Interesting article regarding piracy

[keenan]

How is there no direct loss to them when people are playing their game without paying for it like they are supposed to?

Because it doesn't cost them anything? This is so painfully obvious.

You say that it's not theft because it's a copy of something. So if I go rob 50,000 books from a Barnes & Noble, that's not theft, right? Cause, after all, they are simply copies of the book. In order to steal the book, according to your logic, I would have to go find the original copy that the author gives the publisher.

Uhm what? No. If you go to B&N and steal 50,000 books, you are taking 50,000 physical artifacts and depriving B&N of the same. If you go pirate 50,000 books you are creating 50,000 copies and depriving nobody of anything. If you snuck into B&N late and night and photocopied those 50,000 books, then put the originals back on the shelf and took your copies, you would be guilty of B&E and copyright infringement, not theft. That's what's happening here.

Copyright covers the text, or the image, or the sounds involved. Theft covers the book, or the photograph, or the CD. They are completely different and not even remotely related.

 

[Khanmots]

Did I just read that? LOL.....

Yep.

Likely did because it's true. Tell any lawyer that copyright infringment is the same as theft and they'll laugh at you.

They're very different things, for very important reasons.

Copyright exists solely as a way to provide restrictions on copying. Hence copyright infringment. If theft was the same we would not have copyright.

 

[Khanmots]

How is there no direct loss to them when people are playing their game without paying for it like they are supposed to?

You say that it's not theft because it's a copy of something. So if I go rob 50,000 books from a Barnes & Noble, that's not theft, right? Cause, after all, they are simply copies of the book. In order to steal the book, according to your logic, I would have to go find the original copy that the author gives the publisher.

EDIT: Also:

A car is simply a copy of whichever model it is. Since I don't know model names for Bentley, i'll change my example to a ZO6 Corvette. If I go to the local car lot, and take myself 3 or 4 of these ZO6's, I would not be stealing according to you, because they are simply copies of a product of Chevrolet's design, just like the video games are copies of the game designed by 'Insert Company Name Here'.

Wizardhawk, you're either trolling or being deliberatly obtuse.

I've got an idea. Write a book. Spend $10 a copy and have 200 copies made ($2000). Now, since you think that copyright infringment and theft are the same, you'll have no problem if I, instead of buying one book and then creating 199 photocopies to give to my friends simply take all 200 copies from you instead.

After all, to you, they're the same right?

 

[Wizardhawk]

Because it doesn't cost them anything? This is so painfully obvious.



Uhm what? No. If you go to B&N and steal 50,000 books, you are taking 50,000 physical artifacts and depriving B&N of the same. If you go pirate 50,000 books you are creating 50,000 copies and depriving nobody of anything.

Copyright covers the text, or the image, or the sounds involved. Theft covers the book, or the photograph, or the CD. They are completely different and not even remotely related.

How is it not depriving them of something, when they lost out of 50,000 sales at $xx a piece? Regardless of what you want to say, if you download a $49.99 game, and don't pay for it, you stole it. Whether it is on an actual disk, or is a data transfer from D2D or steam, is irrelevant.

Once again, you can try to justify it however you like, I already said that's what people like you are trying to do anyways, but when it comes right down to it, you are a thief.

 

[Wizardhawk]

Wizardhawk, you're either trolling or being deliberatly obtuse.

I've got an idea. Write a book. Spend $10 a copy and have 200 copies made ($2000). Now, since you think that copyright infringment and theft are the same, you'll have no problem if I, instead of buying one book and then creating 199 photocopies to give to my friends simply take all 200 copies from you instead.

After all, to you, they're the same right?

Yes, that is exactly the same. If 200 people were going to buy my book, and you steal 1, then give away the other 199, I lose just as much as if you had taken all 200 copies.

 

[Dion]

The argument being advanced in this article is utter bullshit. Just utter bullshit.

It suggests that companies need to drop DRMs entirely, and focus their efforts on creating good ports - that's the argument correct?

Well, as it turns out, this is exactly what Ubisoft did with Prince of Persia 2008.

Yes, Ubisoft.

Yes, the same company that created the online DRM that gamers have been frothing at the mouth over.

Prince of Persia 2008 was an experiment for Ubisoft - they dropped the DRM from the game entirely, and created a fantastic port which was virtually bug-free and which worked on a ridiculously wide range of PCs... and then, just for good measure... probably because they were expecting the game to be heavily pirated in spite all of these efforts... they lowered the price to $29.99 as an added incentive for people to buy the game.

Okay, let's walk through this:

1) No DRM. At all.
2) Fantastic port. It absolutely does not get any better than this.
3) A starting price point of just $29.99 that was virtually unprecedented.
4) A game that was well received by the critics. http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/princeofpersia?q=prince of persia

Ubisoft gave gamers everything that they've ever asked for, and practically rolled out the red carpet for them.

Guess what happened as the result.

Gamers scream for these changes to be made, but when one of the companies does make these changes, not only do gamers ignore the company, but they continue to pirate their DRM free game anyhow.

DRMs don't work?

Oh really - well guess what, dropping the DRM and giving gamers exactly what they want doesn't always work either. The argument being advanced in that article, in the case of Prince of Persia 2008, has already proven to be bullshit. Utter bullshit.

http://hothardware.com/News/Prince-of-Persia-2008-for-PC-is-DRM-Free/

As for the second link, well, you'll have to find that on your own, but it shouldn't be too difficult if you know how to use google.

Oh look, it's our good friends Skidrow. And oh look at what they've done, they've decided to put up Prince of Persia 2008 for everyone to copy! Excuse me? I thought that Skidrow was there only to make life easier for gamers - to improve the games that have DRMs on them by removing those DRMs.

Bullshit.

Skidrow, if they really were the great heroes some of you believe them to be, would've said: "Prince of Persia 2008 has no DRM on it of any kind, the port is a fantastic one, and Ubisoft has even lowered the price to $29.99... we're going to support this move... because after all, this is what we've wanted all along... by not sharing this file."

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Just use Google and educate yourself about the great Skidrow.

Well said.. And this is exactly right. PC users had there chance.. And blew it.. and are now crying again. Then after they get owned they start making up opinion based info to backup there so called facts. It's like they only believe what they want to hear. (probably all religious people.) PC community is pathetic. They whine about everything as if the developers owe them something.

 

[keenan]

How is it not depriving them of something, when they lost out of 50,000 sales at $xx a piece? Regardless of what you want to say, if you download a $49.99 game, and don't pay for it, you stole it. Whether it is on an actual disk, or is a data transfer from D2D or steam, is irrelevant.

They didn't lose out on 50,000 sales. They can still sell those 50,000 books, because they still own them. If you stole them, they wouldn't. This is the key distinction, and I'm done trying to get it through your thick skull. Go read something. Go read the statutes involved, or Wikipedia or whatever other source suits your fancy. Copyright infringement is not theft, it's that simple.

Once again, you can try to justify it however you like, I already said that's what people like you are trying to do anyways, but when it comes right down to it, you are a thief.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I haven't made a single post justifying piracy in this thread. You're making claims that are idiotic and incorrect. You don't understand the difference between theft and copyright violation, and I'm trying to explain it to you. I'm not saying copyright infringement is right or wrong, just that you are wrong.

This is what the law says. If you disgaree with it, fine, but don't try to 'correct' people when in the law there is a very clear and obvious distinction.

 

[Khanmots]

Yes, that is exactly the same. If 200 people were going to buy my book, and you steal 1, then give away the other 199, I lose just as much as if you had taken all 200 copies.

What's the first word of your second sentence?

 

[Wizardhawk]

It's like they only believe what they want to hear. (probably all religious people.)

Thread derailment incoming.


I like how people try to slide something like that in, when there is more evidence to support religion than there is evidence of evolution. When something relating to evolution is proved to be wrong, the evolutionists just try to play it off until they can find something else to attempt to use as 'proof' of evolution.

 

[Khanmots]

Thread derailment incoming.


I like how people try to slide something like that in, when there is more evidence to support religion than there is evidence of evolution. When something relating to evolution is proved to be wrong, the evolutionists just try to play it off until they can find something else to attempt to use as 'proof' of evolution.

Ah...

This explains so much.

And now, just because I can. 0.999... = 1

 

[Wizardhawk]

What's the first word of your second sentence?

The fact that 200 people are in possession of my book due to you copying it, means that potentially all 200 of those people would have bought it. Or, if not, I would still have the opportunity to sell the book to those 200 people. Thanks to you pirating my book out to those 200 people, they will not buy my book.

 

[keenan]

I like how people try to slide something like that in, when there is more evidence to support religion than there is evidence of evolution. When something relating to evolution is proved to be wrong, the evolutionists just try to play it off until they can find something else to attempt to use as 'proof' of evolution.

Oh god, here we go. For the record, Evolution is one of the best-tested theories put forward. It's pretty much irrefutable at this point. If you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in science.

I'm done being trolled.

Edit

opportunity

Exactly. This is not direct or quantifiable loss.

 

[Wizardhawk]

Oh god, here we go. For the record, Evolution is one of the best-tested theories put forward. It's pretty much irrefutable at this point.

I'm done being trolled.

Thanks for the laugh.

Ah...

This explains so much.

And now, just because I can. 0.999... = 1

Wrong. 0.9999999 repeating != 1.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Well said.. And this is exactly right. PC users had there chance.. And blew it.. and are now crying again. Then after they get owned they start making up opinion based info to backup there so called facts. It's like they only believe what they want to hear. (probably all religious people.) PC community is pathetic. They whine about everything as if the developers owe them something.

They offer sweeping generalizations. We blew it? Blew what? Did I pirate something? Their so called facts? Like how the definition of theft and copyright infringement are dissimilar? They whine about everything? Like DRM? Bad ports?

The fact that 200 people are in possession of my book due to you copying it, means that potentially all 200 of those people would have bought it. Or, if not, I would still have the opportunity to sell the book to those 200 people. Thanks to you pirating my book out to those 200 people, they will not buy my book.

Perhaps they would not have purchased your book at all? Judging by your logic, I deduce this as the most likely scenario. The words "potential" and "if" do not ever, ever, ever translate into absolutes.

 

[Wizardhawk]

It's not direct or quantifiable loss? How do you quantify the loss in someone stealing 300 Bentleys. Let's assume they sell for $200,000 a piece. If you stole those 300 cars, you get charged with the theft of $6,000,000. This does not mean that every single one of those cars was going to be sold. None of them might have been sold. They have a value of $6,000,000. Just like the 200 copies of my book have a value of $2,000. The only difference is that I would still have 199 copies of my book. In the case of the cars, they only actually lost maybe $1,000,000 tops in the cost of parts/labor, but you don't get charged for the theft of that cost, you get charged for the theft of their value.

Like I said, there is 0 evidence that any of those Bentley's would be sold, they simply have the opportunity to be sold, just like my books.

I understand that copyright infringement is a different law. This does not mean that it is not stealing.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

An analogy needs to be...analogous to work.

Copyright infringement laws exist because THEFT LAWS DO NOT APPLY, nobody is being denied physical property.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

It's not direct or quantifiable loss? How do you quantify the loss in someone stealing 300 Bentleys. Let's assume they sell for $200,000 a piece. If you stole those 300 cars, you get charged with the theft of $6,000,000. This does not mean that every single one of those cars was going to be sold. None of them might have been sold. They have a value of $6,000,000. Just like the 200 copies of my book have a value of $2,000. The only difference is that I would still have 199 copies of my book. In the case of the cars, they only actually lost maybe $1,000,000 tops in the cost of parts/labor, but you don't get charged for the theft of that cost, you get charged for the theft of their value.

Like I said, there is 0 evidence that any of those Bentley's would be sold, they simply have the opportunity to be sold, just like my books.

I understand that copyright infringement is a different law. This does not mean that it is not stealing.

How do you quantify a hypothetical sale?

 

[Deleted member 174368]

Well said.. And this is exactly right. PC users had there chance.. And blew it.. and are now crying again. Then after they get owned they start making up opinion based info to backup there so called facts. It's like they only believe what they want to hear. (probably all religious people.) PC community is pathetic. They whine about everything as if the developers owe them something.

How exactly was this "our chance"? There is absolutely no way to prove that no DRM results in additional piracy.

Certain developers understand how to deal with the problem: by providing paying customers additional incentives and free content. Valve, Relic, CDProjekt and a few others proved this works.

In fact, you know what they call pirates? Potential customers.

 

[Khanmots]

The fact that 200 people are in possession of my book due to you copying it, means that potentially all 200 of those people would have bought it. Or, if not, I would still have the opportunity to sell the book to those 200 people. Thanks to you pirating my book out to those 200 people, they will not buy my book.

Hey, you used the word 'potential'!

And I will note, that your arguement about potential sales are why we have copyright law and hence copyright infringment. In order to encourage development of creavtive works we need copyright infringment laws because these potential losses that you're worried about are not theft.

Copyright exists to give you some limited exclusive distribution rights of a creative work. With a books old enough that the copyright has expired I could quite legally take a photocopier, make as many copies as I want, and even sell them for a profit. I'd be taking away the original publishers potential sales, same as this case, but they couldn't do anything about it.

And 0.999... = 1

 

[Wizardhawk]

An analogy needs to be...analogous to work.

Copyright infringement laws exist because THEFT LAWS DO NOT APPLY, nobody is being denied physical property.

Theft laws don't apply because people in this country and all around the world always try to justify anything and everything they do in some way, shape, or form, and sometimes the people in positions of power agree with them and want the same.

Just like the law says it's not murder if you drink a case of busch ice, a fifth of rum, and 5 shots of wild turkey, then get in the driver seat of your 18 wheeler and kill 44 kids riding on a school bus. Oh no, that's not murder, it's just 'unintentional manslaughter'.

 

[jiminator]

The fact that 200 people are in possession of my book due to you copying it, means that potentially all 200 of those people would have bought it. Or, if not, I would still have the opportunity to sell the book to those 200 people. Thanks to you pirating my book out to those 200 people, they will not buy my book.

how exactly do you know this? this is part of the knee-jerk reaction that is causing problems for everyone. Like I said in my prior post, we need more factual data to determine true economic impact.

In your example a lot of different scenarios may happen. Your book may suck, in which case it gets trashed and nobody buys it. Your book may be great, in which case you already have a widespread audience, who yes, have read your book, but some likely are purchasing it, and others may purchase other of your books, and others will probably sing your praises to their friends and forums that they frequent. others may download your book and never bother opening it, ever. is that a lost sale?

Your success or failure is not going to be due to pirates, it is going to be based on the quality of your work. Authors have done experiments where they give out copies of their books and it leads to exponential increases in their actual retail sales.

 

[Wizardhawk]

Hey, you used the word 'potential'!

And I will note, that your arguement about potential sales are why we have copyright law and hence copyright infringment. In order to encourage development of creavtive works we need copyright infringment laws because these potential losses that you're worried about are not theft.

Copyright exists to give you some limited exclusive distribution rights of a creative work. With a books old enough that the copyright has expired I could quite legally take a photocopier, make as many copies as I want, and even sell them for a profit. I'd be taking away the original publishers potential sales, same as this case, but they couldn't do anything about it.

And 0.999... = 1

Except people aren't pirating games from 75 years ago, they are pirating games the day they are released, or earlier.

A more realistic comparison for you would be someone working at a book publishing company deciding to print off 500,000+ copies of the book, and then giving them to everyone they know, the same day the book hits the stores.

 

[Khanmots]

Wizardhawk, it's obvious that you have strong beliefs about religion, science, math, and law.

The problem is that only in the realm of religion does faith hold supreme (well, unless you're a gnostic...). In other realms facts rule. If your belief doesn't match the facts you're wrong.

Thus you're wrong about 0.999... not being equal to 1. You're wrong about theft being the same as copyright infringment.

 

[Khanmots]

Except people aren't pirating games from 75 years ago, they are pirating games the day they are released, or earlier.

A more realistic comparison for you would be someone working at a book publishing company deciding to print off 500,000+ copies of the book, and then giving them to everyone they know, the same day the book hits the stores.

And... I've said that people are legally pirating old games when? I'm saying that people who are illegally pirating games are illegal because it's copyright infringment not theft.

 

[Wizardhawk]

Wizardhawk, it's obvious that you have strong beliefs about religion, science, math, and law.

The problem is that only in the realm of religion does faith hold supreme (well, unless you're a gnostic...). In other realms facts rule. If your belief doesn't match the facts you're wrong.

Thus you're wrong about 0.999... not being equal to 1. You're wrong about theft being the same as copyright infringment.

I still don't understand the 0.999 = 1 thing, but whatever, I guess that's some internet fad that I missed.

I still don't hear anything from you except for you trying to justify that you aren't stealing games just because you download it instead of walk into best-buy and steal the box. You just don't have the guts to do it that way, so you go to your usenet site or torrent site and download it, all the while maintaining your little belief that you didn't actually do anything wrong.

 

[Shalafi]

Greetings, my name is Fail and I am your instructor today in Definitions 101. Wabewalker, Wizardhawk, and the rest of my fellow HardForum members, we are gathered here to ponder these weighty words and their definitions.

They are only two in nature, but have sparked, a somewhat contentious debate, and there's a dystopic, almost Machiavellian misunderstanding of their meanings. (Ok lol, i''m just having fun) *coughs*

Anyway, these words are: copyright infringement and theft. I present to you a source no less authoriative on the matter than Webster's Dictionary, you do understand Websters, don't you?

Main Entry: in·fringe·ment
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1628
1 : the act of infringing : violation
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Ok, so we have infringement, which means a person is engaging in the act of infringing, which is a violation. It's other definition is that it encroaches or trespasses on a right or priviledge, which in our case, indicates it infringes on the right of a company to sell their product to you.

Then we have theft which our friend Websters defines as:

Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: \ˈtheft\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thīefth; akin to Old English thēof thief
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen
3 : a stolen base in baseball

the act of STEALING, the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, an unlawful taking (by embezzlement or burglary) of property.

So, what we have here, my friends is that by Webster's definition, the act of piracy is NOT stealing, as the owner of the property is NOT deprived of it, indeed, the property owner still retains his property. However, his property is infringed on, violated, and it encroaches and trespasses on the company's right and priviledge to sell you their property, which is games, given the subject we're talking about here today.

So therefore, thanks to a guest lecture by our friend Webster, we can conclude that it is incumbent upon us to make more judicious our choice in words and the definitions we choose to apply to them. If you say that piracy is stealing, you are quite incorrect, as glorious Webster has proven.

So, I say to you, my friends, we must preach against this infringement upon the true definition of these two terms as given by Websters!!! Go forth and preach the true message to the masses, leave no corner of the globe unturned.

 

[Khanmots]

someone working at a book publishing company deciding to print off 500,000+ copies of the book, and then giving them to everyone they know, the same day the book hits the stores.

And that'd be copyright infringment, not theft. Assuming of course that the person printing them off owns all the materials used to print the books. Otherwise he'd be guilty of theft of materials and then copyright infringment for printing and distributing the books.

 

[Wizardhawk]

I still don't hear anything from you except for you trying to justify that you aren't stealing games just because you download it instead of walk into best-buy and steal the box, which is an actual physical product. You just don't have the guts to do it that way, so you go to your usenet site or torrent site and download it, all the while maintaining your little belief that you didn't actually do anything wrong.

 

[Khanmots]

I still don't understand the 0.999 = 1 thing, but whatever, I guess that's some internet fad that I missed.

The formal proof that they're the same requires calculus. However, there's a more relaxed proof that relies on a well-known axiom.
Namely, that for two numbers to be different, there must exist at least one number between them.

So, what number is more than 0.999 repeating and less than 1?

Most of the confusion that people have over this is not really understanding infinity. (I know, I struggled with it forever in grade school) You can't say a number with more 0.999s as that would imply that 0.999 repeating has a finite number of 9s. There isn't a number that's between the two. The two numbers are simply different ways of writing the same thing.

It's turned into an internet fad because it's a good way to seperate those who are willing to reevaluate thier beliefs based on facts from those who attempt to find facts to justify thier beliefs. You'll find people who will dismiss all the mathimatical proofs that exist, dismiss what thier professors say, and instead find some crackpot on the interwebs to use as evidence that they are right.

I still don't hear anything from you except for you trying to justify that you aren't stealing games just because you download it instead of walk into best-buy and steal the box. You just don't have the guts to do it that way, so you go to your usenet site or torrent site and download it, all the while maintaining your little belief that you didn't actually do anything wrong.

Who says I'm a pirate? I'd lay pretty good odds that I buy far more games, movies, and other copyrighted material than you.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I still don't hear anything from you except for you trying to justify that you aren't stealing games just because you download it instead of walk into best-buy and steal the box, which is an actual physical product. You just don't have the guts to do it that way, so you go to your usenet site or torrent site and download it, all the while maintaining your little belief that you didn't actually do anything wrong.

Talk about confusion. Nobody is advocating piracy (unless I missed it), this thread has not gone past trying to DEFINE it. Once you learn it is not theft, but copyright infringement, can we move on? It is illegal one way or the other, but it is important to know WHY. We cannot define a pirated game as an absolute lost sale -- or even a probable one. It can be called a potential lost sale, but nothing more.

Personally, I don't pirate a god damned thing. Ever. I don't advocate it, or defend pirates, but get a grip. Now you're calling people with a proper idea of what the definition of piracy is and actual pirate.

 

[Dion]

They offer sweeping generalizations. We blew it? Blew what? Did I pirate something? Their so called facts? Like how the definition of theft and copyright infringement are dissimilar? They whine about everything? Like DRM? Bad ports?.

Read every post from everyone instead of one.

 

[Khanmots]

Since this thread seems to be moving in a direction where someone might say something like that they last pirated something over 5 years ago, I'd like to lay out the warning that there's at least one mod out there that will give infractions and delete for that.

Not saying that that was me, in fact, if asked I'd have to deny it.

 

[orangeblue]

I still don't hear anything from you except for you trying to justify that you aren't stealing games just because you download it instead of walk into best-buy and steal the box, which is an actual physical product. You just don't have the guts to do it that way, so you go to your usenet site or torrent site and download it, all the while maintaining your little belief that you didn't actually do anything wrong.

And there's a problem with your argument. You assume that if someone believes piracy is just copyright infringement then they proclaim it to not be morally wrong. This is not necessarily the case. Obviously it can be the case that some people make that argument, but making that argument does not imply that you automatically hold the belief that piracy and copyright infringement are not morally wrong. Put a little more concisely, piracy == copyright infringement != theft, no point in arguing, that is trivially true by textbook definitions of terms and stating this has nothing to do with a person's morals.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Read every post from everyone instead of one.

I did. You're applying stereotypes to people who disagree with you.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Theft laws don't apply because people in this country and all around the world always try to justify anything and everything they do in some way, shape, or form, and sometimes the people in positions of power agree with them and want the same.

Just like the law says it's not murder if you drink a case of busch ice, a fifth of rum, and 5 shots of wild turkey, then get in the driver seat of your 18 wheeler and kill 44 kids riding on a school bus. Oh no, that's not murder, it's just 'unintentional manslaughter'.

For fuck's sakes, copyright laws are more strict than theft laws, and are enforced with impunity. Theft laws don't apply because, in the language we are using, it isn't theft. Go ask a fucking lawyer.

Quit with the "the world is a bad place" crap and back up your claims with facts.

Your drunk driving reference is not only irrelevant, but untrue on many levels.

 

[orangeblue]

The argument being advanced in this article is utter bullshit. Just utter bullshit.

It suggests that companies need to drop DRMs entirely, and focus their efforts on creating good ports - that's the argument correct?

Well, as it turns out, this is exactly what Ubisoft did with Prince of Persia 2008.

Yes, Ubisoft.

Yes, the same company that created the online DRM that gamers have been frothing at the mouth over.

Prince of Persia 2008 was an experiment for Ubisoft - they dropped the DRM from the game entirely, and created a fantastic port which was virtually bug-free and which worked on a ridiculously wide range of PCs... and then, just for good measure... probably because they were expecting the game to be heavily pirated in spite all of these efforts... they lowered the price to $29.99 as an added incentive for people to buy the game.

Okay, let's walk through this:

1) No DRM. At all.
2) Fantastic port. It absolutely does not get any better than this.
3) A starting price point of just $29.99 that was virtually unprecedented.
4) A game that was well received by the critics. http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/princeofpersia?q=prince of persia

Ubisoft gave gamers everything that they've ever asked for, and practically rolled out the red carpet for them.

Guess what happened as the result.

Gamers scream for these changes to be made, but when one of the companies does make these changes, not only do gamers ignore the company, but they continue to pirate their DRM free game anyhow.

DRMs don't work?

Oh really - well guess what, dropping the DRM and giving gamers exactly what they want doesn't always work either. The argument being advanced in that article, in the case of Prince of Persia 2008, has already proven to be bullshit. Utter bullshit.

http://hothardware.com/News/Prince-of-Persia-2008-for-PC-is-DRM-Free/

As for the second link, well, you'll have to find that on your own, but it shouldn't be too difficult if you know how to use google.

Oh look, it's our good friends Skidrow. And oh look at what they've done, they've decided to put up Prince of Persia 2008 for everyone to copy! Excuse me? I thought that Skidrow was there only to make life easier for gamers - to improve the games that have DRMs on them by removing those DRMs.

Bullshit.

Skidrow, if they really were the great heroes some of you believe them to be, would've said: "Prince of Persia 2008 has no DRM on it of any kind, the port is a fantastic one, and Ubisoft has even lowered the price to $29.99... we're going to support this move... because after all, this is what we've wanted all along... by not sharing this file."

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Just use Google and educate yourself about the great Skidrow.

Interesting example. I agree about the hypocrisy as you stated with the supposed aims of these piracy groups, but I have to question what the overall cause and consequence of this situation is. As others pointed out, this wasn't exactly the greatest game out there. So were low sales the result of piracy, or a sub-par product? Moreover, even if sales were lost to piracy, we can't know whether or not the overall sales would have been higher with more protective DRM. Luckily, we may get some information when the new PoP game comes out with Ubisofts lovely *cough* new DRM. If the sequel's sales are higher, I'll agree that the DRM was possibly helpful (it's also possible the sequel might just be a better game), but if the sales are lower, then it should be evident that the DRM is not helping the situation. Thus an alternative explanation might be, that although the game was pirated heavily, sales were already at a maximum given the quality of the product, and therefore weren't significantly impacted. All in all, I really hope the people at Ubisoft are monitoring this situation and will make the smart choice if it turns out that their DRM is doing nothing but hurting sales.

 

[evilsofa]

The Supreme Court of New South Wales (in Australia) has just ruled that digital downloads are not "goods" as defined by the Australian Sale of Goods Act, and apparently in response, Australian legislation is forthcoming that includes computer software in the definition of "goods".

This is relevant because to argue that software piracy is theft, software must be defined as goods. Goods have historically been considered to be a tangible product (like an apple) that can be delivered to a consumer, as opposed to a service, which is untangible (like a haircut). So is a computer game an apple or a haircut?

Here's the twist: software companies have been selling software with EULAs defining the software as not being a product that is being sold! When you agree to the EULA for software, you agree that you are buying the right to use software, not buying the software itself. That makes software sound even more like a haircut. Can you be charged with theft of a haircut?

 

[Khanmots]

On the topic of DRM affecting piracy...
Here's a publisher noting that thier numbers show that DRM that stops 1000 pirated copies results in 1 additional sale.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17350

Here's a publisher showing that his piracy rate, with no DRM, is pretty much equal to the first publishers with-DRM piracy-rate.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17350

Quite interesting reads.

 

[Khanmots]

The Supreme Court of New South Wales (in Australia) has just ruled that digital downloads are not "goods" as defined by the Australian Sale of Goods Act, and apparently in response, Australian legislation is forthcoming that includes computer software in the definition of "goods".

This is relevant because to argue that software piracy is theft, software must be defined as goods. Goods have historically been considered to be a tangible product (like an apple) that can be delivered to a consumer, as opposed to a service, which is untangible (like a haircut). So is a computer game an apple or a haircut?

Here's the twist: software companies have been selling software with EULAs defining the software as not being a product that is being sold! When you agree to the EULA for software, you agree that you are buying the right to use software, not buying the software itself. That makes software sound even more like a haircut. Can you be charged with theft of a haircut?

The EULA's intent is to state that you have the right to use the compiled executable on the disc you've purchased but that you don't have the the right to the source used to generate it (and can't decompile, etc). Or at least that was it's original intent, I haven't fully read a EULA recently so who knows it may have changed.

 

[Parmenides]

As far as legal matters, theft does not equal piracy. But in the blink of an eye, that can change. Laws are fickle and sometimes judges can change things quicker than congress can.

In other non-legal matters things are more complex, the only tangible difference between pirating a PDF of a book, and stealing a physical copy is the cost of running the printing press, which is a fraction of the value of a book. In days of old, physical production and/or raw materials was almost all the value of something. In today's term, physical production and materials contributes very little to the total value of software or even books. As we move on into the future, physical production and materials will matter less, unless we are talking about jewelry or some such.

If the pirate was willing to purchase the book, then the publisher was denied physical compensation plain and simple. If someone invented a cheap flying saucer, I imagine he would go to a manufacturer to get it produced, but first probably the patent office. But before doing so if some hacker found his research (where all his work was documented in on his computer), the hacker would be considered "stealing" his research. Even if the inventor retained his copy of his research. Was this man denied anything? Well he could very well be denied monetary compensation if a major company buys the data from the thief. I don't think that you can say that "copying" by definition can never have anything to do with stealing. Ideas can be stolen too. Patents are designed to prevent that.

You can say that theft only pertains to physical, and piracy only pertains to the non-physical. That's fine, and that's only semantics. But both can be considered stealing. Infact, there are plenty of cases where "copying" is a more grievous crime than taking something physical. I'd rather that you steal my tools, then you copy my invention. Semantics about the definition of "theft" is only a red herring. (i.e. it gets us distracted)

The important thing is the core principle question: Is the developer being denied what he deserves to be getting (in terms of compensation)? If he deserves it, then he should get it. If he doesn't deserve it, then he shouldn't get it. But even that question is complicated because Ubisoft isn't compensated for their product if you legally purchase Assassin's Creed 2 used from Ebay.

Unfortunately morals matter little to people. "Who cares if the developers get rightly compensated?" is a common attitude. So a lot of it boils down to law and what law dictates what someone deserves. But laws are fickle and change.