of a world that has lost fundamental understanding of right and wrong that are absolutes and can, and will in the end, attempt to justify any manner of offense to satisfy themselves.
As much as you insist you are saying that you are not trying to justify infringement, at least be honest enough with yourself to admit that you are.
#31
And example of the fallacy is this: Game Demo.
Some of the points of discussion seem to try to define the downloaded article of media as lost revenue taken from the creators and authors. Let us be excluding the fact that morality defines taking something that you have no right to = stealing. One must remember that morality is not a solidified universal concept.
When I play a Demo of a game, and find I do not enjoy the demo, I do not buy the game. Often I myself have downloaded pirated games that do not offer a DEMO, found I enjoy the game and acquire legitimate copy. Other types of media offer free DEMO of the FULL article, such as TV shows/movies, books from the library, music from the radio. Notice the most often PIRATED media do not offer free examples?
An interesting thing taking place in the MMO sector of computer games is offering the client for free, along with a few weeks of playtime. This is exactly the same as many definitions of PIRATED games being used above(Playing for free, no one is getting any payment). The concept here is the people who enjoy the game always invest money to keep playing the game, the others do not.
Stolen media often leads to more revenue. The revenue lost from thievery(of this type) cant not be considered lost because those people with the stolen (virtual)product would never have extended the investment in the first place.
The real topic here is not the definition of morality, but piracy in the indie community. Piracy in the indie community; how it effects, what it effects, do it effect?
08/02/2010 (9:08 pm)
Some of the points used in this debate are simply fallacies of logic. And example of the fallacy is this: Game Demo.
Some of the points of discussion seem to try to define the downloaded article of media as lost revenue taken from the creators and authors. Let us be excluding the fact that morality defines taking something that you have no right to = stealing. One must remember that morality is not a solidified universal concept.
When I play a Demo of a game, and find I do not enjoy the demo, I do not buy the game. Often I myself have downloaded pirated games that do not offer a DEMO, found I enjoy the game and acquire legitimate copy. Other types of media offer free DEMO of the FULL article, such as TV shows/movies, books from the library, music from the radio. Notice the most often PIRATED media do not offer free examples?
An interesting thing taking place in the MMO sector of computer games is offering the client for free, along with a few weeks of playtime. This is exactly the same as many definitions of PIRATED games being used above(Playing for free, no one is getting any payment). The concept here is the people who enjoy the game always invest money to keep playing the game, the others do not.
Stolen media often leads to more revenue. The revenue lost from thievery(of this type) cant not be considered lost because those people with the stolen (virtual)product would never have extended the investment in the first place.
The real topic here is not the definition of morality, but piracy in the indie community. Piracy in the indie community; how it effects, what it effects, do it effect?
#32
Because some particular software company chooses not to release a demo isn't carte blanc to pirate it so you can determine if you want to buy it or not. There is still no moral justification there, except to yourself. If the author(s) choose to reduce the possible revenue because you will not buy it without a demo, that is THEIR CHOICE, and it is not a justification to steal it, even if you intend on purchasing the product if you like it. The end does not justify the means. What you "intend" to do doesn't change what you have done, albeit even taking into consideration it may in fact benefit the company that didn't have the forethought to release a demo. They have made a choice and so have you.
Again the underlying fundamental problem is an issue of right and wrong. And to be quite honest, my problem is not with those who know it's wrong and do it, but those who know it's wrong and won't admit it. It merely adds license to those who struggle for justification of the thing that they have done.
"always"? Absolutely untrue. I've dealt with hundreds of people working in retail over the last ten years who seem to think that its cute and cool that they have taken literally thousands upon thousands of dollars of software -- going into great detail the amount of software and media they have stolen --- with no intent to pay because "they're not hurting anyone". As they pass it on to their family and friends, etc. who in turn have no intent compensating the author(s) or company, which they would/should/could have done if they had some concept of moral obligation realizing that they were in fact benefiting and profiting from the labor of others without any payment or profit. The issue is completely a moral disassociation from personal gain over others labor, plain and simple.
So which is it? "the people who enjoy the game always invest money to keep playing the game" or is it "those people with the stolen (virtual)product would never have extended the investment in the first place." It obvious can't be both. And trust me, I know what you're trying to say, but really, we need to call a spade a spade and then we can truly discuss a reasonable and effective avenue to deal with it.
I know I'm coming off rather harsh. But honestly I don't give a damn about piracy because in the end I do agree that I've never lost a customer because of pirated software myself, particularly since the indie scene is pretty close knit and specialized and I've NEVER turned anyone down who wanted access to my content before purchase who have asked to test it out.
But I'm adamant that it still a slippery slope lending credence to a greater number of "fence sitters" who want an excuse to never pay for software developed through the blood, sweat and tears of others.
As an indie, understand that it happens, call it what is is and do the right thing. Anything less is something significantly less, as long as we have the integrity to admit it.
08/02/2010 (10:03 pm)
But the question IS of morality. Once you exclude morality, the term piracy has no meaning at all, so why even bother? Everything is an appeal to absolutes in the end, it's just the effect that that concept has regarding a particular situation.Because some particular software company chooses not to release a demo isn't carte blanc to pirate it so you can determine if you want to buy it or not. There is still no moral justification there, except to yourself. If the author(s) choose to reduce the possible revenue because you will not buy it without a demo, that is THEIR CHOICE, and it is not a justification to steal it, even if you intend on purchasing the product if you like it. The end does not justify the means. What you "intend" to do doesn't change what you have done, albeit even taking into consideration it may in fact benefit the company that didn't have the forethought to release a demo. They have made a choice and so have you.
Again the underlying fundamental problem is an issue of right and wrong. And to be quite honest, my problem is not with those who know it's wrong and do it, but those who know it's wrong and won't admit it. It merely adds license to those who struggle for justification of the thing that they have done.
Quote:The concept here is the people who enjoy the game always invest money to keep playing the game, the others do not.
"always"? Absolutely untrue. I've dealt with hundreds of people working in retail over the last ten years who seem to think that its cute and cool that they have taken literally thousands upon thousands of dollars of software -- going into great detail the amount of software and media they have stolen --- with no intent to pay because "they're not hurting anyone". As they pass it on to their family and friends, etc. who in turn have no intent compensating the author(s) or company, which they would/should/could have done if they had some concept of moral obligation realizing that they were in fact benefiting and profiting from the labor of others without any payment or profit. The issue is completely a moral disassociation from personal gain over others labor, plain and simple.
Quote:Stolen media often leads to more revenue. The revenue lost from thievery(of this type) cant not be considered lost because those people with the stolen (virtual)product would never have extended the investment in the first place.
So which is it? "the people who enjoy the game always invest money to keep playing the game" or is it "those people with the stolen (virtual)product would never have extended the investment in the first place." It obvious can't be both. And trust me, I know what you're trying to say, but really, we need to call a spade a spade and then we can truly discuss a reasonable and effective avenue to deal with it.
I know I'm coming off rather harsh. But honestly I don't give a damn about piracy because in the end I do agree that I've never lost a customer because of pirated software myself, particularly since the indie scene is pretty close knit and specialized and I've NEVER turned anyone down who wanted access to my content before purchase who have asked to test it out.
But I'm adamant that it still a slippery slope lending credence to a greater number of "fence sitters" who want an excuse to never pay for software developed through the blood, sweat and tears of others.
As an indie, understand that it happens, call it what is is and do the right thing. Anything less is something significantly less, as long as we have the integrity to admit it.
#33
This is about:
Is about the concept of "DEMO", and external study have come to this conclusion, Google will find the very scientific results for you.
And there is a world of difference between the morality of piracy and the definition of piracy or the act of piracy and the effects of piracy.
Morality is not a topic that can be debated under the rules of scientific logic, is why it should be excluded when considering debate and thinking critically about the topic.
EDIT: This was added after Dustin Mellen's following comment post.
The simple fact of the matter is morality is the same as personal opinions. Neither of them have value/weight when application of to rules of debate, methods of critical thinking and scientific methodology are considered.
08/02/2010 (10:27 pm)
You are misconstruing the concepts pertaining to this discussion(not only you but also others), for the effect of being argumentative, an example of fallacies of logic. Quote:The concept here is the people who enjoy the game always invest money to keep playing the game, the others do not.
This is about:
Quote:An interesting thing taking place in the MMO sector of computer games is offering the client for free, along with a few weeks of playtime.
Quote:Stolen media often leads to more revenue.
Is about the concept of "DEMO", and external study have come to this conclusion, Google will find the very scientific results for you.
And there is a world of difference between the morality of piracy and the definition of piracy or the act of piracy and the effects of piracy.
Morality is not a topic that can be debated under the rules of scientific logic, is why it should be excluded when considering debate and thinking critically about the topic.
EDIT: This was added after Dustin Mellen's following comment post.
The simple fact of the matter is morality is the same as personal opinions. Neither of them have value/weight when application of to rules of debate, methods of critical thinking and scientific methodology are considered.
#34
You're twisting what I say into something else and trying to argue against me based on that. No, infringement is not ok, because they are rights that were set aside for people that create art. I disagree with the way people react to it. They try to pretend that it's their property and it's not. There is no law that defines anything intellectual as property.
In fact, copyright laws were designed to avoid such an occurrence. And no matter how you try to apply your moral values (which by the way, morals are entirely relative), it does not fall under criminal law to copy protected works. They are your rights, not your property. It makes me sick to hear the moral relativism that copying is the same thing as stealing. Child abuse on the other hand is define by the law as a crime.
Also, applying words such as moral bankruptcy to my particular point of view is bordering on a personal attack. I did not come here to pick a fight. I came here to discuss the issues of piracy, but you seem determined to turn it into a battle of morals or more to the point, that I have no morals. I have been careful to choose my words to not imply anything negative about anyone. It's one thing to say someone is wrong, it's another to imply they are a liar and immoral.
My point is that I have seen which way the wind blows and I can see the old ways of doing business are coming to an end. It's happening in the music industry right now. It's not because people are a bunch of immoral thieves, it's because they don't need the gatekeepers anymore.
The business model was flawed from the beginning, but the publishers had control of the most efficient means of distribution. It was profitable. Now the power of distribution is in the hands of the people and the publishers can't stand it. They've been trying so hard to reinforce their stance that creative works are property, that even some of us independent creators have started to believe the lies. The term intellectual property doesn't even appear in the copyright act (nor does property), it's a made-up term to give publishers the power to sway hearts and minds to their way of thinking.
08/02/2010 (10:35 pm)
@AlanYou're twisting what I say into something else and trying to argue against me based on that. No, infringement is not ok, because they are rights that were set aside for people that create art. I disagree with the way people react to it. They try to pretend that it's their property and it's not. There is no law that defines anything intellectual as property.
In fact, copyright laws were designed to avoid such an occurrence. And no matter how you try to apply your moral values (which by the way, morals are entirely relative), it does not fall under criminal law to copy protected works. They are your rights, not your property. It makes me sick to hear the moral relativism that copying is the same thing as stealing. Child abuse on the other hand is define by the law as a crime.
Also, applying words such as moral bankruptcy to my particular point of view is bordering on a personal attack. I did not come here to pick a fight. I came here to discuss the issues of piracy, but you seem determined to turn it into a battle of morals or more to the point, that I have no morals. I have been careful to choose my words to not imply anything negative about anyone. It's one thing to say someone is wrong, it's another to imply they are a liar and immoral.
My point is that I have seen which way the wind blows and I can see the old ways of doing business are coming to an end. It's happening in the music industry right now. It's not because people are a bunch of immoral thieves, it's because they don't need the gatekeepers anymore.
The business model was flawed from the beginning, but the publishers had control of the most efficient means of distribution. It was profitable. Now the power of distribution is in the hands of the people and the publishers can't stand it. They've been trying so hard to reinforce their stance that creative works are property, that even some of us independent creators have started to believe the lies. The term intellectual property doesn't even appear in the copyright act (nor does property), it's a made-up term to give publishers the power to sway hearts and minds to their way of thinking.
#35
Explain the world of difference between the morality of piracy and the definition of piracy. The definition itself requires a moral position as it is defined:
"The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material"
Is it authorized or isn't it? What is authorization? It is the right or permission to acquire the product or assets? the The moral issue is that is it not authorized, which in fact makes it by this definition taking without rights, i.e. stealing = piracy, the act itself is not permitted and so it makes it unauthorized and therefore an appeal to a moral/ethical/legal violation which results in the non-compensation of the original author, regardless of the plans of the perpetrator of having any intent on compensating -- or not.
Laws themselves are an appeal to a moral order that is distinct from the individual and recognized by society as a collective. As we make efforts to degrade and dilute that order, that fundamental foundations that hold up modern culture and society are degraded also. When everyone does what is right in his own eyes, it is seldom right in the eyes of others.
As I've said before and I will say it again, I don't believe that Jacob needs to be concerned about the nominal piracy of indie game content, since the subculture itself seems to still have strong moral underpinnings of the clear understanding of the effort, time and talent required to produce an asset at individual level.
But I believe we all as a whole need to be concerned with the dilution of the basic definitions of what is right and what is wrong, and that is what truly concerns me when I see any level of defense of piracy, or at least the abject acceptance of it.
08/02/2010 (11:08 pm)
"always" false induction in logic. There is no way to know that they "always" will invest money to keep playing the game. The best possible statement is "often". And again, from practical experience, it is probably close to "sometimes".Explain the world of difference between the morality of piracy and the definition of piracy. The definition itself requires a moral position as it is defined:
"The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material"
Is it authorized or isn't it? What is authorization? It is the right or permission to acquire the product or assets? the The moral issue is that is it not authorized, which in fact makes it by this definition taking without rights, i.e. stealing = piracy, the act itself is not permitted and so it makes it unauthorized and therefore an appeal to a moral/ethical/legal violation which results in the non-compensation of the original author, regardless of the plans of the perpetrator of having any intent on compensating -- or not.
Laws themselves are an appeal to a moral order that is distinct from the individual and recognized by society as a collective. As we make efforts to degrade and dilute that order, that fundamental foundations that hold up modern culture and society are degraded also. When everyone does what is right in his own eyes, it is seldom right in the eyes of others.
As I've said before and I will say it again, I don't believe that Jacob needs to be concerned about the nominal piracy of indie game content, since the subculture itself seems to still have strong moral underpinnings of the clear understanding of the effort, time and talent required to produce an asset at individual level.
But I believe we all as a whole need to be concerned with the dilution of the basic definitions of what is right and what is wrong, and that is what truly concerns me when I see any level of defense of piracy, or at least the abject acceptance of it.
#36
If they are playing the MMO after the free trial, then ALWAYS is a truth of that statement.
I have said my bit about the use of logical fallacy in use as an argumentative tool, and the persistence of such is proof that this subject is over as far as i care to participate.
08/02/2010 (11:20 pm)
Quote:There is no way to know that they "always" will invest money to keep playing the game.
If they are playing the MMO after the free trial, then ALWAYS is a truth of that statement.
I have said my bit about the use of logical fallacy in use as an argumentative tool, and the persistence of such is proof that this subject is over as far as i care to participate.
#37
But, if you do not fight it, then you lose the ability to fight it later on. The law makes it so that you cannot pick and choose your battles. So while the law may not call it theft, and maybe you don't think it is, you better treat it like it is, or else you'll find yourself watching others gain profit at your expense.
I'll grant that, since it's an MMO... But what about pirate MMO servers?
And to go off-topic, because it's an area I'm interested in (not because of piracy, but because of AI): As far as morality being completely (or even mostly) relative and unable to be discussed in scientific terms, that also can be Googled (lots of interesting reading on culture, biology, and morality, and quite a bit of it seems hardwired, even though the desire to "get over" is also hardwired). It's a new area of study, relatively speaking, but some of the studies are providing very interesting information on how morality develops.
08/03/2010 (12:29 am)
Quote:And no matter how you try to apply your moral values (which by the way, morals are entirely relative), it does not fall under criminal law to copy protected works. They are your rights, not your property. It makes me sick to hear the moral relativism that copying is the same thing
as stealing.
But, if you do not fight it, then you lose the ability to fight it later on. The law makes it so that you cannot pick and choose your battles. So while the law may not call it theft, and maybe you don't think it is, you better treat it like it is, or else you'll find yourself watching others gain profit at your expense.
Quote:If they are playing the MMO after the free trial, then ALWAYS is a truth of that statement.
I'll grant that, since it's an MMO... But what about pirate MMO servers?
And to go off-topic, because it's an area I'm interested in (not because of piracy, but because of AI): As far as morality being completely (or even mostly) relative and unable to be discussed in scientific terms, that also can be Googled (lots of interesting reading on culture, biology, and morality, and quite a bit of it seems hardwired, even though the desire to "get over" is also hardwired). It's a new area of study, relatively speaking, but some of the studies are providing very interesting information on how morality develops.
#38
A debate what have strong ties with opinions is very possible, but only when the majority of the opinions are commonly understood and clearly defined, such debate are best suited for specialty discussion among others who fully comprehend the topic and what opinions encompass it. The scope of this Blog was not about any moral implications derived from the subject(but it had evolved into such, completely missing- and exemplifying some rather profound reasons for the debate in the first place).
08/03/2010 (12:50 am)
It is not the science of morality that can not be debated, but the opinions what fall under definitions of morality. Morals are equated the same as opinions, some of them based more on logical deduction of fact then others. A debate what have strong ties with opinions is very possible, but only when the majority of the opinions are commonly understood and clearly defined, such debate are best suited for specialty discussion among others who fully comprehend the topic and what opinions encompass it. The scope of this Blog was not about any moral implications derived from the subject(but it had evolved into such, completely missing- and exemplifying some rather profound reasons for the debate in the first place).
#39
True, and that's why I labeled that research as off-topic.
The question I'm interested in, on-topic, is what I put forward before it: What effect would pirate ("private") servers have on an Indie MMO, if they were to pop up?
08/03/2010 (12:54 am)
Quote:The scope of this Blog was not about any moral implications derived from the subject.
True, and that's why I labeled that research as off-topic.
The question I'm interested in, on-topic, is what I put forward before it: What effect would pirate ("private") servers have on an Indie MMO, if they were to pop up?
#40
08/03/2010 (1:00 am)
Pirate MMO servers are less stable, reliable. I dont know of any good solid data showing the numbers of Pirate MMO servers. I would also expect Pirate MMO servers to be less of a point because a simple update to the client could render them obsolete until the update were reverse engineered. Fact of the matter is, the bandwidth used for Pirate MMO servers is not costing the originator any overhead expense. If the MMO client were offered for free to start with, who have the right to complain about Pirate MMO servers? 
Torque 3D Owner Dustin Mellen
That's an interesting analogy, but I can tell you why it doesn't apply. When you create something physical, it takes time, effort, and resources to create each and every instance of that product. If I want to make more spoons, I need to mine more ore and take the time making that ore into spoons. Each spoon requires more time and resources.
When I make a game I invest my time and effort into creating the source copy of that game. If I want another instance of that game, I don't have to spend more time and effort, I just copy it. This changes the whole equation. As I create more and more copies, I'm actually dividing the initial time and effort I applied to the source copy amongst each copy that is made. Since there is potentially an infinite number copies that can be made, the cost of each copy is essentially nil.
The problem with your point of view is, that you expect your customers to value the effort you put into creating something and compensate you based on that effort. Unfortunately, they don't value your effort and they never will. All they care about is what they can get and how cheaply they can get it. Since anything that can be turned into digital media is easily replicated, that means they can get anything you produce that can transfer to that medium for $0.
So it begs the question, "What scarce goods can we tie to our games that will entice people to pay us?" Well, I think you have the beginnings of your solution. Time is valuable. What is it that you can do for your fans/customers that they would pay you for if not the game itself? At this point it would be reasonable to surmise that the game is just a tool to connect you to your customers and get their attention. It's like an advertisement, but more powerful. We know that because gamers are very emotionally attached to their beloved games.
This is uncharted territory. It will take risk, experiment, and study to find a model that works. The best thing to do is to look for others that have done something similar. Look at what worked, what didn't, and how it can apply to your vision.