Here's some more examples.

It doesn't seem like copyright has done its' job of encouraging innovation to me. Speaking of which, it doesn't seem to me like most copyrighted entertainment is much more creative and innovative than a modern take/reinterpretation of ancient Greek plays.

/of reply to Simon

I've ranted about these piracy and copyright arguments before, but what I dislike about it more than the monopolies copyright tries to create is the rent-seeking and limits on free speech it allows. This usually doesn't even get brought up in these debates. Usually it's just about them filthy, thieving pirates and how copyright is good because copying is bad.

For rent-seeking, here's something that mostly explains what I mean - http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/04/how-copyright-law-hurts-music-from-chuck-d-to-girl-talk/236975/

Let's say I wanted to make an independent film with my own resources. If I wanted to try to capture pop culture for what effect, if any, it is having in the scene, I wouldn't be able to legally do so without clearing rights for any songs playing on the radio, tv programs, advertisements, etc. The fee for the lawyer alone would be enough to wipe me out. The price for clearing the rights could easily go past $100,000 USD.

So, copyright industry, you want to constantly barrage me with your ads on tv and also with the most generic songs on the radio. Really, I can go outside and drive to the broadcast towers playing that crap. Why is it so damn hard to get something on there that I can relate to? Something played by an artist I know just down the road. Then, you tell me I need to buy your crap. Fine. I've spent quite a bit of money on entertainment and I'm not that far into my adult life. Now the gears are going in my head and I think, "Hey, this would be cool rearranged this way." Now if I try to use any of it you want me to pay ridiculously large sums of money just for the rights to put it in a film or sample it in a song? Fuck you. I really don't need what you're selling anyway. I'm an arborist most times, tree nursery work and forest management sometimes, I'm not in the entertainment industry. I'd be much better off spending my money buying a cd from some yokel singing about his times in the forest or buying books and DVDs teaching me new techniques for my trade. I already did you a favor paying for your generic material.

That's my take on it anyway.

As for the free speech part? I won't go off on another long story and just leave this here instead -
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=267848
There's a link that says "One click download" for the whole story. My two cents for the free speech debate: don't have copyright (or at least reform it to something tolerable) and don't have the FCC (in the U.S.), keep the First Amendment, and there's our guarantee for creativity and innovation.

You're not using market forces if you download a full priced game and pay later only half price or less. Market forces can only be based on legal actions. Otherwise it would be like a market without law, the strongest one wins.

And yes it's true, the full price buying customer will be and should be mad about piracy. He's the only one who pays full price, but he doesn't get more of the game than the pirates (even less, when you count in DRM). From the point of view of the paying customer a big advantage for the pirates.

If you want to support developers, just donate an arbitrary amount to them.

But for the game revenue, the developers and the publishers have a contract which controls how much money goes to whom. It's their business, not the business of the pirates.
But then I wonder why nobody comes up with alternative models and more innovative ideas.

Concentrating on games it's true that many modern games are focused on good visual impression and usability. But are they really full of innovation? On the other hand, looking at indie games, they usually do not look much better to me. So, to find an alternative with really more innovation seems to be not so easy.

1. You're using market forces(legal or no they still count) if you wait for a sale on anything.

2. Not just full price payers but others who pay maybe 10 bucks a game also apply here I think.......and to be mad because someone gets something before you get it(in the cases where both parties eventually pay and pay around the same price I mean) is silly I think, when there are so many real problems in the world one could be worried about.

Also it is only an advantage for the pirates that they get the game first because of the artificial limitation of one's own morals/mindset(not getting into whether this is a good or bad thing btw). No one is forcing people not to pirate.

3. Why not buy a legal copy instead at a certain price point and avoid the possible paper trail of guilt leading back to one's self, to be safe?

4. The last bit you mentioned I never touched on so why bring it up?

DKSone, if you want to debate, try not to take a sentence out of a whole text.

Really ? I could quote many games, for instance and for relatively recent game found on PC only I could cite from the top of my head :, Magicka, Dead Space 1, Portal, LA Noire, Trine, RUSE, Miror Edge, Plants vs Zombies. I would say that most (but not all) successful franchise started as an original game that appealed to the mass (Bioshock ? Tropico ? Sims ?).

It lowers expected profit. See below.

Piracy IS an alternative. If the price of the game was 1 $ would there be more or less piracy ? If the price was 100 $ a game, would there be more or less piracy ? Thus, piracy decreases with price (the shape of the curve is anyone's guess, though), thus it is an "alternative".


Of course. Except you failed to understand the point I answered too (or maybe I understood Tarasis wrongly) . Space Sim was a very popular genre 2 decades ago because if was light on the processor capacities, and you did not need to make "beautiful graphics". Now, supposedly
On the other hand, now processors are powerful, it is difficult to get extremely beautiful with a space sim. In space with a lots of void, there is a limit on how beautiful a game can be. Sure, you can put a beautiful background, but most of the time you will look in the void anyway. Yet, I believe this argument is invalid, which brings me to the next point you did not understand :

Oh really ? Actually, I am not sure the public is completely different (see Wing Commander => Strike Commander), sure you don't get the people looking for realistic simulations but you get people who like to blow stuff up in a vehicule.
Anyway, my point was that, the cause used to explain the decline of the space sims could be applied to flight or nav sim : small niche (although I understand the space sim niche is even smaller) and difficult to be "more" beautiful past a certain point because really you rarely ever get close to the ground (except helos and A-10).

That's a remark that fails at Economics 101. I won't develop but just ask the question - why do you think there are other genres around than FPS if a given genre "maximize the investment". I believe there is no shortage of production means (I believe there is no lack of developers) so everything profitable would be done.

See above for why I mentionned those games.

I used MIGHT and WOULD. I am not sure. It is a guess. An impression I have, due to the older demographics of these genre (which is a fact)

Please don't misquote me. I did not say that 1 pirated copy is a lost sale. I said something like 1 000 000 pirated copies are lost sales (200 000 ? 100 000 ? I don't know).

Some people make good points for both sides of the coin on this thread, even against me. You nit-pick and don't.

1. I assumed you mean pirating it and then waiting for a sale and maybe buying it there. That would be illegal and not market-like. Anyway, I think not many people would pay later.

2. Actually DRM tries to force people not to pirate. One can call this morale an artificial limitation. But we have build an impressive wealth and economy with it, while there are not many good ideas how it all could work without it. It doesn't really stop at pirates getting things earlier and paying later a percentage of the full price, if they pay at all, which I doubt very much.

3. Buying a legal copy and not pirating before. I am perfectly fine with this.

4. You're right, I misunderstood. I reread and now I can say: If pirates want to support the industry why not pay full price? Obviously they don't do, so they don't want to support the industry. But it's not only support but the price for the effort the industry has done.

All in all: I think it's unlikely that many pirates are paying for their games later for a lower price and even if so, it would still be wrong in my eyes. The only way is to wait and buy a legal copy later or to pay the full price and support the industry - big or small - as you like.

1. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't influence the market or get influenced by said market in turn.

And some do pay later.......some also also pirate after buying a legit copy to strip out DRM. Not trying to justify it btw....just illustrating my point.

2. I meant that the idea that pirating is morally wrong in some people's minds is an artificial limitation(keeping them from the games and media by extension), not DRM perse.

3. Again, what's the technical difference between people who pirate and play a game and buy later at reduced price and those who wait for a sale and buy at a reduced price? IMO there isn't much of one, beyond the fact that pirates get the game earlier & DRM free in most cases. In both cases they still pay the same or close to it.

4. I asked actually if legit customers want to support the industry then why don't they pay full price when they buy?

"IMO there isn't much of one, beyond the fact that pirates get the game earlier"

I already covered that.....besides that and getting the games DRM free are there any other technical differences?

And why shouldn't we be able to have everything now?

I get that games are a luxury, but are we really so much worse off as a whole(in terms of lost goods/etc or morally worse off) because some get a game or song before others and make that copy using their own resources?

With the internet making so much available to so many people, what if for example food was made available to be replicated by people over the net somehow in the future? Should we tell them to wait and pay for food and not replicate whatever they wanted to be able to feed themselves and their families?

From a technical standpoint, with online-heavy games anyway, making one's way through the unlock systems could be considered an advantage. At least it was when this was an early concept.

Apples to orangutans there. Nobody needs video games in order to live, as you pointed out by calling them a luxury. But to use that analogy anyway, suppose new foods are being released all the time. If more basic and sustaining foods are already available to all (plenty of free games out there to occupy one's time), why do they also need or deserve immediate and free access for premium products? Don't those who develop the foods deserve to earn revenue (not necessarily making a profit) if they choose to charge for it?

You know if food could be replicated than even the basic "recipes/templates" would be IP protected in an instant if possible.

And yes I know no one needs games to live(which is why I called them luxuries)....but that doesn't mean they can't be used to make an otherwise miserable life better. In a perfect world we'd have legislation in place to allow for fairer use of copyright so such debates wouldn't even be necessary...sadly this is not how things work. :\

The facts prove that this is false. If high price caused piracy, there simply would be no piracy on iOS games at all, since most of them are 1 dollar. Or, at least, piracy would be reduced. And this doesnt happen, piracy is as huge on iOS as in any other platform.

And by the way this breaks your whole argument. PC games are the cheapest of the biggest platforms. Much, much cheaper than console games. If prices were the reason for piracy, then piracy on PC would be the smallest of all platforms. But what happens is EXACTLY the opposite, PC has the biggest piracy rate, even though it has cheaper games than consoles. This proves that prices might have an influency on piracy, but it isnt the main reason.

In my opinion people pirate more on PCs just because its much easier and theyll never ever get caught. Theres that sense of "fuck it, ill just get free games, nothing will happen to me anyway. Why will i pay for something if i can get if for free without ANY consequence?". You dont have to "mod" your PC to play pirated games, you cant get banned from online services, or anything.

Piracy on consoles, on the other hand, is getting harder and harder. First, you have to go through the hassle of opening it up and modding it (if there isnt a soft mod available, like the Xbox 360), thus voiding the warranty and violating the TOS, which might have consequences. On Xbox 360, you run the risk of getting your console banned from Live forever, which totally cripples its functions: no more online play, no more demos, no more arcade games, no more updates, nothing. And if you want to play newer games, you have to keep your firmware updated, which means you have to either pay someone to do it or open it up yourself from time to time. That itself is a pain in the ass, not everyone will go trhough all this hassle. It certainly gets people away from piracy. On PS3, from what ive heard, its a pain to get piracy working too. On every new Sony firmware you have to wait for a hacked one.

And what i say, while i cant prove, makes sense if you take this piracy data and sales data and compare them. Just take a look, PC games are the most pirated and the least sold. Consoles have smaller piracy rates and sell much more games than PC. There has to be a connection as to why PC gamea are the most pirated and the least sold.
This is far from being true. It isnt a scapegoat, its a real problem theyre wishing to fight with the DRM (even if that doesnt work). But yeah, they can kill 2 birds with one bullet by using DRM. They "fight" piracy and at the same time they reduced used games market.

As I said in a later post here. I said that expensive games a one reason for piracy. Not the cause for piracy. There is no "single cause" for piracy.

I was making that statement to demonstrate that the fact of piracy existing is a reason for companies to reduce prices. And that piracy doesn't make games more expensive.

The problem is that MOST pirates WONT do it. Humans are flawed beings, not saints. "Hey i only pirate games to test them" is just an excuse for dirty pirates, nothing else. Why the fuck cant you wait if youll buy it anyway? 99% wont buy it if theyve already used it. The main reason to buy something, is that you get to use what you bought after youve payed for it. IF youve already used it, theres almost no reason to buy, and only those hardcvore supporters will buy it. But MOST wont do it.

There are reviews, and if youre paranoid about reviews on magazines and sites, there so many places you can check for user reviews. And there are millions of videos on youtube, so you can at least have an idea if the game suits your tastes or not.

Theres a huge difference there in my opinion. The higher price point on release is aimed at getting those who cant wait to play the game. Those who can wait a few months will get to buy it cheaper. Thats a simple rule. If you pirate it, IN MY OPINION, youre cheating, even if you buy it cheaper later.

So, is it right if i steal a car from a store just to "test" it, so ill buy it 6 months later? Same logic.

I know some pirates won't do it but you can't say for certain most won't do it(and on the reverse I can't say most do do it but then I never did or tried to.).

And no it isn't an excuse for all pirates, as some pirate for these reasons. Not justifying just illustrating my point, btw.

2. Some download to test for compatibility with their ownj system.......you can;t use playthrough videos for this purpose, and not all games come with demos. And those that do might work on your system but the full game might not for some reason.

3. IMO those who buy later for less than 10 bucks are also cheating the devs of money......just my two cents.

4. Not really. In the car example you deprive the owner of the car in question and revenue from it's future sale for 6 months. With copying game files you don't deprive the IP holder or others of their property when and if you test it out.

Im 100% sure most wont. Its the human nature. Why pay for something theyve already used for free. And all pirates i know personally, ive never EVER seen any of them buy a game after theyvre pirated it. The only exception i see if for people who want to play multiplayer later, and they cant with the pirated copy. Thats just an excuse. A game not running on a PC that meets the minimum requirement is a rare exception. Well at least on Steam, where i buy most of my newer games nowadays, you can ask for a refund if the game doesnt work at all. Ive never had to sak for a refund, so i dont know how it works, but people on Steam forums say that they do accept this kind of refund.

This is only a concern on older games. In this case compability becomes a problem. I did buy a few old games on ebay and i dont even know if theyll work on my system. I accepted the risk. But newer games just have to work, it doesnt matter how. If it doesnt ill ask for a refund.

By the way forums are a great place to search for compability problems. I decided not to buy Prototype for PC when i read on Steam forums that it has a compability problem on processors with HT activated. Ill get the PS3 version instead. How are they cheating? Thats nonsense. Publishers set the price, Steam and other digital distribution sites cant set the prices on their own. Im not cheating them. And if i waited for the game to go on sale, its because i didnt consider it that necessary at the time. I would be cheating if i abused a glitch or bug to get it for a lower price, which isnt the case.

Thats an absurd argument.