Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

Criptfiend - all you've done was prove that people pirated the games. That's not even EVIDENCE that it hurt sales, forget proof.

Do you have any evidence, any at all, that piracy hurts sales? If its so obvious, it should be easy to find, right?

Because I can provide actual evidence that it doesn't. (overall, my evidence doesn't cover specific products mind you)

I proved that some games were pirated on a massive scale. Then I state that on such a large scale, it's unreasonable to assume that none of that is a lost sale.

Which is answered with a "Pifff. You should not assume. Come back with facts. (PS I know there are no facts ether way.)"

What do you want? Facts? In absence of facts we can only go with what's reasonable.

Go ahead and find me some facts that state world of goo was not harmed by the massive piracy it had. If you do that I will admit I am wrong. If not, then I will insist you are totally unreasonable because you refuse any assumptions, even ones that clearly make more sense, than your own.

Because that is what this is. Assumptions vs assumptions. And I'm calling your assumptions mistaken, and if you think they are better, just straight up better, then my assumptions I'm calling you mistaken as well.

[sneakey pete]

I don't get the whole "as long as its not a lost sale its ok!" mentality anyway. Where exactly does the entitlement come from?

[Deadmeat1471]

I don't get the whole "as long as its not a lost sale its ok!" mentality anyway. Where exactly does the entitlement come from?

I believe it's a result of the piracy issue being discussed in terms of who looses out of pocket, due to the capitalist society revolving around the exchange and movement of cashflows.
Rather than the moral issues involved.

[Loud Whispers]

Criptfiend - all you've done was prove that people pirated the games. That's not even EVIDENCE that it hurt sales, forget proof.

Do you have any evidence, any at all, that piracy hurts sales? If its so obvious, it should be easy to find, right?

Because I can provide actual evidence that it doesn't. (overall, my evidence doesn't cover specific products mind you)

What do you want? Facts? In absence of facts we can only go with what's reasonable.

1. Yes, facts.
2. No, we can choose to not police the internet, to not destroy the entertainment industry and to not allow unrestricted government control over personal lives, media and border control based on "what's reasonable."

Reasonable = Not your definition.

[Max White]

If one person pirates a game who could (As in, has the money) and would have bought the game otherwise, then piracy has hurt sales. 

Question: What if even though they would have bought it for themselves, the act of piracy causes another to buy the game?

[Leafsnail]

Problems:  What happens if they're "spending" money they don't have?  If I live in my parents basement, have zero income, and am completely dependent on other people to support me (And never spend money on video games), does that still hold true?  The money I don't spend on video games is lost because it doesn't exist.

...Is it?  Surely that's just money that wouldn't have existed anyway.  I really don't see how any money is "lost" if you compare the situation of you living in your basement pirating stuff and you living in your basement not pirating stuff.

[Frumple]

I believe it's a result of the piracy issue being discussed in terms of who looses [sic] out of pocket, due to the capitalist society revolving around the exchange and movement of cashflows.
Rather than the moral issues involved.

Pretty much exactly this. The harm being done is strongly presented in lost sales, on the part anti-piracy advocates. The moral aspect is considerably weaker if there's not significant financial damage being done, because the moral infraction isn't much (if at all) greater than sharing a book or CD. The lost sales focus is a matter of addressing the heuristic being presented.

[snip]

Cript, you misrepresent me somewhat

I actually think the facts are there (or will be in the near future), just not easily accessible to the public. I would be very surprised if there's not a number of academic journal articles (and/or studies) on the subject. Many of which are difficult (or at least expensive, which is places it outside my capability at the moment) for someone outside of higher education to get access to.

Though the should-not-assume thing still applies fairly well. Good statistics trumps reason when we're dealing with the subject we're dealing with. Ideally, we'd be getting facts from all sides of the discussion; reasonable doesn't necessarily absolve burden of proof. You also presented the 90% figure on world of goo, implying you've got at least some numbers to provide. How was that number acquired?

But, that said. What do you want to do (in terms of continuing the discussion) if you take the lost sales as a given? "Some" lost sales isn't enough to bring moral condemnation down on a subject, I wouldn't say. If it were, then bad reviews or demos would (or could, at least) be about as bad morally as outright piracy.

[Deadmeat1471]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The Pirates Of The Carribean theme tune started to play in my head :/

anyway, all tha SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and similar things will achieve is less liberty. Pirates will be there, they will find ways around, and all that happens is the common internet users suffer because a company decided that a website had to be shut down for using a minute amount of their tech in it.

This is where the true support for pirates comes from. When regular users lives are made harder with anti piracy software or liberty stripping legislation it always results in support for piracy or at least neutrality with regards to them.

They keep on making regular Joe's life harder, rallying support for pirates and thinking they can outsmart Anon and others by introducing harsher laws. I would posit recent events have displayed eminently the falacy of this position.
 
From listening to pirates and non pirates alike, i'd say in my personal opinion neither the government nor mainstream companys(with exceptions such as Steam etc) have any idea what the fk they're talking about or doing to the communities they effect. Which in the modern world is nearly everyone.



This is not unlike Prohibition in the 20's, they try to destroy piracy with legislation and they succeed only in driving more people underground in anger and defacto supporting the piracy the legislation was intending to reduce.

[Max White]

Well when the entire population is treated like criminals, often they start to act like criminals.
Assume everybody is a pirate and make blanket laws that disadvantage all, and people get annoyed.

[Criptfeind]

Cript, you misrepresent me somewhat

You say that, but the gist of the next two paragraphs still seems to be from my prospective "Don't rely on assumptions! You should have facts! But since no one has facts I am still right!"

Here is the thing, I'm not arguing with only you, or even you at all. I'm getting it from multiple angles, from you saying we all need facts, to Leafsnail and GG demanding facts from me and offering none of their own. To them I reply you need to use common sense, which gets you in saying no. You are rejecting not my argument directly, but rather the pillars it stands upon. Only because I am the only one actually stating that no one is using facts. As far as I can tell, you have not cared to point out the lack of facts from anyone but me. All you do is jump in when I try to say be reasonable.

So, what I am trying to say, is that I view you in with Leafy and GG, and lump all three of your statements together, which is most likely the wrong thing to do.

But, that said. What do you want to do (in terms of continuing the discussion) if you take the lost sales as a given?

I would want to do nothing. My views on piracy are obvious enough to anyone who has both read and understood my posts on the subject in the past. [snide]So why should I try to make anyone understand after all the past failures.[/snide]

Perhaps I will actually make a post about what I think, but honestly I don't feel like it would bring anything new to the table. I'm not a crazy "everything should be free" person or a crazy "piracy is destroying creativity" person.

Anyway, the 90% comes from the makers themselves (and indeed has been reproduced everywhere on the internet, I am surprised you needed to question where it came from since it is a very common number for the piracy rating on world of goo), it is more then likely too high with changing IPs. But not by a huge amount.

1. Yes, facts.
2. No, we can choose to not police the internet, to not destroy the entertainment industry and to not allow unrestricted government control over personal lives, media and border control based on "what's reasonable."

3. Reasonable = Not your definition.

1: Why don't you come with some of your own?
2: Where did that come from?
3: Better then what seems to be your, I'm not the one making blanket responses to simple statements.

[Frumple]

To them I reply you need to use common sense, which gets you in saying no. You are rejecting not my argument directly, but rather the pillars it stands upon. Only because I am the only one actually stating that no one is using facts.

Yeah, the common sense thing gets me jittery, and I tend to focus on it. I've ran into enough situations where common sense was (sometimes horribly) wrong that I've got a bit of a hair-trigger when I run into it, at least when it's being applied to real-life situations. Common sense has caused some incredible damage when it was applied to situations where statistics and research should have been consulted.

I was with you on the no one is using facts bit, heh. That first bit was my horribly unsubtle nudge suggesting an upswing in fact-use

As far as I can tell, you have not cared to point out the lack of facts from anyone but me. All you do is jump in when I try to say be reasonable.

Nah, nah, to be more clear about it, that initial interjection was actually agreeing with you on the unreasonable bit you pointed out. The point you were responding to was as included in it as everything else.

You say that, but the gist of the next two paragraphs still seems to be from my prospective "Don't rely on assumptions! You should have facts! But since no one has facts I am still right!"

Yeah, more 'how are you getting to the conclusion you're supporting' than 'I'm right'. Mostly because I don't think I'm right, just not sufficiently informed (and questioning if anyone else is sufficiently informed, too).

Also a plea towards anyone who actually has facts to step forth and share.

So, what I am trying to say, is that I view you in with Leafy and GG, and lump all three of your statements together, which is most likely the wrong thing to do.

Fair enough.

[LordBucket]

I don't get the whole "as long as its not a lost sale its ok!" mentality anyway.
Where exactly does the entitlement come from?

Why is a corporation that distributes the creative work of a third party entitled to prevent others from recreating and distributing those materials themselves?

[alway]

You want facts, read the conclusions the Swiss government's study came to.

Bern. The Internet has changed the use of music, movies and computer games fundamentally. On cultural production, this has probably not a disadvantage. And the legal framework allows it to enter unauthorized use of works to adequately meet. Legislative action is not so Rischer. These are the conclusions of the Federal Council is meeting in a report that he has adopted on Wednesday.

The report fulfills a postulate of the Senate of 19 March 2010. The Federal Council has instructed it to consider whether measures are necessary against copyright infringement. The producers of the products had previously complained about a decline in their revenues. The Senate was concerned, this development could be a sign of an emerging crisis in the Swiss cultural creativity.

The report paints a picture of the current situation. According put existing research suggests, first, that in Switzerland, up to one third of the over 15 year olds download music, movies and games without paying for it. Second, despite the extensive media coverage and public awareness campaigns seems to be a majority of Internet users still do not know what offers are legally permissible and impermissible.

The percentage of disposable income spent on consumption in this area remains constant. However, within this budget shifts observed. So give the consumers of the resources that they save by using the swap meet, also in the entertainment industry again. The released portion is invested instead of canned music or film to concerts, movies and merchandising.

This development mainly affects the large foreign production companies. You have to adapt to the changing consumer behavior. Fears that the development could have an adverse impact on the national cultural production remain unfounded because of the shifts outlined. For these reasons, the Federal Council concludes that no legislative action is needed.

People are continually complaining about a lack of facts about lost revenue; they are there, merely ignored.

[SalmonGod]

I have some facts to contribute.

Fact:  Much of the software I have purchased over the past 10 years was because I pirated it first, and decided it was worth the money. 

Fact:  Much software and music my friends and family have purchased are because I was able to expose them to it through piracy.

Fact:  I have very little disposable income for software and culture, so I am very picky.  As mentioned before, if I didn't pirate, the amount of money I spent on those things would not change.  I and many people I know would simply lead less enriched and more obviously impoverished and depressing lives.

Fact:  The majority of music I listen to today, I would have never known about without piracy.

Fact:  I would not have gotten the college degree I have today without pirating a lot of productivity software.  Doing that has created the possibility that I will be able to generate a career in that field, which will result in the ability and justification to legitimately invest in those same software.

Something to think about:  Ok.  World of Goo had a 90% piracy rate.  So let's say a hypothetical 10,000 copies were sold and 90,000 copies pirated.  Why do you automatically assume that piracy had a negative effect on the number of copies sold?  Isn't it entirely possible that the amount of piracy exposed more people to the game, and increased sales?  It's an indie title, after all.  No massive marketing machine behind it.  Would you say the situation were improved if 100% of people who played the game bought it, but that only amounted to 5,000 copies?


Oh also,

Lots of Indie games are terrible and fail. AAA games, by definition, do not. I would certainly say more indie games suck and die then AAA games.

I completely disagree with this.  I dislike the majority of AAA titles these days.  The indie scene seems to be outdoing them.  I think there's more innovation there, due to less executive meddling forcing developers to create only content that they consider to be a safe market investment.

[Frumple]

Why is a corporation that distributes the creative work of a third party entitled to prevent others from recreating and distributing those materials themselves?

Because the corporation has negotiated with said third party for either exclusive or semi-exclusive right to control of distribution (instead of simply distribution)... ideally, anyway.

The non-ideal aspects meander off into (currently utterly bullshit) copyright law, copyright theory, draconian contracts, and a cultural system that's been somewhat heavily structured by those very companies demanding control over distribution as part of their services... among who knows what else.

People are continually complaining about a lack of facts about lost revenue; they are there, merely ignored.

Well, some facts are

That study, at least from what you presented, came to the (should be blindingly obvious, but very, almost violently, underplayed*) conclusion that piracy doesn't take money out of the general (luxury/entertainment) economy, but at least that bit didn't address possible financial damage to individual companies; the 'lost sales' in relation to specific titles would be covered under something like that. There's a point of discussion on the subject of smaller scale damage, obviously.

It's a bloody good start, though!

*Not by anyone here, so far! But the messages from larger media corps definitely like to give the frightening message that piracy is somehow crippling the entertainment industry and making money magically disappear from the economy. Which is so hilariously fallacious that message should be taken as sheer nonsense, but it's often taken more seriously than it has any right to be

I have some facts to contribute.

Problem: All ancedotal and not statistically significant Important, yes, but the individual scale impact of piracy is fairly minor; again, on the small scale it's not significantly more immoral or damaging than sharing a book or movie. If there's trouble, it's going to be on a much larger scale.

Something to think about:  Ok.  World of Goo had a 90% piracy rate.  So let's say a hypothetical 10,000 copies were sold and 90,000 copies pirated.  Why do you automatically assume that piracy had a negative effect on the number of copies sold?

In cript's defense, I don't think he's necessarily assuming that; the conclusion he's building to is seems to be that among that hypothetical 90k pirated copies, at least some are lost sales. The piracy might have had a net benefit, but it's fairly reasonable to assume there was some loss, too.