Toribash
Look at platforms like Steam who make tons of profit. They offer a better alternative to piracy.

Look at HBO, they have the most pirated shows on television. Many people who pirate the shows would gladly pay to watch them, but HBO won't let you watch the shows online without a subscription to their TV channel as well. And one wonders why they're so pirated? Lol.

If companies are concerned about how many people are pirating their products, the solution isn't to blame the consumer, it's to change their business model to fit consumer demand.
My signature sucks
Originally Posted by Thellian View Post
Look at platforms like Steam who make tons of profit. They offer a better alternative to piracy.

Correct. Admit it or not, but it's just easier to go on steam, buy something with your CC and download it and play it. All can be done within 2 hours. Better than driving to the store and buy it there or order it on amazon and wait for three days. I don't agree with your second statement, though. It's not always their fault if they get 'robbed'. The internet makes it too easy to pirate.
Last edited by Arglax; Aug 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM.
f=m*a syens
Originally Posted by Arglax View Post
Maybe to big titles. To indie game developers they can be lethal.
What you're basically saying to small scale developers: "Hey... you should take into account that you're going to lose 20%-30% of your sales on piracy. But, you know. You should just calculate that in, make the game of less quality or something."
= Death of quality gaming.

You blow this up way more than what it actually is. Since the loss of profit due to piracy is not possible to calculate you can't say piracy is killing small scale companies. Piracy have been around for ages, and the gaming industry is bigger than it has ever been. Working in the indie game buisness have always been risky, and instead of basing your prediction of success around piracy you should rather base your prediction of success around your product.

Originally Posted by Arglax View Post
So... the gaming industry is losing in sales because people who are not part of the target audience aren't buying? That's some great reasoning. This should be a part of every business model. "Your business is failing because people who aren't your target audience don't buy."

That was hardly a serious statement from my part, but it was clearly lost in translation.
Intellectual property is an incorrect blanket term that describes nothing. Are you referring to copyrighted works? What about patented works? They are totally different and to put them under one umbrella term shows a lack of understanding of the actual laws.

Source:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

Anyways, there needs to be a limit to the extent of which people are allowed to own their ideas. Look at Monsanto. Monsanto basically holds a total monopoly over the corn market and farming, and they have an army of lawyers vast enough to deter anyone from challenging them on the matter. Is it right? Not a chance in hell. Will it change anytime soon? Not a chance in hell. As long as there's money to be made, politicians will protect the interests of the ones who supply them with money.

Originally Posted by Arglax
Maybe to big titles. To indie game developers they can be lethal.

That's cool. Totally understandable. But think about it this way... Do indie game developers have the resources to pursue a lawsuit vs. people who are violating their copyrights? Do indie game developers have the resources to pursue every single person who violates their copyrights? No, they do not, and with this current incarnation of copyright laws, only big companies receive the benefits. The indie game market still exists however, and some may even suggest that it is thriving, so we can assume that the effects of piracy are not nearly detrimental enough to warrant stricter regulations on the market.

Originally Posted by Arglax View Post
There is a difference: your friend already paid for that game. If you pirate something, nobody pays for anything.

Ah, but here's the thing. The same law applies to both, and they are both illegal according to the law.
Last edited by Beast; Aug 12, 2013 at 11:33 PM.
Ancient [Evil]
The amount of mental gymnastics people go through to justify using or taking something that belongs to someone else without paying them the demanded price is incredible.

What you're doing is morally reprehensible. Whether you aren't going to buy it anyway, whether they'll still make a profit, whether you just want to test it, any of that is tangential to the central point: what you're doing is wrong.

Piracy is the equivalent of walking into a book store, photographing every page of a book, and leaving. You're still getting something without paying for it, you just don't have the false courage your computer screen gives you to commit crimes.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249


Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
The amount of mental gymnastics people go through to justify using or taking something that belongs to someone else without paying them the demanded price is incredible.

What you're doing is morally reprehensible. Whether you aren't going to buy it anyway, whether they'll still make a profit, whether you just want to test it, any of that is tangential to the central point: what you're doing is wrong.

Piracy is the equivalent of walking into a book store, photographing every page of a book, and leaving. You're still getting something without paying for it, you just don't have the false courage your computer screen gives you to commit crimes.

Are you referring to the people who actually pirate the content and post it online, or those who just utilize the pirated material that was made available? They are not morally equivalent, and those who just browse sites like piratebay don't fit your book store analogy. Another analogy that could work is: do you think drug users are as bad as drug dealers?

Just a thought.
My signature sucks
Originally Posted by Thellian View Post
Are you referring to the people who actually pirate the content and post it online, or those who just utilize the pirated material that was made available? They are not morally equivalent, and those who just browse sites like piratebay don't fit your book store analogy. Another analogy that could work is: do you think drug users are as bad as drug dealers?

Just a thought.

That analogy doesn't really work the way you might have thought. The dealer gets paid for his work, and so do the people who supplied him, and the end user gets his product. It's a fair transaction. Pirating IS stealing, you download knowing that one part of the deal or another is legally considered theft and knowing that the artist/developer will not get the money that he/she deserves.

To be honest, I'm amazed people can still justify pirating games. Steam makes them so ridiculously cheap and accessible that there really are no excuses.
[02:19] <Dr_Strangelove> nearly 3 hours of nobody saying a word
[02:19] * Tamer0 is now known as TamerAfk
[02:19] <Dr_Strangelove> gg toribash
[02:19] <+hampa> gg
Yeah, Steam is great. I don't pirate games, but I know a lot of people who do simply because they can't afford to buy the games they want (I'm a broke college student myself, but I make due with freeware games like Toribash :P and cheap indie games on Steam).

In a perfect world there would be no piracy, but in this age of information it would be impossible to police piracy without invading privacy, plus I'm still not convinced that sharing digital products is equivalent to physical theft.
My signature sucks
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
The amount of mental gymnastics people go through to justify using or taking something that belongs to someone else without paying them the demanded price is incredible.

What you're doing is morally reprehensible. Whether you aren't going to buy it anyway, whether they'll still make a profit, whether you just want to test it, any of that is tangential to the central point: what you're doing is wrong.

Piracy is the equivalent of walking into a book store, photographing every page of a book, and leaving. You're still getting something without paying for it, you just don't have the false courage your computer screen gives you to commit crimes.

You know.... Libraries don't get explicit permission from authors to lend people their books, and are technically violating copyright regulations by lending people books. The laws regarding the matter are broken, like totally in shambles broken, and I doubt anyone feels that the act of borrowing books from a library is morally reprehensible.

The laws currently only benefit the corporations who can afford armies of lawyers to settle matters, and as opposed to their intended purpose of encouraging people to innovate, they have handed the market to the gigantic corporations. Monsanto is and always will be the largest example of this. Monsanto owns the American farmer. If you are a farmer, you are reliant on Monsanto for your products, and you are also restricted by the regulations that they place on their products. You want to get the seeds from your corn so you can plant it again next season? Nope, Monsanto's lawyers say you can't. The current incarnation of copyright/patent laws are draconian, as they not only hurt the consumer by utterly ruining their life if gigantic corporations wish to make an example out of them, they also hurt the small businesses, which simply lack the resources to take advantage of the laws.
Last edited by Beast; Aug 13, 2013 at 09:17 AM.
Ancient [Evil]
Originally Posted by Beast View Post
You know.... Libraries don't get explicit permission from authors to lend people their books, and are technically violating copyright regulations by lending people books. The laws regarding the matter are broken, like totally in shambles broken, and I doubt anyone feels that the act of borrowing books from a library is morally reprehensible.

This is a good point.

It's nigh impossible to control how, when, and where a product is used. In recent news, Nintendo tried to shut down people who made videos featuring Nintendo games. These are videos that are user-created but do feature some copyrighted material. Where do you draw the line? Currently, people are protected by fair-use laws which allow them to make content which feature content from other entities.
My signature sucks