1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Other Piracy

Discussion in 'Software' started by Zinfandel, 2 Aug 2010.

  1. Krazeh

    Krazeh Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    56
    The publisher still hasn't recieved any recompense from the person who purchased it second hand so that person is using the software without having paid anything to the developer/publisher, which is no different to someone who downloads a copy of the software. The fact that the copy sold in the second hand sale originally provided the developer/publisher with some recompense is of no consequence, the person who has purchased it second hand is still using that software without compensating the copyright holder.

    To put it bluntly if I were to purchase all my software second hand then I would be as big a drain/threat to the software market as if I were to download all my software.
     
    Cabe6403 likes this.
  2. Altron

    Altron Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    3,186
    Likes Received:
    61
    I think the example of Photoshop is interesting, because they have a lot more grey area than games or OSes.

    A coworker of mine has a pirated copy of CATIA, a very advanced piece of very expensive 3D design software. It's something like $15,000 per year to get a license.

    However, his job is to use CATIA, and the company we both work for IS paying the full price for the software. He's pirating it, but he is using it to play around with at home, and the skills he is gaining will help him get better at his job. He never would have paid $15,000 for that software, but because a pirated copy was available, he will learn that software. If another company were to want to hire him to do 3D design, he would tell them that he is an expert at CATIA, and they would buy the software for him to use.

    Same with the graphics people. A friend of mine is a professional graphics designer. All throughout college, he had a pirated copy of Photoshop on it, and got really good at using it. When he got hired by a company to do graphics design, they bought a legitimate copy of Photoshop for him to use.

    For the cases of these big software packages designed for professional users, piracy is a beautiful thing for them. Why? Because it trains the workforce in how to use it. If he hadn't been able to learn photoshop, he would have learned a competitors software, and then the company he works for would have bought that instead.

    The best thing these companies can have for business is a huge number of people who know how to use their software. The bigger that the trained user base is for a certain software package, the more money the company brings in. If aspiring graphics designers can get Photoshop for free, they will train themselves in Photoshop. If all the graphics designers know Photoshop, any company that hires graphics designers will buy legitimate copies of Photoshop, because their employees know it best. If they wanted to save money by going to a non-Photoshop image editor, they'd have to pay even more money to train their staff in the new software. Same with any other big software suite - you want people to be able to get it and learn how to use it, because then they will buy it for work.

    Adobe grins every time a wannabe graphics designer pirates Photoshop to use at home, because they know that person (or his/her employer) will buy the legitimate version to do any sort of commercial or professional work.

    However, games and music and other software primarily meant for personal/entertainment use, that stuff IS stealing.

    And, I disagree with most of the analogies about stealing cars and other products being the same. It's not.
    Let's say a drill costs $30 in parts and labor to make, and sells for $60, with the $30 profit going towards up-front costs.
    If you walk into the store and steal the drill, you are costing the company $30 in cash, and the company is missing out on a potential $30 in profit.
    However, your downloaded game costs nothing in parts and labor to make, and also sells for $60, with all of the money going towards up-front costs. If you steal a copy, you are not costing the company any cash, but they are missing out on a potential $60.

    See the difference? Steal a physical product and the manufacturer LOSES money. They lose the money it cost to buy the raw materials to make that drill and the money it cost to transport the drill to the store. If you steal a virtual product, the manufacturer doesn't LOSE money. They simply do not make the money that they potentially would have if you had bought the product.

    However, where the debate lies is with this 'potential' revenue. How can you quantify it?
    The manufacturers, when they publish their studies on how terrible piracy is, assume the potential revenue to be the full retail price of the game. If I pirated a game, I would have spent $60 on it had I not been able to pirate it, so that is $60 in potential revenue that the company has lost due to piracy.

    The pirates, when they defend themselves, assume the potential revenue to be zero. If I pirated a game, I would not have gotten it at all if I had not been able to pirate it, so the company has not lost any potential revenue due to piracy.

    Now, I hope that none of us are naive enough to assume that either interpretation is correct. Clearly, it is somewhere in between. How many people would have paid full price if they couldn't pirate it? How many people would have not gotten it at all if they couldn't pirate it? How many people would have gotten it if it was below a certain price, if they couldn't pirate it? The number of people in each category depends on many factors, and isn't really something we can measure.

    If I pirated Photoshop, Adobe would not be losing $700 of potential revenue, because I would not have been willing to pay $700 for it. They may have lost $50 in potential revenue, because I would be willing to pay $50 for it. But, above that, I would think it is too expensive, and go with a cheaper software package.

    If I pirated SC2, Blizzard would in fact be losing $60 of potential revenue, because I would have been willing to pay $60 for it.

    Now, that being said, all of my software is legit. There is nothing illegal that I am doing that I am trying to justify, so I am somewhat playing devil's advocate. All my games are either Steam or Blizzard (oddly enough, both forms of non-liquid water), legit purchases. My Microsoft software is all through my university.
     
  3. smc8788

    smc8788 Multimodder

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,974
    Likes Received:
    272
    The second-hand market for PC software is very small though (by the time someone comes to sell it, it's usually because they've upgraded and is therefore out of date), and is hampered further by DRM issues. It's slightly bigger for PC games (provided they're not on Steam or other DRM system requiring an account login to play), but nowhere near the level of second-hand sales of console games; so given how much you hear publishers complaining about PC piracy and how little they do about the second-hand market, it's obvious that - for whatever reason - the copyright holders themselves care more about piracy than they do about second-hand sales.
     
    Last edited: 9 Aug 2010
  4. Altron

    Altron Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    3,186
    Likes Received:
    61
    It might be because secondhand sales aren't illegal, but piracy is. A much stronger opportunity for a 'moral crusade' against why piracy is wrong.

    Or that secondhand sales are often conducted through stores. I'd imagine that the national chains like GameStop and EBGames have enough muscle that the game studios don't want to pick a fight with them and risk cutting off their distribution chain by cracking down on second-hand sales.

    Secondhand sales also promote the sales of newer games, because these stores often offer "trade-in" type of deals. Especially when it comes to 'shallow' games that don't have much re-playability, they get traded in. If I buy a game, play through it, and get bored and have no interest in playing it further, one of these stores might offer a promotion where if I bring in my old games to trade in, I will get a discount on a newer game. I might not have bought the newer game if I didn't have the option to 'upgrade', but since I got that discount for getting rid of my old one, I will spend more money.

    Look at the car dealership business model. They thrive on trade-in sales. They will offer to buy your old car, if you buy a new car from them. You do it, and they make money. Then they fix up your old car, mark it up, and sell it to someone else (who can't afford a brand new car), and make money doing that. It's more profitable for them to allow second-hand sales. GameStop and EBGames use the same type of strategy, and clearly, it is working. The car manufacturer doesn't make money from the secondhand sales, but the distributor does, and the manufacturer makes more money on new sales by allowing secondhand sales.
     
  5. Elledan

    Elledan What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    4 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    947
    Likes Received:
    34
    The thought behind this law is that everyone is free to make a copy for his or her own, personal use. Uploading with a P2P app or similar is still illegal, but our national RIAA (BREIN) doesn't bother with going after those small-time infringers because it just isn't worth the trouble, with the high costs involved, and the massive bad PR. It is estimated that about 60% of teenagers in this country are involved in downloading copyrighted works, and it is generally seen as acceptable. Apparently it's socially full acceptable.

    As for the moral side of the story, it has been proven with independent research that copyright infringement by individuals and the sharing of these works by individuals in general leads to an increase of sales. If you have been paying attention you'd have noticed that sales for music and movies is up. Digital downloads have never been more popular. That physical copies are being sold less and less is more due to the economic stresses of the past few years, more money being spent on other forms of entertainment (video games!) and the decreased value of music and movies in the eyes of consumers.

    In the past one would have paid $20 for a new CD. These days it's considered expensive if it's more than $1 a song, or $10 for an album. Of course, with music it's still the labels ripping off the artists, most of whom still end up with a life-long debt they'll never be able to pay off. Those labels are the true evil, not some grandmother downloading an MP3 or two.
     
  6. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    172
    Again, I still disagree. When someone buys one copy of a game, and then resells it, it's still only one copy of the game. The publisher will lose out on the sale of one item, being the second hand copy of the game. But they will still have had the initial sales revenue. For every single second hand game in the shops, there was an initial purchase of each unit on the shelves.

    When someone pirates a game (or any other digital media), they upload one game to the internet. People download the copy, so there was only one (maybe) initial purchase made, and many, many copies in the wild where absolutely no income has been generated.

    As I said, you simply cannot directly compare the two problems.
     
  7. RichCreedy

    RichCreedy Hey What Who

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    4,698
    Likes Received:
    172
    this is why there is no second hand market for pc games, the publishers decided to lock the games to accounts.

    it will happen with xbox, and ps3 games.

    piracy is still an imprisonable offence, and can result in a fine of £5000
     
    Last edited: 9 Aug 2010
  8. SpaceBaby

    SpaceBaby AKA: Stophon

    Joined:
    1 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    300
    Likes Received:
    8
    ok this thread is to big for me to read it all now *or maybe im just lazy*

    Well this is my opinion:
    So how much profit do these media companies make from some of there biggest named products each year? $100's millions so why not cut the price in half still make insain profit but my opinion reduce the price of a new dvd from say £10-20 to £5-10 new, a new game from £30-40 to £15-20 this will make it look a lot more apealing to but the item rather than have a pirated coppy as it becomes a lot more afordable.

    also with digital copys reduce the price again by like 25% to like £7.50 a dvd and £15 a game new. i mean seriously that would be amazing

    and they would still make like $50++ million profit a year.


    obviously my number will be off but you get the idea of what i mean
     
  9. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    172
    It's at the discretion of the police if they wish to pursue criminal proceedings against pirates, and this option is normally only taken against organised piracy operations. Not only do you risk prison and a fine, but you can have all your IT equipment confiscated too, if it is suspected of being instrumental in the piracy operations.

    I remember the Amiga days, when me and my mates used to go to the car boot sale on a Sunday morning here at Doncaster Racecourse, and there were loads of guys selling pirate games en masse and very openly. Then a few years later, and the local trading standards agency and the police basically went to town on these guys. It was something like a quid a floppy 3.5" disk, and most games came on 1 or 2 disks. There was some serious money being made by those who were selling, and some serious revenue being lost by those who published the games.
     
  10. Noob4ever

    Noob4ever always learning

    Joined:
    14 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    327
    Likes Received:
    1
    I just had to throw this out there, you say Bill gates donates a massive amount, alright, well let me tell you a little story, when I was about 13, (11 years or so ago) After a massive donation to a local charity where I lived, federal way washington at the time, my old man decided to compare, as in how much he would have to donate to donate the same percentage as bill gates. My old man had made 120 something that year I believe, what he figured it to be, would be like him donating 10 cents. So keep in mind, he may donate alot, but it doesnt mean jack to him.
     
  11. ShakeyJake

    ShakeyJake My name is actually 'Jack'.

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    915
    Likes Received:
    70
    Now, I have a LOT of issues with Bill Gates and Microsoft, but you really cant hold this against the guy. He may only donate a tiny fraction but he is still donating a hell of a lot of money and making a real difference to people's lives. Hell, he could even donate an actual 10c and still be 'karmically-up' for all I care.
     
  12. BentAnat

    BentAnat Software Dev

    Joined:
    26 Jun 2008
    Posts:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    219

    Backup copies (to me) are something I am entitled to. So long as I don't give them to friends. It's a backup, and should be treated as such.

    I am aware that music sales have gone up. So have film sales. To paraphrase Dexter Holland (The Offspring): "Pretty fly has been downloaded x-million times before the release of Americana, and I can't see that hurting our record sales.". I agree with him. It probably is good for the industry to offer downloads.
    HOWEVER, that doesn't make it justifiable to download the album rather than pay for it. I can not say that every download has made me buy an album, when in fact over half of them have put me off of buying an album. The entire marketing argumentation falls apart the moment someone goes and downloads the album but DOESN'T buy it (for example because the album is rubbish).

    In my eyes, the industry (music in particular in this case) should find a way to monetize downloads. I have NO problem with seeing a burger king logo in my media player next to the album art when I play a downloaded tune. No issues at all. - Just as an example.

    Fighting against piracy is pretty pointless, as it costs a fortune and (as was stated previously) is a game for the pirates.
    They should focus the energy on finding an indirect income from pirated goods, and that way they could sustain productivity.

    At the moment, we're not there, though.
    There's smart heads that have managed to monetize Piracy (Adobe, as was stated). However, copying something that you didn't pay for is something I am not in support of.
     
  13. boiled_elephant

    boiled_elephant Merom Celeron 4 lyfe

    Joined:
    14 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    6,889
    Likes Received:
    1,155
    The distinction between copyright infringement and theft is perfectly valid and I agree with it. I also think that both are condemnable in different measures and both ought to be (and are) illegal.

    Copyright infringement doesn't have to be theft to be wrong: it still creates a loss for the originator. Nexxo's analogy for this was that intellectual property such as an operating system is a repeatable service provided by the creator, and that by not paying for it you are denying them the profit they'd otherwise make by providing it. It's akin to going through a car wash and not paying; you haven't actually taken anything at all, and there is no tangible loss (water bills are beyond negligible) but they still make a loss by your not paying. You've received for free a service that the law (not to mention any notion of common decency) dictates should be paid for.

    However it is an order of magnitude below actual theft. That should be obvious. It takes millions of people doing it to tangibly harm the creator, whereas theft often only takes one.

    I like the idea of fluid morality based on consequences: if you pirate an EA title that has already made the company a 300% return on its development costs, that's not particularly wrong morally, while pirating a small indie game that only just cuts even, and has about 10,000 purchases and 10,000 pirates, is more wrong. Yet of course, both infringements are identical in legal terms, as they have to be.
     
  14. Elledan

    Elledan What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    4 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    947
    Likes Received:
    34
    What I think has happened is that of music and 'movies' going from being a service to a product and again back to a service. Before it was possible to record audio, let alone video, one or more people would have to be paid to perform at a particular place and time. This was the only way to reproduce the piece.

    Then we found ourselves able to record these pieces and started selling the physical devices the recordings were stored on, starting with wax cylinders to LPs to tapes and CDs. This worked because there wasn't really any other alternative to obtain the work without paying the original artists. Copying didn't really work until the CD's introduction due to degradation with each copy.

    Then we got the internet and the ability to swap these recordings at will for virtually no cost. What happened to the value of the recording compared to the previous recording media? It evaporated. A single MP3 of some artist's recording is worth exactly $0.00, as it can be reproduced infinitely for no significant costs or time.

    Where's the value in these pieces then? Not in the recording, but in the performance. A video of a performance is one thing, but to actually be there is different. Of course, at that point $600 tickets don't really help matters.

    Naturally, this doesn't work for movies, or software for that matter. Where is the value there? In the production of the work, or basically the service of having a new work put together. This is what we would pay for, and what the system should focus on. Sadly most still pretend that a product is being sold, and that's where the whole discussion derails every time.
     
  15. yakyb

    yakyb i hate the person above me

    Joined:
    10 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    36
    that opinion is rubbish how many companies went under in the last two years?

    granted someone like microsoft is unlikely to go under but their profit ties heavily to their plans such as expansion and new product lines, by cutting their profit in half you are in theory limiting the companies expansion possibilities also this directly ties into jobs created / sustained if one section of the company only make half the money you would no doubt only have half the employees

    plus you have to consider operating costs into sales & profits

    i.e £200M sales - £50M operating = $150M profit
    reduce cost of product by 50%
    £100M sales - £50M operating = $50M profit

    then you have to factor in increased sales tdue to cheaper prices (basically companies cannot just half their price)


    say instead of being a CPU company AMD sold games

    to combat the piracy on their latest blockbuster they half the price if sales only went up 25% what would that do to the net balance? AMD already operate o a very tight budget if the cost of their products fell they would almost certainly go under
     
  16. yakyb

    yakyb i hate the person above me

    Joined:
    10 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    36
    a famous quote from Microsoft was along the lines of
    'we don't like piracy but if they are going to pirate from anyone we want it to be us'

    i suppose that Adobe have a similar attitude,

    however they have released Elements (never used it but i understand that it is a cut down version of photoshop) i would guess they get real mad if someone pirates that

    also Microsoft have released the free line of express editions VS and SQLServer

    Microsoft claim that the express line has been a massive success for them in teaching hobbyists C# SQL VB.net etc and eventually going on into a profession where the company will buy a full retail subscription
     
  17. G0UDG

    G0UDG helping others costs nothing

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,255
    Likes Received:
    504
    second hand software is not piracy as has just been pointed out to you makers of the software/games/films have already been paid for said items that is not so for pirated items well said stuart btw
     
    Last edited: 10 Aug 2010
  18. Krazeh

    Krazeh Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    56
    They've been paid by the first person who bought it, they've recieved nothing from the second person, or the third, or fourth, and so on.

    I know it's nice to think that buying software secondhand makes you morally superior to anyone who downloads it instead but the real truth is both routes costs the developer/publisher exactly the same. You are using that piece of software without having paid the developer/publisher any recompense, it makes no difference whether someone earlier in the process of getting that copy to you has paid the developer/publisher for it, you haven't.

    And let's not forget that when looking at the second hand market you're looking at people you can guarantee would pay money for the product they're getting because that's exactly what they've done.
     
  19. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    172
    So which would be better for a company then...make one initial sale of one unit, and lose repeat sales of that single unit (as happens now with second hand games), or to make one unit sale, see it being uploaded to the net, and then lose many sales due to mass pirate downloading. It's common sense which hurts companies the most, and I think you are being very shortsighted in not seeing the very simple equation here to be honest.

    I know that second hand games sales are seen as a problem for publishers, but as I said, each and every single unit on the shelves that is being sold second hand remains one unit throughout it's lifespan, and a sales revenue has been generated on that one unit.
     
  20. Krazeh

    Krazeh Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    56
    I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous argument. Second hand sales are ok because the first person to use the product paid for it in a manner which gave the developer/publisher a cut but piracy isn't even if the first person pays for it in exactly teh same manner? It appears that all you're saying is that second hand sales are ok and piracy is wrong simply due to a difference of scale.

    It also seems you're completely missing the obvious point that a second hand sale is a very real lost sale to the developer/publisher. Every time someone buys their product second hand they have lost a sale, there's no two ways about that. That person has handed money over for their product and they have not received any of that. Piracy on the other hand doesn't equate to a lost sale for every copy downloaded, there's going to be a lot of people who download software with no intention of ever handing over money regardless of whether they could download it or not.
     

Share This Page