The Pirate Bay Found Guilty

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

So you want reform of copyright law? That is all well and fine, I'm all for a copyright of 28 years, and criminal court enforcement of it.

At least we agree on something. Unfortunately, Disney and others have deep enough pockets to make sure we can never roll this clock back.

Look, I'm aware companies are nasty beasts, but at some level they are at least paying a share to the content creators, whereas mass piracy (i.e. if the trend continues to an even worst state) would make it rough on content creators. There is a difference between fighting their excesses, and arguing about whether you are allowed to attack piracy.

I never claimed piracy needed to be embraced, was ok, or should not be fought. I said that government force, being paid for by everyone who is forced to contribute to government revenues, should not be used to enforce copyrights. The judicial system is a sufficient venue for resolution of these matters.

In my opinion the problem is people pirating stuff that is less than X years old, and every tactic that is reasonable to stop that should be pursued (in my opinion criminal enforcement being one). As for defining X years, or broadening fair use for the modern day... I'd probably fall in your camp. But that is a separate issue from whether the 'X years' is enforced as criminal.

With copyright terms out there up to 120 years, public domain simply does not exist. When you are not likely to see a work produced during your life enter the public domain, it essentially no longer exists. If copyright terms can be reigned back into something much more reasonable, there is ground for compromise. The "copyright holders" want it all. They want ever-increasing copyright terms, and criminal prosecution for infringement as well. It is a win on all fronts for them. How extending copyright terms that long is truly in the interests of the public good is bizarre to even think about. Having more works enter the public domain sooner is what is really in the interests of the public. That way we can create far more new things, even if they are derivative works, without waiting for stodgy old people/companies to be willing to share their cash cow with us. These people/companies have built huge business models based on these copyrights and they are afraid of losing even more revenue when that slips back into the public domain. I do not know this to be true, but it seems to me that they fear public domain more than piracy. It would cause them to innovate and not be able to sit back and cash in the checks for 70 year old material.

My problem is when the 'I want it' crowd uses the 'big bad corporation' argument to support piracy. Two separate issues. It is like saying two wrongs make a right.

I agree. However, when you see the law moving in their favor repeatedly over the past 30 years, what do you do? At some level, people need to understand that piracy may represent an act of civil disobedience at this point. The concept of public domain was to benefit all of society, and it is basically dead now.

Say copyright was 28 years, and definitions were made more reasonable. Do you think civil courts are capable of stopping the current abuse that is occurring in an effective manner? I obviously do not.

Maybe, maybe not. It would certainly provide a wealth of material that would enter the public domain immediately. If material from 1981 and before suddenly entered the public domain and you were free to do anything you wanted with it, it would probably keep people very busy for a while.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The judicial system is a sufficient venue for resolution of these matters.

Except that it isn't.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Except that it isn't.

How? Because they find it too difficult or expensive and want to outsource this enforcement to the taxpayers as a whole?

They are free to choose alternatives to the traditional copyright structure, if they want to. You know they don't have to all follow the same path, don't you?

[Atocep]

Sportsdino, you have a serious problem with assuming that anyone that doesn't want to to see people that pirate software, music, ect rot in prison for the rest of their lives is a pirate themselves. Read my fucking posts above and see that I don't pirate shit so stop talking down to me like your somehow morally superior to me.

Best Buy already has enough bad policies, but if 'everyone' started yanking DVDs off the shelves instead of paying for them... I am pretty sure after the first million they would get pissed off enough to put in even draconian measures.

No, they wouldn't. They'd be smart enough to realize that if they went to draconian measures people would stop shopping there and take their business elsewhere. Treat everyone like a criminal and you're going to lose your legit customers.

All of that, and piracy is still a massive force. It resides OUTSIDE the market, quit acting like it is noble or even tolerable. It is like me going to your house, stealing all your stuff, and telling you after the fact "And let that be an incentive to you jackass to buy a better lock for your door!". Do you want to make that a civil matter only and see how far the crime wave goes? Or would you be happy to have the cops bust me?

It absolutely nothing like you coming into my house and stealing a damn thing. If you can't see that then there's no reasoning with you. Piracy is theft, NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING THAT, but to compare it to robbing someone's home is asinine.

Your posting sums up why piracy is still a major problem. Businesses are completely out of touch with their customer base. Instead of looking at pirates as potential customers you look at them as criminals (before you go jumping onto the last sentence read the above paragraph again). Piracy is theft, but pirates are also a big part of your customer base so by attacking them you're going to end up turning your own customers against you.

You want to see a company that has very little problem with piracy and manages to escape the negative PR because of their views on it? Look at Valve. Read Gabe Newell's thoughts on piracy and how Valve as a whole deals with it now and plans to deal with it in the future.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

if you had even a hint of economic knowledge

oh, and go fuck yourself.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Sportsdino, you have a serious problem with assuming that anyone that doesn't want to to see people that pirate software, music, ect rot in prison for the rest of their lives is a pirate themselves.

Nobody here is arguing that pirates should rot in prison for the rest of their lives. That's your false assumption.

[Fidatelo]

I think pirates should have their mousing hand cut off.

[SportsDino]

I'll just cut this short and skip straight to, yes you are an idiot. And Valve's solution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(content_delivery) has its detractors as well (although overall I think it is a great idea).

I will never agree to criminal activity being used to enforce mob rule over content creators. End of story, fuck you, etc.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I was reading the NY Times Editorial on the possible end of paper news and was reminded of this thread. In a way I wonder how much difference there is between downloading copyrighted music illegally and cutting and pasting news (much like I did in the first post of the thread). Somebody went out there and had to get the information for the article and the newspaper (or whatever media source) had to pay that person to write it, pay for the servers, etc.

The more I think about this, the more apropos it feels in this discussion. We've sort of got this "play nice" mutual agreement where we include the source/link/byline when we copy/paste an article...but mostly that's for verification purposes, not because any of us are thinking about the copyright.

In some ways, this is the equivalent of walking into a convenience store, cutting an article out of the paper and passing it around to your friends...or at least in the same way that file sharing is theft.

It's pretty clear that newspapers and other online content providers have accepted this sort of behavior because passing text around easily is the nature of medium. They've done the whole "politely suggest that people cite sources" thing, but don't troll around on message boards suing people who don't.

So, newspapers are a case of IP providers who have embraced the new business model.

Unfortunately, they all seem to be going belly up. I'm not sure what that means for the record industry and a new, internet-based business model.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

How? Because they find it too difficult or expensive and want to outsource this enforcement to the taxpayers as a whole?

Because the person who pirated may not have anything to give up. There is plenty of white collar crime that is considered "crime" for reasons like this.

Originally Posted by Tekneek

They are free to choose alternatives to the traditional copyright structure, if they want to. You know they don't have to all follow the same path, don't you?

What alternatives would you suggest that will deter people from stealing? How else do you propose to protect something like video games where having the playable format in electronic form means you can play it how you want? Sure, everything could be an MMO, but even they are dealing with the nightmare of security and hacking and piracy. Sure, you can do episodic content, but then everyone gets mad that you didn't ship the data with the game to begin with.

The major players are still trying to figure out how exactly the law should deal with this. Copyright was an early easy model, but it doesn't quite fit software. Hence some of the changes, like the attempt to criminalize it. It's much like hacking; you aren't physically trespassing, but you are virtually trespassing. The law has to adapt to keep up with technological changes.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Drake

The more I think about this, the more apropos it feels in this discussion. We've sort of got this "play nice" mutual agreement where we include the source/link/byline when we copy/paste an article...but mostly that's for verification purposes, not because any of us are thinking about the copyright.

Technically, you aren't supposed to paste the whole article, just an excerpt with a link to it.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's much like hacking; you aren't physically trespassing, but you are virtually trespassing. The law has to adapt to keep up with technological changes.

They don't charge you with "virtually trespassing." It is unauthorized access. Also not the kind of thing that was historically dealt with in civil courts, is it? Or have they routinely been trying people in civil courts for unauthorized entry?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Technically, you aren't supposed to paste the whole article, just an excerpt with a link to it.

I wish somebody would take care of that copyright infringer. No tolerance for any of it, I tell you! There don't have to be damages, you just have to infringe!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

They don't charge you with "virtually trespassing." It is unauthorized access. Also not the kind of thing that was historically dealt with in civil courts, is it? Or have they routinely been trying people in civil courts for unauthorized entry?

Now you're coming full circle. Making a copy of a video game is stealing, and that hasn't routinely been tried in civil courts either, has it?

Copyright was originally intended to cover written material, period. It got extended to things like sheet music. There was no recorded music at the time (copying the actual performance, or a particular reading of a novel), no movies, and certainly no software. It used to be an issue between businesses, now individuals with little to no income can do the copying. Times have changed, and the law is changing to keep up with them. Deal with it. One of the government's jobs is to regulate commerce, it's even in the Constitution.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I wish somebody would take care of that copyright infringer. No tolerance for any of it, I tell you! There don't have to be damages, you just have to infringe!

And you've ignored every case of damages I've presented here. Video game pirates do PLENTY of damage beyond the (potentially) lost sale of the game.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Now you're coming full circle. Making a copy of a video game is stealing, and that hasn't routinely been tried in civil courts either, has it?

Is it stealing? Or are you infringing copyright? Or both? Which is it?

It got extended to things like sheet music. There was no recorded music at the time (copying the actual performance, or a particular reading of a novel), no movies, and certainly no software. It used to be an issue between businesses, now individuals with little to no income can do the copying. Times have changed, and the law is changing to keep up with them. Deal with it.

So, in effect, people go to jail because they don't have the resources to pay for their damages. Is this the new version of debtor's prison?

One of the government's jobs is to regulate commerce, it's even in the Constitution.

Are they charged with regulating commerce, or regulating commerce between states? The latter is what I recall, but I have not read the document in a while. That would mean that they should not be involved with commerce that starts and stops within a particular state, unless my recollection is wrong.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And you've ignored every case of damages I've presented here. Video game pirates do PLENTY of damage beyond the (potentially) lost sale of the game.

I have not ignored any of it. Maybe I didn't jump and down and proclaim it proof that copyright infringement is criminal. I'll grant that much.

[Tekneek]

Unauthorized access is unauthorized access, whether you go through a door, window, or enter a computer system. If I take your book, it is not copyright infringement. It is only copyright infringement if I copy and use your book without authorization. They are not the same thing and saying it over and over again will not make it so.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

So, in effect, people go to jail because they don't have the resources to pay for their damages. Is this the new version of debtor's prison?

I think you're missing the point. Nobody's saying, "the restitution would be huge, nobody could afford it, the intellectual property owners could never be made whole, so let's send them to jail instead". Jail isn't an alternative to paying fines. It's a punishment, independent of fines and restitution.

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Are they charged with regulating commerce, or regulating commerce between states? The latter is what I recall, but I have not read the document in a while. That would mean that they should not be involved with commerce that starts and stops within a particular state, unless my recollection is wrong.

Copyright isn't authorized by the commerce clause (though FYI, the commerce clause has been interpreted extremely liberally, and allows Congress tor regulate pretty much everything - they could easily regulate copyright protection under the commerce caluse), it's actually authorized by the....Copyright Clause:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, empowers US Congress:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Now I'm sure that you don't feel that the current copyright time is "limited", but Congress was given clear obvious power to regulate Copyright, including criminally.

It's pretty amazing that the framers were so concerned with copyright protection before recorded music, the internet, etc. That's pretty telling.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Unauthorized access is unauthorized access, whether you go through a door, window, or enter a computer system. If I take your book, it is not copyright infringement. It is only copyright infringement if I copy and use your book without authorization. They are not the same thing and saying it over and over again will not make it so.

You are right. It's also not grand theft auto. But all of them are versions of theft and all should be criminal acts. That's all we're saying.

[molson]

The plaintiff in a criminal case is "the people". A "wrong" becomes criminal, rather than civil, when it implicates more than the people involved in the transaction. You breach a contract, that's between you and the other party. You steal something, that has ramifications on our entire economy.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

I think you're missing the point. Nobody's saying, "the restitution would be huge, nobody could afford it, the intellectual property owners could never be made whole, so let's send them to jail instead". Jail isn't an alternative to paying fines. It's a punishment, independent of fines and restitution.

Oh. I must have misunderstood. I would have sworn that some people in this thread were saying that you had to really punish these people because there was no hope that they could ever pay for the damages caused.

Now I'm sure that you don't feel that the current copyright time is "limited", but Congress was given clear obvious power to regulate Copyright, including criminally.

It's pretty amazing that the framers were so concerned with copyright protection before recorded music, the internet, etc. That's pretty telling.

No arguments here. I am sure they understood the value of giving creators exclusive license for a limited time. They also believed in public domain, which we are told is completely unimportant because nobody can turn a buck on it. Our economy will totally collapse if we don't let corporations hold copyrights for 120 years.

If you date the birth of the US as July 4, 1776, that makes us only 232 years old. A current copyright term of 120 years, being more than half of the age of the entire nation, is certainly not "limited" by any reasonable interpretation of the word.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You are right. It's also not grand theft auto. But all of them are versions of theft and all should be criminal acts. That's all we're saying.

Why was it not criminal before the late 90s?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

You steal something, that has ramifications on our entire economy.

Are you suggesting our current economic troubles are due to the unauthorized distribution of software, music, and movies?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Why was it not criminal before the late 90s?

I don't know, I was not privy to their discussions.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know, I was not privy to their discussions.

But if it has always been theft, as you claim, how come it went unnoticed for nearly 200 years? Surely you have a theory, don't you?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Are you suggesting our current economic troubles are due to the unauthorized distribution of software, music, and movies?

no

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

no

Oh, good. I thought you were claiming that it has been devastating to our economy, yet it seemed to be going pretty strong until December of 2007. I'm trying to find the major ramifications/effects this is having on our economy.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

But if it has always been theft, as you claim, how come it went unnoticed for nearly 200 years? Surely you have a theory, don't you?

I don't know if it's always been considered theft. I know it is considered theft now though.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know if it's always been considered theft. I know it is considered theft now though.

And you have no theory as to why it wasn't "in the public interest" to make it criminal 20 years ago? Even 15 years ago?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

And you have no theory as to why it wasn't "in the public interest" to make it criminal 20 years ago? Even 15 years ago?

My theory would be that technology dramatically changed.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Technically, you aren't supposed to paste the whole article, just an excerpt with a link to it.

Technically, but no one is going to court over it...despite the fact that this practice may be even more universally ignored than mp3 piracy.

And one thing we know about copyright protection is that if the copyright holder isn't aggressive in defending it, the courts have historically not enforced it. That is, the courts have treated copyright as a civil matter -- you tell us infringement took place, then we'll notice. We (as agents of the government) won't go looking for it on your behalf.

So, did the newspaper folks as an industry just decide that it was too difficult to go the RIAA's route? Or are newspaper articles worth less as artifacts than songs?

I'm sort of curious about why written text folks went the other route for the same offense.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My theory would be that technology dramatically changed.

I can appreciate this. The capability of the average person to do wonders with "consumer grade" hardware is vastly improved today.

I don't know if I will ever be swayed completely to the other side, but the discussion has helped me better understand the different views that are out there.

I would certainly be more inclined to agree to more draconian copyright infringement protections if I knew that the terms were limited, and not subject to another round of payoffs next time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain.

[gstelmack]

The reason it is "theft" is that we are dealing with an amorphous medium and aren't talking about physical copies at all. It's where the confusion and debate comes in. You can make a copy without affecting the original, you can make a copy very cheaply, and you can then distribute that copy very cheaply. The second two were not around when the original laws were put in place, so the law is adjusting. Copyright was used early when there were no laws to cover the change in technology, and now those laws are being updated and do consider it theft. Penalties for those in possession are mild (damage can be minimal), penalties for those who distribute should be severe (even RIAA went after folks for making their music available, the whole debate was over whether or not those folks were aware they were making it available), and penalties for those who make the copies to distribute should also be severe.

[gstelmack]

Also understand it's a broad spectrum the laws are trying to keep up with. Everything from singing "Happy Birthday" at a party, through downloading an MP3, through bootlegging a pre-release album, to copying a DVD from a friend, to uploading that DVD to a filesharing service, to copying a game, to calling the game company's tech support hotline, to decrying all over the internet message boards how buggy your pirated copy of a game is, to distribuing the game/DVD/album on the streets in Asia, and on and on. There is a wide spectrum of damages here, and it's a far cry from printing a book or sheet music back in the 1700s...

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Penalties for those in possession are mild (damage can be minimal), penalties for those who distribute should be severe (even RIAA went after folks for making their music available, the whole debate was over whether or not those folks were aware they were making it available), and penalties for those who make the copies to distribute should also be severe.

I have a friend who once worked for Sony Records. There is something he told me about the industry that just doesn't jive with the gung ho approach some of you have to this issue. It goes down like this...

For every CD that was released under the watch of his manager, his manager would get about 25,000 CDs for himself. He could give these away, sell them, put them in the dumpster, it did not matter. The artists received NOTHING for these. They were an off the books transaction, effectively. These were routinely sold through a distributor ran by a family member, turning significant bucks on the side that did not have to be shared with the company or the artists involved. He claims this is standard operating procedure in the industry. The executives potentially make lots of off the table money from each album that comes out of their studio. This guy is trustworthy, but I have not talked to anybody else who has been on the inside somewhere else to see if it really is rampant in the industry.

For the sake of argument, if this is true, is this theft and/or copyright infringement?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I have a friend who once worked for Sony Records. There is something he told me about the industry that just doesn't jive with the gung ho approach some of you have to this issue. It goes down like this...

For every CD that was released under the watch of his manager, his manager would get about 25,000 CDs for himself. He could give these away, sell them, put them in the dumpster, it did not matter. The artists received NOTHING for these. They were an off the books transaction, effectively. These were routinely sold through a distributor ran by a family member, turning significant bucks on the side that did not have to be shared with the company or the artists involved. He claims this is standard operating procedure in the industry. The executives potentially make lots of off the table money from each album that comes out of their studio. This guy is trustworthy, but I have not talked to anybody else who has been on the inside somewhere else to see if it really is rampant in the industry.

For the sake of argument, if this is true, is this theft and/or copyright infringement?

No, because the record label owns the copyright. It's their CDs, they can do whatever the hell they want with them, it's their right. NOT the consumer. There is no entitlement to free music just because the copyright owner decides to award an essential bonus to an employee. This is like McDonalds givings away free french fries to employees, and then someone complaining that they don't you free french fries too. It's THEIR french fries. (If the artist doesn't like that the label does that, don't sign away copyrights to the label).

You keep saying that you're not claiming infringement isn't wrong, you just don't think it should be criminal, but you continue to try to minimize it. Stealing an album or a video game isn't the worst crime ever. It's like stealing a toothbrush, maybe even less, on an individual level.

[thesloppy]

I've never understood how the sale/trade of used records/cds/video games fits under copyright law, seeing how many is being exchanged, and some sort of property is being exchanged, but certainly nobody with any claim to that intellectual property is getting a single cent of that transaction, or has any control over it. If I buy a used CD, aren't I 'stealing from the artist' in exactly the same measure as if I downloaded the MP3s for free? It doesn't seem that the fact that some greasy middleman at the pawnshop gets $5 from me, should invalidate the copyright. Likewise, if the original purchase of the property gives me the right to sell or give away that property at my convenience, how come I can't give it away digitally? I understand the ethical complaint, I just don't understand the legalese of how the sale or giving away of second-hand copyright material is considered legal. Anyone care to 'splain to me?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

No, because the record label owns the copyright. It's their CDs, they can do whatever the hell they want with them, it's their right. NOT the consumer. There is no entitlement to free music just because the copyright owner decides to award an essential bonus to an employee. This is like McDonalds givings away free french fries to employees, and then someone complaining that they don't you free french fries too. It's THEIR french fries. (If the artist doesn't like that the label does that, don't sign away copyrights to the label).

What? It was a simple question. I am concerned that reading is something you are not good at. I never said anything about entitlement. Are you on Earth?

You keep saying that you're not knowing infringement is wrong, you just don't think it should be criminal, but you continue to try to minimize it. Stealing an album or a video game isn't the worst crime ever. It's like stealing a toothbrush, maybe even less, on an individual level.

I keep saying that I am not knowing infringement is wrong? What the hell does that even mean? And then I try to minimize it? When did I do that?

[Coder]

I'm just curious, how much extra revenue does the used games/cd industry bring back to the companies? If EB sells a used PS3 game for $40, how much of that is pure profit and how much is going back to the game-developers? And if a used CD is sold from any of the Used CD stores, does any of that go back to the artist or is it "pure profit" for the retailer?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Coder

I'm just curious, how much extra revenue does the used games/cd industry bring back to the companies? If EB sells a used PS3 game for $40, how much of that is pure profit and how much is going back to the game-developers? And if a used CD is sold from any of the Used CD stores, does any of that go back to the artist or is it "pure profit" for the retailer?

The answers:
A) Zero.
B) How much of that is profit for the retailer? 100%, developers? 0%
C)How much of that is profit for the retailer? 100%, developers? 0%

[Shkspr]

On the other hand, on the initial sale of an item, retailers only take a 15-20% margin, which isn't enough to keep a store open. The real issue is how much extra revenue would a developer take in if specialty retailers were to cease to exist?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

The real issue is how much extra revenue would a developer take in if specialty retailers were to cease to exist?

People might buy less games, music, and movies if they knew they would never be able to trade/sell it w/o dealing with the corporate machine. I've been told that the used game business is the only way that teens, for example, are able to bring their market forces to that industry. If they were not able to sell back or trade in their games at their favorite game store, they would be buying a lot less games every year.

I am sure the industry would love to put a stop to all of that gray market activity, since they are a cartel and want a cut of every transaction.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

People might buy less games, music, and movies if they knew they would never be able to trade/sell it w/o dealing with the corporate machine. I've been told that the used game business is the only way that teens, for example, are able to bring their market forces to that industry. If they were not able to sell back or trade in their games at their favorite game store, they would be buying a lot less games every year.

I am sure the industry would love to put a stop to all of that gray market activity, since they are a cartel and want a cut of every transaction.

What if distributors went all in on the online-market and cut the prices of their software, removing the costs involved with distribution?

I find it astounding that I have to pay €49 for a game on Steam that I can buy a hard-copy of for €39, only because the distributors "do not want to force physical retailers out of business"..

I bought 4 games the last week, Majesty, Stronghold, Crusader Kings and Victoria. Paid max $15 for the most expensive one. Not only did I buy them easily online, I don't have to have physical CDs lying around the office either. All games are stored on servers and I can install/uninstall at my own convenience.

There were no distribution costs for neither Paradox nor GoG in these cases, no CD-pressing costs, not physical storing costs. Bandwidth and server costs, yes, but in comparison they're low.

So why do I have to pay more for a digital copy of a game than for a physical copy in the case of, for example, FM? Oh, I forgot to mention, the Steam-price is excl. VAT, which is included in the store-price.

This tirade may sound like it has nothing to do with the Pirate Bay trial, but what I'm sort of getting at is that the main reason younger people do not buy games is because they're WAY too expensive. Lower the prices, see the sales go up, I promise.

Before I bought the four bargain-games, I hadn't bought a game since February, when I bought FM, in a store by the way. Before then I hadn't bought a game since July last year, and it was Madden 08 for the PS3 for $39.. I haven't pirated a game since I had a Commodore 64 in the 80s, but I've gone from buying perhaps a game or two a month to hardly buying any games at all.. they're not worth it.. while I can afford them, I don't think a game I usually end up playing for two-three hours before being bored is worth the price of 6-7 lunches.

[gstelmack]

I've seen the Steam studies on the lowering of prices, and they are intriguing.

But if the price is too high, don't buy, it's that simple. High prices do not justify stealing; we're dealing with games (movies/music), not food. If people didn't buy at the prices, they'd either come down or the developers/publishers would go out of business. That still does not give you the right to a free copy of the game. And it certainly doesn't give you a right to call tech support when you have a problem with the game you stole.

[Tekneek]

Prices are an ancillary issue, not a primary issue. For several years now I have only been buying games that are one version older, and often priced very low as a result, or taking advantage of other discounts. I do not pay retail for any games.

I don't buy more than 2 or 3 a year, at best.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I've seen the Steam studies on the lowering of prices, and they are intriguing.

But if the price is too high, don't buy, it's that simple. High prices do not justify stealing; we're dealing with games (movies/music), not food. If people didn't buy at the prices, they'd either come down or the developers/publishers would go out of business. That still does not give you the right to a free copy of the game. And it certainly doesn't give you a right to call tech support when you have a problem with the game you stole.

I'm not buying games at high prices, nor do I pirate them. I'm just saying that I'm sure that lowering prices would have a positive effect on sales versus pirated copies.

I know you've been pushing the issue about tech support etc, and I'm not objecting to that.. I'm just saying that the entire debate and all of the companies resources are focused on preventing piracy by bringing people to court.. no one is trying to see what's wrong with the industry..

WHY ARE PEOPLE PIRATING!?

It's not as easy as saying "because they can".. I know how to and I'm not doing it.. I bet most people on this board know how to, and they're still not doing it. Try to find the root cause of the issue rather than just pointing fingers (that's a general suggestion to all game distributors).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think that a large percentage of pirates would still do it if the games cost $5.

[gstelmack]

The root cause of the issue has already been pointed out: when given a choice between "free" and "costs something", many many many people will choose "free" regardless of the consequences. There remain just enough that are willing to pay for games to keep things rolling along, but there are plenty that just want it for free.

Yes, reducing the price can reduce that equation, but that mostly works for online distribution where you are cutting out middelmen (and console games are more difficult, because in addition to the retailer / distributor, the console maker gets a cut as well), and the remaining middleman (the distributor) has to be willing to take less as well. But online distribution is certainly gaining in popularity, and may in fact become the wave of the future.

However, even cheap casual games deal with piracy, so you still have to combat it. There are plenty of crimes where you can remove the incentive to do it, but people still do it, so you still have to have punishment in place to deter it.

And as I've said above, this does not necessarily involve going after the individual person who downloads a game, which all the people arguing against me want to focus on. Pirate Bay helped distribute pirated software. THOSE are the folks you really need to go after, and I'm happy to see companies doing so.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The root cause of the issue has already been pointed out: when given a choice between "free" and "costs something", many many many people will choose "free" regardless of the consequences. There remain just enough that are willing to pay for games to keep things rolling along, but there are plenty that just want it for free.

Valid point.. but look at it from this angle: Those who do "pay to play".. can they be encouraged to buy more games? I may be a minority, but as I pointed out in another post, I've gone from buying 2-3 games a month to maybe buying one full price game every 6 months. Can I be encouraged to buy more games? If so, how?

I'm willing to bet that many of those people who pirate games today would not buy them even if there was no alternative.. While they're stealing the product, it's not a lost sale since they wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

Focus on the people who want to pay, and give them better offers..