Piratey Things!

[allenfrisch]

How do you guys feel about piracy? Personally, I feel that on the one hand it is obviously wrong and should be treated the same way as other forms of stealing. But at the same time it seems to me that the movie/music/gaming industries almost ask for it by keeping prices artificially high.

For instance, the music companies all complain incessantly that they are losing Buhjillions of dollars every year because of music-downloading on Kazaa and the other Napster-wannabes. They now think that the reason they've FINALLY made some headway is because they've prosecuted a handful of teenagers who were caught with too many Brittany Spears .mp3 files on their hard-drives. But I believe the real reason fewer people are illegally sharing these files is because the music companies have made LEGAL downloading convenient enough and cheap enough for the average person to want to invest in them! Most people out their are no longer willing to shell out $12.99 on a cd which contains 2 good songs out of 15! But they ARE willing to spend $.75 on a song they love! I contend that the risk/reward for legal downloading of music has finally equalized. I honestly believe that the majority of people out there would like to view/listen/play their multimedia stuff legally but simply can't afford it! Fortunately, it appears technology is starting to force the music industry to change its practices. I hope the same thing will happen with movies and videogames soon. I can't believe that I'm forced to spend nearly $10 to see a movie at the theaters these days! It's just outrageous and unfair that the major theater chains all collude to keep the prices artificially high in this way.

Anywho, what does everyone else out there think? Am I out of my gourd or what?

[Darksol]

My policy is simple : reward good work . punish bad work. It all works out since the ratio of good work vs. bad work is such that bad work easily wins out.

[allenfrisch]

I'm not sure what you mean. Give me an example, if you don't mind.

[jamcat]

Well, some people are MP3 whores, I'm a abandonware whore. But if the games are no longer available for sale, there is no other way to get them than to download pirated copies.

I do like cracks & serials though. If there is a shareware program I like, I'll scour the web for a crack, serial, or key code to unlock the full version.

[allenfrisch]

I agree that it seems wrong when websites are sent "Cease and Desist" notices for making 30 year old game ROMs available that you would have a hard time finding otherwise. I don't think I would go so far as to say it's okay to crack current software without the creator getting his due though. If there isn't a complete version available for trial then I suppose I'd have no problem with someone using a crack to try it on for size. But I'm sticking to my original theory. Jamcat, wouldn't you be willing to pay to download most of that stuff you enjoy if the price was low enough?

[jamcat]

Well, not if anybody is going to do like Nintendo. Charging $20 for single NES games for the GBA.

Maybe if old DOS games were available to download for $1 per title.

Though the internet is like a "badlands". Anything put up on it is fair game. Yeah, it's wrong to pirate, but if stuff is just sitting on the web for the taking, well hell, people are going to take it.

Before the days of having a PC, if I wanted a NES game, I would have to go to places like FuncoLand/GameStop and pay crazy high prices for even COMMON NES games. But with getting a PC and finding TONS of ROMS on the web, why would I still go to places like them?

[Darksol]

I'm not sure what you mean. Give me an example, if you don't mind.
It means I try out every game before I buy it. If it in my mind rates at least 8 out 10 I will buy it. If it doesn't then I don't buy it. I won't reward people who put out garbage even if their company forces them to .

[allenfrisch]

It means I try out every game before I buy it. If it in my mind rates at least 8 out 10 I will buy it. If it doesn't then I don't buy it. I won't reward people who put out garbage even if their company forces them to .
Gotcha! Okay then, I think that's legit. I do the same thing myself.

[allenfrisch]

Well, not if anybody is going to do like Nintendo. Charging $20 for single NES games for the GBA.

Maybe if old DOS games were available to download for $1 per title.

Though the internet is like a "badlands". Anything put up on it is fair game. Yeah, it's wrong to pirate, but if stuff is just sitting on the web for the taking, well hell, people are going to take it.

Before the days of having a PC, if I wanted a NES game, I would have to go to places like FuncoLand/GameStop and pay crazy high prices for even COMMON NES games. But with getting a PC and finding TONS of ROMS on the web, why would I still go to places like them?
I think we're saying pretty much the same thing. I totally agree that paying $19.99 to play Mario Bros. on my GBA is ridiculous. But if Nintendo were to sell me a GBA cart with 20 or 30 NES games for $19.99, I would consider that a fair deal and would be more than happy to give them their due.

I do disagree with you that if something's available on the internet then it's okay to take. Just because you park your shiny new sports car out in public doesn't give passersby the right to jump in and claim it as their own. That's Generation Gimme teenager talk. Read my lips people: you are NOT entitled to have everything that you want! You are entitled to EARN everything that you want.

[jamcat]

It's like this. If you walk by a vending machine and see a candy bar is in the chute, and you take it, are you going to put 50 cents in the machine for it? I'm sure 99.9 percent of people would just take the bar and not put 50 cents in the machine for it. It's like the web. If people can download pirate copies of Doom 3 or Half-Life 2, why buy 'em?

[Darksol]

It's like this. If you walk by a vending machine and see a candy bar is in the chute, and you take it, are you going to put 50 cents in the machine for it? I'm sure 99.9 percent of people would just take the bar and not put 50 cents in the machine for it. It's like the web. If people can download pirate copies of Doom 3 or Half-Life 2, why buy 'em?
Because even if I download everything I play, there will be a few gems in all of the cruft that I will get. The developers who make these gems should be compensated for their efforts. Once you buy a game you better ****ing like it because you can't return them these days for a refund ( EB used to , but no more because of beating the game quick or copying ) . However that brings up an interesting point. So many games these days can be beat in 10-15 hours that the sellers have to worry about people returning games. If you bought a game like Robotron, Sinistar, Galaga, Pacman, or Space Invaders, are you going to return it? You can play those games forever ( or at least a very long time ) and still not be finished with them.

Why would I want to put the people who make good software out of business ? A lot of these people who publish good games are small indepedent publishers. I can directly see the effect my actions will take on them. On the other hand, who wouldn't want to screw a company like EA as much as possible ?

So if you download a game these companies count each download as a lost sale , but if the download wasn't available how many of these people who downloaded would buy it ? Any who did would stand to be ripped off because they can't return this product if they don't like it. Look at the business model for MMORPGS. I don't pay them for when I use their service. I have to buy their software and pay for the service. And some of these services will lock your account after it has been activated if you do not play in a 60 day time period. (I hope no one is going on a semester long excursion . Thanks a lot Squaresoft for introducing this feature into FFXI ).

Just to wrap things up , even when everything is available to you at the click of a button, there still has to be some honor among thieves :)

[jamcat]

Hahaha, used games. That is where places like EB, GameStop, and Game Crazy rape gamers. They give you a fraction of what the game is worth in credit, then turn around and re-sell it for little over half the original price. So I guess that is how they make up for people who quickly buy a game, beat it, and trade it in.

Game companies are like the music companies with CDs. They inflate the price of games. That is why I will NOT pay anything more than $20 for a game. I don't see how they can charge $50 for a game, when you can get a DVD movie with MORE value for $20.

People may say it takes tons of people to make a game these days. Yeah, so? It takes tons of people to make a movie to, yet DVD movies are cheaper than games.

[WorknMan]

When it comes to greedy companies, let's consider the music industry for a moment. People think they have three options:

1. Pay $15 for a CD, most of which have maybe 1-2 good songs
2. Buy music online that is DRM'd out the ass
3. Pirate the music

But, I offer as an alternative, option #4:

4. Don't buy the music, and don't pirate it either - just do without for awhile

If people were to do that, the RIAA would either be forced to behave or else be put out of its misery. But as long as people continue to pirate the music, that just gives them more ammo to go to congress and take away even more of our fair use rights. Same goes for the game and movie industry - just boycott them, and keep in mind that digital entertainment is not air - you don't have to have it. The way this economy is supposed to work is that if a company comes out with a product and charges too much for it, you just don't buy it. But some people have decided to use the 'back door' approach and steal it, giving corporate terrorists like the BSA and IDSA a reason to exist.

If you do decide to go the piracy route, especially for stuff you can still legally buy easily, stop putting the blame on greedy corporations and just admit you're a criminal. Because that's all you are ... a petty thief. I'm not saying don't pirate, just don't make up lame-ass excuses to justify your greed, ok?

[Shane R. Monroe]

Here is my view on this topic ... as a developer, as a supporter of software, and as a person that, like everyone else, toes the line from time to time ...

I don't believe a single piece of software is worth more than $100; unless you can REASONABLY use it to make 5-10x more than that. For example - if you're using Alias Wavefront to make a motion picture, you should spend the $50k it costs - that's part of THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS. If you make DVDs for a living, you have no BUSINESS AT ALL pirating the mastering software you use, or the graphics package to create the art work, or the audio package you made the sound with.

Most businesses understand 'the cost of doing business' and they pay for software, even though much of it is HORRIBLY overpriced. That cost works for the company come tax time - so, whatever.

Now, let's talk about home software. There is no piece of software for home use worth more than about $50. Not email. Not a browser. Nothing. You can't expect a home user to cough up that kind of cash. You also cannot expect a user to pay $50 APIECE for licenses to run on your LAN or PC/Laptop. If I'm using Dopus on my laptop, I'm obviously not using it at that moment on my desktop - that's SINGLE USE in my book.

Morally speaking; if software is good enough to use everyday, and its not priced more than $10-$50, you shouldn't be stealing it. If the software costs more than you can bear, you need to figure out whether you NEED it or not. I NEED Dopus. For $59, its saved me more time and frustration than anything else I run daily. Its worth breaking my $50 price point for it. I paid for Opera. I paid for THE BAT. I paid for a LOT of stuff. More than I ever spent on the Amiga or C64. Hell, I bought Nero, Trillian ... Nero hurt ($59 I think) - but consider I use it for mastering, burning, encoding movies, etc. - it was a good value to me.

"Something given has no value" ... its worth pondering that.

[allenfrisch]

Once again, the members of this forum are a step ahead of the mainstream media. I feel so vidicated! Here's an article from CNN.com:

Survey: Net file-sharing doesn't hurt most musicians
Monday, December 6, 2004 Posted: 10:09 AM EST (1509 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Most musicians and artists say the Internet has helped them make more money from their work despite online file-trading services that allow users to copy songs and other material for free, according to a study released Sunday.
Recording labels and movie studios have hired phalanxes of lawyers to pursue "peer to peer" networks like Kazaa, and have sued thousands of individuals who distribute copyrighted material through such networks.
But most of the artists surveyed by the nonprofit Pew Internet and American Life Project said online file sharing did not concern them much.
Artists were split on the merits of peer-to-peer networks, with 47 percent saying that they prevent artists from earning royalties for their work and another 43 percent saying they helped promote and distribute their material.
But two-thirds of those surveyed said file sharing posed little threat to them, and less than one-third of those surveyed said file sharing was a major threat to creative industries.
Only 3 percent said the Internet hurt their ability to protect their creative works.
"What we hear from a wide spectrum of artists is that, despite the real challenges of protecting work online, the Internet has opened new ways for them to exercise their imaginations and sell their creations," said report author Mary Madden, a research specialist at the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
The nonprofit group based its report on a survey of 809 self-identified artists in December 2003. The survey has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Copyright 2004 Reuters </interactive_legal.html>. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Flare]

On the topic; here's an article from the Daily Vanguard titled: "The RIAA shouldn't stop piracy"

http://www.dailyvanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/26/435f47180fd3f

Nice read!

[Shane R. Monroe]

Good article except this BS ...

Apple Computer’s founder Steve Jobs helped to revolutionize the MP3 downloading format, with the popular iTunes program. This program links directly into a huge online music database, where just about any song imaginable is downloadable for 99 cents.

You cannot download from iTunes in MP3 format. If you could, I'd probably use it.

[WorknMan]

Question is - if the RIAA were to drop the price of CDs to $5 a piece and people were still pirating, what excuse will the pirates use then?

[Shane R. Monroe]

I'll tell you right now, I'd buy TONS more music on physical CD at $5 an album than I do now. That's money they didn't have before. I'd PREFER it on CD, actually - then I could rip it to the EXACT specs I require.

I suspect a LOT of people would feel the same way. Would it STOP piracy? No ... nothing will stop piracy. However, if the RIAA is crying about lost revenue, that is something they have DIRECT control over through pricing.

[TripHamer]

As I understand it more and more young people get their music online instead of paying for it. As for me, I bought the majority of my music in my teen years to early 20's, (I'm 37 now, btw) so I'll buy very little at this point. I already have most of the music I'm interested in. But if it's something I really like, I'll buy it. I like the idea of having a professionally made copy. And like Shane, I'll rip them to my specs, for portable devices and such (for my personal use).

If the music industry wants to keep their profits up they need to observe the behavior of their potential customers and find a way to sell it to them.

If you could download what you want and it's cheep, quick and easy to find and download and with great quality, you may be more likely to do that then to look for a "free" version somewhere that's of questionable quality.

How about this. A music vending machine. Just put some money in it, or swipe a credit card (or a special card or some sort). Then insert your removable media. (SD, MMC, USB, whatever). Search for the songs you want and download them to your media and off you go. It's quick, easy and you can place one almost anywhere (assuming you have all the songs installed in the vending machine). You get the idea. Plus, the music could be throwaway and if they lose it, they can always go and buy it again! :)

I just thought of that. It could be a big money maker. :)

[Shane R. Monroe]

They've tried this a few times in many formats ... Namely, cassettes. There was a kiosk that you could choose the songs, it fit them on two sides, and in an hour, you got a custom cassette with pro label and everything for about a buck a song. I bought a couple ... $22 cassette tapes ...

[Flare]

...I bought the majority of my music in my teen years to early 20's, (I'm 37 now, btw) so I'll buy very little at this point. I already have most of the music I'm interested in. But if it's something I really like, I'll buy it. Me too. I only buy CDs when they are LIMITED EDITION versions, like special novelty cases; booklets and all. I then rip it off and never play the original disc again.

[TheAlien]

I'd like to chirp in a little, if I may. There are some great ideas that have been submitted here, lowering the cost of the cds to fit the market price (making something affordable will undoubtably lessen theft, as most people are inherently honest) and placing an accurate cost on software for the home user -- again for the same reason.

And there have been a few social commentaries that are just out there somewhere in lala land. "If you walk by a vending machine and see a candy bar is in the chute, and you take it, are you going to put 50 cents in the machine for it? I'm sure 99.9 percent of people would just take the bar and not put 50 cents in the machine for it." It's a sad life if you think 99.9 percent of the people on the planet today are thieves.

Here are my thoughts:

Having worked in radio for over 8 years, I have accumulated over 5,500 songs on my computer that I use, all of which are either purchased or promo items. My computer is my entertainment center. I use it to send my music throughout my apartment, make my own CDs for my car and my mp3 player, and I have burned a few CDs for friends. When I have used sharing programs, WinMX to be precise, I have shared out a directory or two averaging a couple dozen hard-to-find songs. Most of the songs that I have downloaded are usually lost stuff almost nobody has heard of and can't be found anywhere else, "Ben Colder, Almost Pursuaded" for example. If there is a song I want bad enough, I'll go buy the darn thing. But I have to want it bad enough to spend the bucks for it.

As for software, I do have some pirated software. I actually think that most people do (contrary to my earlier expression of belief that most people are honest). -- there comes a time when each of us have just given up on trusting companies to provide what they promise -- I have been burned by purchasing software that just doesn't live up to its advertised abilities. For example, buying Sonic MyDVD for $149 only to find that it sucks, and that my purchased copy of Pinnacle Studio at $199 (with all the extras) works much better for my needs. So, when I see another program that works better than both and can get a crack for it to extend the use (most have time limitations and you have to sign up for another year of use) then I'll crack the expiration.

It all comes down to this:

If music companies priced their products where the typical customer (not the average one (there's a market price difference)) can afford it, most people would pay for it. Go back to being able to make your own CD with the songs you like (remember being able to do that?), for an equitable price, and purchase it.

If software companies did like most shareware companies do and allow you to try the full version, complete with all the extras and no yearly renewals, usable on all your home computers like a site license would provide, most people would purchase it once they decided that it did what they needed it to do.

Sharing software and music, because you just don't want to pay for anything ever, is wrong. I have a belief that most people would agree with that. But paying exhorbitant prices for software only to find that it doesn't do what is promised, then having to pay again over and over again for yearly updates or renewals on the stuff you actually do like is also wrong. Pay a reasonable price for what you like and get refunds for what you don't.
Did any of that make sense?

[WorknMan]

I have downloaded a few apps to try out that don't have demo versions (such as Dragon Naturally Speaking). If I don't like them, I delete them. If I do, I buy them. I don't really consider that to be pirated software. Some apps are simply too expensive to purchase on a lark and hope they do what you need them to do.

IMHO, EVERY app should have a demo version. The honest people will download and try them if interested. The rest will simply pirate the app, regardless if there's a demo version or not. If the app is huge, I honestly don't mind paying a few bones to have the demo shipped to me on CD/DVD.

[Flare]

On a related note; take a look at this...

http://ned.ucam.org/~sdh31/internet/owe.html

Make sure you read the moral of the story.

[redrain85]

Good article, but yeah . . . the author made a huge gaffe. iTunes has never offered MP3s to my knowledge. It's always been AACs with DRM protection.

You wonder sometimes why the companies haven't learned that draconian anti-piracy measures simply don't work. It leads to a vicious circle where they keep upping the ante, and the "scene" trumps them every time. Meaning even more ridiculous and expensive copy protection measures that keep being added to the cost of the product: which raises the price even further, and WE'RE expected to pay for it. Ludicrous.

[TheAlien]

[quote=redrain85]Good article, but yeah . . . the author made a huge gaffe. iTunes has never offered MP3s to my knowledge. It's always been AACs with DRM protection.
quote]

iTunes is just another scam in my opinion. Reminds me of when we used to have 45's. You could only play them on a record player, that's it. But you could still make a tape of them if you really wanted to so you could play them on your 8-track in your car (Arghhhh!!!). Anything you get from iTunes has to be played in iTunes or on your iPod. That's it, nothing else, ever, period, end of life. (although there are fixes for that too) Even when I bought 45's, you still got two songs for the price of one. Ahhh, the good ole days. Ok, so I just gave away my age.:eek: