Copied Games

[seebs]

His analogy came down to "it's stealing" which you yourself argued against.

Well, yeah. I think nearly all arguments on this topic are shoddy.

My argument comes down to, "it costs too much, and there's a substitute. Go learn some basic economics and learn why you need to lower your prices."

Sure. But, as with most products, at least one of the substitutes is illegal.

If prices were low enough, there'd be very little shoplifting.

I agree that lower prices might reduce copyright infringement, but that doesn't make copyright infringement morally acceptable.

In addition, I'm making an argument that this is a war between Consumers and Businesses, and there'll obviously be biases depending on which group you're part of (and especially hard when you're part of both groups). Unfortunately for the Consumers, Businesses are the ones who tend to have the money to lobby for the laws to be passed in their favor. And there are also a lot of people who will blindly throw away their rights instead of fighting for them.

I'd have to strongly disagree here. I think that, insofar as I tend to agree with your basic financial analysis, it turns out that businesses suffer from the current laws too.

But they're still laws.

BTW, I want to ask this additional question. As a programmer, do you use *any* sort of copy protection on your software?

None at all. I don't copy protect anything I produce, and haven't in years.

If you do, I need to ask you, what gives you the right to deprive me of my Fair Use rights to make personal backups as written in the law?

This is a bit of a red herring. Personal backups are not, if I recall correctly, formally "Fair Use". Fair use is an affirmative defense against accusations of unlawful infringement; you say "yes, I copied something in an unpermitted way, but the law allows for this". Fair use is mostly the tests having to do with quantity of material, academic purpose, etctera; for instance, it's fair use that gets us the parody rules.

But the "you can make a backup" isn't a fair use question.

Hmm.

To be fair, the last company I worked at used a "copy protection" scheme; host keys. You had to put a magic cookie in the machine. This had no effect whatsoever on anyone's ability to make backups; you could make as many copies of that cookie as you wanted, write it down wherever.

Why do you refuse to follow that part of the law? Now if you don't use any sort of copy protection, then it doesn't apply to you.

Even if we grant (and, having written a couple of articles about how much copy protection sucks, I'm on your side on this one) that copy protection is abusive at best... Two wrongs don't normally make a right. Even if they love each other very much and go to an expensive clinic.

 

[Dracil]

Thanks seebs. As usual, I appreciate your ability to look at both sides of the issue. Your stuff on the Fair Use was informative, but afaik, personal backups *are* a Fair Use issue, at least with the places I've seen it mentioned (like Slashdot articles, commentary). Granted though, my sources tend to be slanted towards anti-copyright laws. *shrug*

Now as far as the legality, why is it illegal? I would say that's simply a matter of businesses and their money imposing these laws that us consumers have nearly no way to fight against. It may be illegal currently, but I don't think it's necessarily immoral.

 

[SUNSTONE]

Are you trying to say it is morally and it should be legal, to take a game, make as many copys as you wish, and give them all away for free?

Like Halo2 for instance. Do you think we should have the right to make 9 million copys, and then give them out to everyone in the state that you live in?

It sounds like you are trying to use a play on words, with the definition of stealing.

 

[seebs]

Thanks seebs. As usual, I appreciate your ability to look at both sides of the issue. Your stuff on the Fair Use was informative, but afaik, personal backups *are* a Fair Use issue, at least with the places I've seen it mentioned (like Slashdot articles, commentary). Granted though, my sources tend to be slanted towards anti-copyright laws. *shrug*

Er.

Using slashdot for legal advice is like... uhm.

Well, it's a Bad Idea.

I have an actual real live lawyer. I talk to him a lot. Slashdot's legal stuff is about as good as their technical stuff. The only reason I don't laugh out loud at how stupid most Slashdot technical commentary is is that it hurts me too much, and the pain overwhelms the humorous shock.

To put it in perspective, if Slashdot were covering Christianity, they'd have a story saying "Some Jewish guy says he can make bread into wine", there'd be an editorial comment saying "obviously, they really mean beer, not wine", and the first thirty comments that weren't "first post" or Natalie Portman jokes would be discussions of how this proves that the Roman Empire's theology is sound.

In particular, I'm pretty sure that nothing explicitly made legal by the law (e.g., backups) is ever Fair Use. But not totally sure, and I am not a lawyer.

Now as far as the legality, why is it illegal? I would say that's simply a matter of businesses and their money imposing these laws that us consumers have nearly no way to fight against. It may be illegal currently, but I don't think it's necessarily immoral.

These laws predate the businesses in question! Copyright goes back a fairly long ways. The underlying notion is that offering people an automatic monopoly on copies of a creative work creates an incentive for the creation of such works.

There are some kinds of creative works (operating systems) where it appears that the benefits of shared creativity cover the "benefits" of controlling copies. However, other kinds (books, for instance) don't seem to work that way. The fact is, I've got nothing to offer David Weber on a creative level that would make it reasonable for him to share his book with me, and no one's come up with a good business model other than "sell the book".

For the specific thing we're talking about -- games -- there has not been a lot of success in free games with production values comparable to those of for-money games. That business model has not yet been out-competed.

But... The basic idea that they have a right to tell you whether or not you may make copies for your friends predates the first transistor by a number of years, and, in fact, predates the idea of making money at such things entirely.

There are definite flaws in the current system, but I don't think that alone is moral justification for disregarding it.

Here's my simple conclusion:

If I made something, I have the inherent moral right to dictate the terms under which it is used or available.

Currently, most creative workers are using copyright law as a framework in which to dictate those terms, but ultimately, it is their moral right, not the details of the law, that I feel called to respect.

If I am not happy with the terms of availability of a creative work, I may of course refrain from using that creative work.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Here's my simple conclusion:

If I made something, I have the inherent moral right to dictate the terms under which it is used or available.

Currently, most creative workers are using copyright law as a framework in which to dictate those terms, but ultimately, it is their moral right, not the details of the law, that I feel called to respect.

If I am not happy with the terms of availability of a creative work, I may of course refrain from using that creative work.

Very good point. Too many people seem to think that the programmers and game developers OWE them cool games and it never occurrs to that games are just like any other luxury...non-essential. If you can't afford a game, wait for the price to go down or don't buy it. If you disagree with the pricing scheme, don't support it and write your own games.

Bah, who am I kidding...maybe if we can bankrupt enough game makers by pirating their games, they will get the message and start giving them away since we deserve them without having to pay for them.

 

[Dracil]

Ok Seebs, I hereby declare that all my forum posts are copyrighted. You may not quote me without my permission!

Anyway, about Slashdot, the articles themselves are not Slashdot though.

Meanwhile, what do you know about the Betamax decision? As I think it's supposed to be relevant to the Fair Use and backups issue.

http://www.savebetamax.org/

Hypothetical question to you guys: If the INDUCE Act is as bad as it seems and it actually passes, and people are so for supporting the laws (no matter how bad they may be), will you sit quietly and happily give up your VCRs, CD Burners, iPods, etc.?

And yes I know the laws predate computers and the such. However, have you noticed that the length of the copyrights are getting longer and longer?

 

[Dracil]

http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html EFF's take on Fair Use.

 

[mrsir]

its just like copying dvds your gonna get in trouble with the F.B.I.

 

[wslctrc]

I've been approached and asked about this subject by many.I don't know about anywhere else but we must pay extra for our recordable media because the song writers and artists scream theft. The blank cds and tapes that we use to record and distribute at our church with the weekly sermons are 'hit' with these extra charges. The cds that I use to store our family pictures and home movies , and make backups of our business records are all 'hit' by this extra surcharge because the people who distribute premade cds feel it is a way to make up for their losses. Now , if I am paying extra to make up for their losses because they assume I am making duplicates and not paying for them , why can I not make a backup of a game, song cd or such that I already own? If I have a game console at home and one at the cottage , it makes me wonder why I should tote the pile of games and/or music cds back and forth and not just make (for my own use) a back up , leaving it at the other location. Why do I think this way? Am I tired of big business charging too much for there product so that they can get that golden parachute on my account? To pay full price for more than 1 item doesn't make sense in today's economy. If you buy in bulk , you get a discount why not with software on 2000 machines? This would make it more accepting to buy legal copies across the board. No? Please explain where I am not thinking right. I am letting my personal opinion get the better of me when I look at the way MS tore down so many legal companies to build up what they have and then have the guts to say we must pay full price for an overpriced OS for every machine we own. I'm sorry , I got off on a rant but don't want to erase how I feel now.

 

[wslctrc]

No really. I`m a programmer myself. Now explain to me why getting my program for free makes it any more legal because you need it for 2000 machines?

Maybe not asking for 2000 legal copies for free but certainly at that quantity there should be a discount to help both parties- yours for the sales and mine for the purchase. Not having to pay full price is certainly an issue when large #'s are involved in 1 purchase of anything.

 

[seebs]

I know about betamax. And no, I will not "happily" give things up, but I might be persuaded to give them up -- largely because I think that the resulting dysfunctional state would be so awful that the content providers would quickly realize it wasn't working for them.

The reason copyright dates keep getting longer has nothing to do with video game companies, and everything to do with Mickey Mouse.

 

[Dracil]

I dunno, based on the things people say here, I can anticipate a lemming response of "It's the law and that's the way it's always been you immoral people who insist on stealing!"

Of course, they may not come right out and admit it, but in 20 or so years after it passes, I can definitely envision people having the same arguments we're having here about the INDUCE act... (basically, there'll be people arguing about how VCRs, CD burners, and iPods *should* be illegal and immoral)

I say the copyright law extensions are all about company greed.

 

[seebs]

I agree that the copyright law extensions are mostly greed-driven, and wrong. Further, I think most attempts to use copyright in the entertainment industry are harming the industry.

But I think you're rather missing the point. I'm certainly not arguing that the current state of affairs is inherently moral or immoral; I'm just arguing that I see no basis for a moral right to copy someone else's game.

I think you're assuming that, just because I disagree with you on some points, I disagree with you on others. It's pretty clear to me that copyright infringement is not stealing.

However... With or without copyright law, if some dadaist author declares that his new book is to be read only while standing on your head, and I don't want to, I won't read the book. I do think authors have an inherent moral right to set terms on the use of their created works. If I don't like the terms, I do without the created work.

 

[Dracil]

I understand your position (after all, this is like the 3rd thread in which we've debated this with each other). It's that my posts are not always directed solely to you though.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

So, what is the practical solution to it all? What is the solution that allows people to make money for making games and still allows gamers to have good games to play?

It can't just be about price. If games cost half as much, there would still be people too cheap to pay for them so the game companies would just make less money since the few people who could now afford the games most likely wouldn't come close to offsetting the overall loss.

I know it's cool to be an idealist, have a cause and talk down about the "lemmings" who can't justify to themselves using something without paying for it, but what is a solution that would work? Why make games if there's no compensation for the work involved? Why pay for a game when you can just download it for free?

 

[Dracil]

Why not go and directly ask the people who create freeware and open-source programs why they do what they do even when they get no monetary compensation?

 

[seebs]

Why not go and directly ask the people who create freeware and open-source programs why they do what they do even when they get no monetary compensation?

As one of those people: It wouldn't work for games.

Things I do:

1. I sell consulting. I just got $500 to track down a fairly specialized bug in a command-line utility. That bug fix is now available to everyone... But it exists because there was someone doing commercial development who NEEDED that bug fixed. You probably can't expect to find someone willing to pay $500 to fix "sometimes Warcraft crashes".
2. I sell writing. There's some small market for "strategy guides" and the like, but it's a fraction of the market for the game. You can't make a living developing games to sell strategy guides.
3. The stuff I give away is, by and large, useful. I wrote it because I actually had a use for it.

Games are more like art than like compilers. And the fact is, we don't have a viable "open source" model for most artistic creative work. The model works for UTILITY software, but not for games.

A video game is a lot more like a comic book, or a painting, than it is like a compiler, or a filesystem.

 

[Niz]

I think it's fine to do it. But when people rip a game and still have the multiplayer capibility, then i think it's pushing it. I did it with doom3 to test if my video card/cpu can handle it but i bought it prolly 3 days after. If your intentions are like mine i don't see a problem in it.

 

[SUNSTONE]

Taking something without permission, is stealing.
God will not be mocked you shall reap what you sow.

When I was a kid, I used to steal alot. I stole sports cards alot, and went into peoples cars at night to see what I could find.
Well my whole card collection got stolen twice!
And many things have been stolen out of my cars.

Even if mans laws are wrong, there is a spiritual law in the matter. And that is most definitly not wrong.

 

[hexa2002]

Maybe not asking for 2000 legal copies for free but certainly at that quantity there should be a discount to help both parties- yours for the sales and mine for the purchase. Not having to pay full price is certainly an issue when large #'s are involved in 1 purchase of anything.

Real life check:
If a company needs a program these days (and we`re not talking Microsoft Office here) I get money for exactly one copy. Not copy protected whatsoever.

In my statement I just wanted to make clear that needing a specific thing desperately (program, car, whatever) does not automatically make it free.