Sometimes It's OK To Steal My Games 438
spidweb writes "One Indie developer has written a nuanced article on a how software piracy affects him, approaching the issue from the opposite direction. He lists the ways in which the widespread piracy of PC games helps him. From the article: 'You don't get everything you want in this world. You can get piles of cool stuff for free. Or you can be an honorable, ethical being. You don't get both. Most of the time. Because, when I'm being honest with myself, which happens sometimes, I have to admit that piracy is not an absolute evil. That I do get things out of it, even when I'm the one being ripped off.' The article also tries to find a middle ground between the Piracy-Is-Always-Bad and Piracy-Is-Just-Fine sides of the argument that might enable single-player PC games to continue to exist."
Or... (Score:5, Interesting)
You can get piles of cool stuff for free. Or you can be an honorable, ethical being. You don't get both.
Why not? [flattr.com]
Aleks (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Exactly. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to disagree here..
Mainstream games *DO* need exposure (just like any product to be sold).
However, they use another venue for this : commercial advertisement.
Just 2 different angles to address the same problem. One is going for the upfront lump sum approach (mainstream), the other one is going for the progressive scheme : If the product is a flop, nothing lost - if it's a hit - then the revenue is probably less than if it would have been a mainstream company.
Just my .02 (of whatever you currency is)
--Ivan
Re:Exactly. (Score:5, Interesting)
it's a different story for the producers of mainstream games who have no need of exposure whatsoever
I don't think that is entirely true. Why do game producers continue to make titles based off of the same tired-ass hollywood kids movies. How many games have you seen clutter the shelves at Wallmart, "Barbies Adventure in X" or "Comic Book X Action Game" or "SpongeBob's New X". Kids relatives, grandmothers, etc, continue to buy these games because of exposure. So saying mainstream games have no need whatsoever is a bit to closed minded. And if you contest those examples as not being mainstream, then what is mainstream? What the 'pro' gaming community deems quality? Well if thats your argument, then those games need even more exposure to sell, especially if they don't have some cookie-cutter Hollywood blockbuster to pound the IP into the heads of the masses. Mainstream needs exposure.
Remember the original Call of Duty? Fairly low key developer, but it was a bad-ass game, free demos were available online, the game received glowing reviews and gained a fan-base. There were dedicated servers, mods, etc. Then as it went mainstream, my personal opinion is that the quality went down. No dedicated servers. Rehashes of old maps being piece-mealed off ala the Sims series, and other blatant abuses of their mainstream status.
Counter Strike. Started of as a free mod. People loved it. Spread everywhere. Indie-devs were exposed to the mainstream through word of mouth. They didn't need massive advertising campaigns. And look at the games longevity. You don't see ads on television for Counter-Strike, and yet people still play on the dedicated servers. Compare that to Halo 2 for the original Xbox. Massive advertising from a 'mainstream producer'. And what do you get? Kicked off of your gaming experience once the company deems it 'unprofitable'. Sure they have to make money, but I am not arguing for money, but instead the longevity of longstanding, quality content. And generally, it comes from those who are not ruled by greed, control, and margins.
seems like it makes sense to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not stealing. (Score:1, Interesting)
It's not stealing, and it's not Piracy. Stealing is taking a physical good, in a way that after I take it, I have it and you don't. Piracy is robbing ships on the open seas.
He is talking about Copyright Infringement, and since Copyright shouldn't exist, it is ALWAYS ok to 'infringe' on his imaginary rights.
Re:Actually.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not all Linux is GNU/Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Your morals are not my morals (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Your morals are not my morals (Score:1, Interesting)
Piracy is illegal, yes. Is it wrong? Well, that's a bit more of a nuanced question.
Now, before you get back to your "Piracy is stealing" bit, that's simply inaccurate. CPTs (Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents) are not property, whatever the media companies like to say: they're fundamentally different objects which exist in fundamentally different spaces (CPTs exist largely in our own minds, at least that's where the main value lies, whereas property exists in the physical world), and they are governed by different laws. Conflating the two is, in a very real sense, like saying an apple to the same as a picture of an apple.
As to whether breaking CPT laws are morally justifiable, that's far more nuanced than the simplistic notion that "Piracy is stealing" as well. For many people--maybe a majority of the people who actually understand what the laws say--copyright and (software) patent laws are themselves immoral (trademarks probably less so, as they tend to deal more with identification, but I digress). For such people, following these laws requires them to betray their own morals, because once you start following an immoral law you are effectively endorsing it and giving it more validity. Breaking copyright then becomes a moral imperative: it's civil disobedience, though I hesitate ascribing a term with such lofty connotations to an act which is nowhere near as heroic.
But it is kinda true. I mean, think about what the current DMCA does: it allows a copyright holder to, in essence, own a piece of your own thoughts, and charge you for using them, essentially in perpetuity. And yes, they are your thoughts: they're in your head, after all, and in the decades since you've first experienced them they've grown beyond what was expressed by the content's original creator. Sure, the nation's founders decided that a short term version of this was an acceptable compromise to encourage people to add to the public domain, but over the past two centuries things have gone so far out of hand that most people alive today have never actually seen any significant amount of work enter the public domain in their lifetimes, and if trends continue the way they have then nobody ever will. It's an unconscionable expansion of corporate power over the public mind and the public good, and I can fully understand the people who have simply decided to rebel against the whole thing.
Re:How do I pay for Song of the South? (Score:3, Interesting)
Two random examples (one of which is incredibly unlikely)
It has happened several times before: Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music ("My Sweet Lord") and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton ("Love Is a Wonderful Thing"). Slashdot covered another slightly different case [slashdot.org]. In a past life, I analyzed the probabilities [slashdot.org].
that have complicated solutions do not mean that you should be able to pirate whatever you want.
I never said it did. But a lot of copyright absolutists post on Slashdot with strong words, such as "always" or "never" or "you are wrong", in a way that utterly fails to address these complicated cases.
Re:A question of justice (Score:4, Interesting)
So it boils down to stopping people from benefiting from something which doesn't hurt anyone.
If I devote time and money to make my garden beautiful, is it unjust of my neighbours to enjoy the sight of it, having done nothing to deserve it? Should scientists stop using Newton's equations because they have done nothing to uncover them? Should writers avoid being inspired by Homeros because they have in no way contributed to his works? If it is morally wrong to get something for free, then we have to answer 'yes' to those questions.
Re:It's not stealing. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is still morally wrong. Sorry. I may not agree with the copyright law, but I know if I download a film, I performed something morally wrong however small it may be! Think of it like this: if I drive 26 mph in my neighborhood, I am breaking the law and I know this. If there was a way to catch me (for the sake of this argument assume this is so), I know I would have to pay for the ticket. Will this prevent me from going a couple miles per hour over? No.
The point I am trying to make is that just because it is not that big of deal doesn't make it right and it certain does not abstain one from a personal moral code. In the corporate world, this is what gets the big guys, you know the bastards you hear on the news who did these horrifying things and thought it was fine, in trouble. Having seen this moral slip, in my life, through a friend, I can tell you the slippery slope argument does not apply: what does it the ability to let one-self's moral boundaries slip without at least the acknowledgment that the change occurred. No, downloading illegal games will not cause me to go rob a store later in life or even steal a candy bar from the grocery store, but there is no gray area to a personal ethical code. (We each have our own!)
I am not trying to incite some type of response from you GNUALMAFUERTE, I have many friends who would agree with you and I sometimes find myself on both sides of the argument isle on many occasions, rather I am merely remarking on how we must guard ourselves as a society to where we really want to draw the threshold of "acceptable" at. You would say "Copyright shouldn't exist" and you are entitled to your opinion and I am not arguing this fact, but rather how you justify it. (Again, the fact that you infringe on copyright laws does not phase me at all) What bothers me is that by assembling what you refer to stealing as into physical goods, and generalizing stealing piracy as the duty performed by actual pirates (even the dumb ones who attack Navy ships [nydailynews.com]) the moral threshold for you is that stealing would now require that you perform something remotely close to those acts!
I say relax, grab a beer, go download a song, and say hell with it: yes you broke the law but just like many others going a few over the speed limit, even with full knowledge of the law...this isn't something that bothers you.
Re:seems like it makes sense to me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Mr Vogel (Score:5, Interesting)
I knew as soon as I read the title this was going to involve him.
He's been around forever. I can remember when I first found exile so many years ago. Floating around a BBS.
It was probably one of the greatest games I played in the early 90s. I probably spent most of time between it and Curse of the Azure Bonds.
I hope some day he turns around and writes a book about how he did it. I don't know that you could duplicate what he has done now. He started at a time and built up his fanbase when the world was a very different place.
Re:Sounds like some kind of liberal! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actually.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a couple of weeks ago, I bought an older game. Just Cause. When I installed it, the DRM wasn't compatible with Windows 7 and there were no patches available, I had to go download a NOCD crack to play a game that I legitimately purchased.
LK
Re:Sounds like some kind of liberal! (Score:1, Interesting)
More precisely, a communist humanist. There are two matters that he discusses. One is economics and the other is morality. On the economics side, he basically says that he feels that his product should be free to those who he feels are more worthy of not paying. This is communism. Notice how he tries to lump all games idealistically into one big pool and assumes that if everybody bought one each year that it would help support the whole pool.
The other matter is his view of morality which is clearly a humanist view. He describes what is moral in a very pragmatic sense. This is always a mistake as the so-called "morality" which you have created would apply only to you. Either you would have to come to some concrete conclusion of what is right, which would most likely conflict with the majority's opinion and leave you back where you started, or else it would be decided individually. In the latter case, each person would want to be the free rider in the system and create the "morals" that suited their desires. This is how Ted Bundy excused his murders. There has to be a clear consistent source of morality that cannot be swayed by subjectivism and "rationalisation".
In the end, the only person who he leaves out helping is the moral capitalist. Ironically, that is where most of his income will come from. He has admitted that when people from an impoverished land ask for a free hand out, that he rejects them and hopes that they will steal his product. What is truly right and moral is to never steal anything. These people can't and won't steal his product as that would be wrong, not against their own self serving ideals such as the author's, but wrong in a very objective way. In a communist system, at least you could wait until the government forced him to give away his product for free. The moral capitalist, then contributes the most to this author while he despises them.
Re:Actually.. (Score:3, Interesting)
"The whole point of this article is what I've said in every piracy argument I've been involved in: if no one buys quality PC games, they won't be made any more"
The problem is game quality, even the recently released starcraft 2 was ho-hum. So many PC games are released broken and without tools. It's a catch-22, no publisher wants to commit the resources to make sure the game is really good, everyone pirates it and finds out it's so-so and they find out it's not worth paying for.
Take Supreme commander 1 + 2 both games were unfinished on release, Supcom 1's AI was completely broken and Supcom 2 had moddiging forcefully disabled and ripped out of it as per request by the publisher (since the demo had modding enabled).
The truth is - the developers suck at making games and all too often are under resourced and are not committed to their games beyond pump and dump. Transformers War for cybertron is a case in point - technically proficient port but the controls, framerate, etc they didn't bother changing at all. You couldn't change your controls in the PC version of Transformers... I mean wtf?