PDA

View Full Version : Piracy-Crippled Game From Hunted Cow Returns to App Store as 'Battle Dungeon: Risen'




MacRumors
Mar 29, 2013, 01:54 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/29/piracy-crippled-game-from-hunted-cow-returns-to-app-store-as-battle-dungeon-risen/)


Last December, asynchronous multiplayer strategy game Battle Dungeon hit the App Store. Less than a week after the game was released, an .ipa file surfaced on the internet and illicitly obtained copies of Battle Dungeon caused a huge amount of stress on the game's servers.

The team behind Battle Dungeon, Hunted Cow (https://www.huntedcow.com), was forced to shut it down (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/03/piracy-cripples-ios-game-in-less-than-a-week/) after the server load caused technical difficulties that the team did not have the resources to fix.

Hunted Cow did not give up on Battle Dungeon and has today released a new version of the game in the App Store. Battle Dungeon: Risen (https://www.huntedcow.com/game/battledungeon) is a redesigned single player version of Battle Dungeon that features a number of improvements.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/03/battledungeon.jpg
Battle Dungeon: Risen offers up all new content, along with improved graphics and a lower price. The game has also been stripped of in-app purchases, allowing all upgrades to be obtained with gold earned in the game.We've integrated our AI code in to the game and developed a complete single player campaign. Along with all new maps and enemies, so don't be surprised if you see a skeleton or two wandering our new and improved dungeons. We've also gone over all our levels with some new tools that should give it much more vibrant and realistic lighting. In addition to this, each mission now includes a 3 star challenge rating and we've implemented Game Center leaderboards and achievements.As a turn-based strategy game, Battle Dungeon: Risen features 12 different scenarios to play through with several different classes, massive battles, and an array of items to earn.

Battle Dungeon: Risen (http://appshopper.com/games/battle-dungeon-risen) can be downloaded for the iPad and the iPhone from the App Store for $1.99. [Direct Link (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/battle-dungeon-risen/id584488562?mt=8)]

Article Link: Piracy-Crippled Game From Hunted Cow Returns to App Store as 'Battle Dungeon: Risen' (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/29/piracy-crippled-game-from-hunted-cow-returns-to-app-store-as-battle-dungeon-risen/)



iMacFarlane
Mar 29, 2013, 02:14 PM
Looks neat and all, but until I see a sentence that specifically states that the single-player experience in no way requires server connectivity, no thanks. Sad that we've found ourselves here, isn't it?

Joe-Diver
Mar 29, 2013, 02:18 PM
Link to .ipa file due out this week!

jclo
Mar 29, 2013, 02:24 PM
Looks neat and all, but until I see a sentence that specifically states that the single-player experience in no way requires server connectivity, no thanks. Sad that we've found ourselves here, isn't it?

It doesn't require server connectivity.

nagromme
Mar 29, 2013, 02:39 PM
It's a shame that server-side/multiplayer gaming can be at the mercy of pirates.

Yes, some multiplayer games succeed anyway. Others fail for a stupid reason like this, and it shouldn't be that way. Small developers are the most vulnerable.

Pirates: you are stealing actual money from the people who make what you seem to love playing! (Because if you weren't playing, the servers wouldn't be overloaded.)

If you like someone's creative work, pay them for it.

SmoMo
Mar 29, 2013, 02:56 PM
So are the developers saying that they sold X copies of the game, but for every legitimate copy there were Y pirate copies being played?

I don't understand how this resulted in their server experiencing too much congestion unless Y is a really large number right?
Even if 99% of the copies were pirate I am surprised the server could not cope, after-all surely they were prepared for that eventuality in case they had actually managed to sell that many copies.

Perhaps they were using a scalable cloud service and they just couldn't afford to keep it running due to such poor sales, and emphasising the large number of pirate copies was a way to save face.

I don't know, so I would take what they say at face value, but I'd love to know the value of Y.

Tulipone
Mar 29, 2013, 02:57 PM
Well I thought it looked great. Bought it. Controls, in my opinion, make it unplayable. Can't be arsed.

Unggoy Murderer
Mar 29, 2013, 03:26 PM
If you like someone's creative work, pay them for it.
Well said Sir.

On a side note, I hate people who say "I download stuff to try it out. If I like it, I'll buy it." The logic is so stupid, it's like stealing a car for a weekend, and then going back to the dealership, or driving it off a pier.

Just buy stuff, or look up reviews. Save the economy, and small businesses.

NewAnger
Mar 29, 2013, 03:46 PM
The game is already on the usual "piracy" sites including the one that replaced apptracker.

alphaod
Mar 29, 2013, 04:56 PM
Good price and looks to be a decent game.

APlotdevice
Mar 29, 2013, 05:36 PM
The game has also been stripped of in-app purchases, allowing all upgrades to be obtained with gold earned in the game..

This is by far the best part of the announcement.

cmChimera
Mar 29, 2013, 06:42 PM
Well said Sir.

On a side note, I hate people who say "I download stuff to try it out. If I like it, I'll buy it." The logic is so stupid, it's like stealing a car for a weekend, and then going back to the dealership, or driving it off a pier.

Just buy stuff, or look up reviews. Save the economy, and small businesses.

No it's not. 1. When you steal a car, you're not leaving the original car behind. 2. You get to test drive cars.

oneMadRssn
Mar 29, 2013, 07:24 PM
Pirating software is not theft. It is wrong, it is morally reprehensible, the people who do it are culpable, but it is not the crime of theft nor should it be analogized to it. It's plain different.

Theft, as defined by some the top legal minds, is only applies to things that are commoditizable and exhaustible. Meaning, it only applies to things that can be bought and sold, and only when the wrong committed deprives the rightful owner of doing what they want with it.

Infringing on someones copyright does not deprive the original owner of buying, selling, copying, etc. their original copy. Also, the right to copy and sell copies is not really a commodity, not in the traditional sense anyway.

Of all analogies to common crimes, infringing a copyright is most similar to trespass. The copyright owner has this metaphorical piece of property, and the infringer goes onto this property and uses it. He does not deprive the owner of their use (he stays out of his way), and he does not lower the properties value. He is intruding on the owner's right to exclude, that is all.

holmesf
Mar 29, 2013, 07:48 PM
Pirating software is not theft. It is wrong, it is morally reprehensible, the people who do it are culpable, but it is not the crime of theft nor should it be analogized to it. It's plain different.

Theft, as defined by some the top legal minds, is only applies to things that are commoditizable and exhaustible. Meaning, it only applies to things that can be bought and sold, and only when the wrong committed deprives the rightful owner of doing what they want with it.

Infringing on someones copyright does not deprive the original owner of buying, selling, copying, etc. their original copy. Also, the right to copy and sell copies is not really a commodity, not in the traditional sense anyway.

Of all analogies to common crimes, infringing a copyright is most similar to trespass. The copyright owner has this metaphorical piece of property, and the infringer goes onto this property and uses it. He does not deprive the owner of their use (he stays out of his way), and he does not lower the properties value. He is intruding on the owner's right to exclude, that is all.

In this case it's theft because it's not merely copyright infringement. The software is backed by real services that have real costs per user. Each pirate using the servers has a real associated cost to them.

oneMadRssn
Mar 29, 2013, 08:09 PM
In this case it's theft because it's not merely copyright infringement. The software is backed by real services that have real costs per user. Each pirate using the servers has a real associated cost to them.

That's true, but it's similar to someone sneaking into a theater and taking a seat, thereby depriving someone else of a seat. It's still similar to trespass, not theft. The thing being stolen is commoditized in this case, but I still don't think its exhaustible.

The server limit is artificial in a way. Would it still be piracy if the developer sold a million copies in a day, and his server was overloaded? Sure, his pickets would be stuffed with cash at the end of the month, but servers take time to upgrade or expand, right? I don't like to blame the victim, but in this case the victim is partially responsible (maybe 10% responsible). He could have designed his server-side software to be more scalable, and he could have also easily prevented unauthorized users from accessing the server. To say they didn't expect piracy is naive really.

What the pirates did is wrong, but it's just not the same as theft. I still maintain its the same as trespass.

holmesf
Mar 29, 2013, 08:11 PM
That's true, but it's similar to someone sneaking into a theater and taking a seat, thereby depriving someone else of a seat. It's still similar to trespass, not theft. The thing being stolen is commoditized in this case, but I still don't think its exhaustible.

The server limit is artificial in a way. Would it still be piracy if the developer sold a million copies in a day, and his server was overloaded? Sure, his pickets would be stuffed with cash at the end of the month, but servers take time to upgrade or expand, right? I don't like to blame the victim, but in this case the victim is partially responsible (maybe 10% responsible). He could have designed his server-side software to be more scalable, and he could have also easily prevented unauthorized users from accessing the server. To say they didn't expect piracy is naive really.

What the pirates did is wrong, but it's just not the same as theft. I still maintain its the same as trespass.

The server isn't limited in an artificial way. More paying customers would allow more servers, as you said. Developers don't really need to "plan" for the selling a million copies overnight scenario because that would just be a case of counting chickens before they hatch. Most small-time developers struggle and few succeed. So not the same thing.

BiigBiscuit
Mar 29, 2013, 08:42 PM
No it's not. 1. When you steal a car, you're not leaving the original car behind. 2. You get to test drive cars.

I was just going to say the same. Stealing is taking the original while piracy leaves the original in tact and duplicates it.

iGrip
Mar 29, 2013, 08:55 PM
The logic is so stupid, it's like stealing a car for a weekend, and then going back to the dealership, or driving it off a pier.




Downloading a song is like stealing a car and driving it off a pier. OK.

anarchopath
Mar 29, 2013, 09:06 PM
Pirating software is not theft.

Finally someone on the internet who can think with his brain instead of his emotions.

Scarcity is the root concept you seem to be getting at. Concepts of property arose to avoid conflict over scarce resources. Almost universally, moral norms and justice systems across humanity stem from concepts of property in scarce resources. This development is automatic, spontaneous, a necessary fact of the human condition, across almost every culture throughout different times on different continents. To my point, for concepts of property to be valued and respected in society, a class of people calling themselves "government" isn't required to invent the concept and impose it on society. Free markets, religious folk, justice systems, families, communities, naturally develop and value property due to it's capacity to reduce conflict over scarce resources.

Property is wholly separate from government grants of monopoly privilege. These do not arise naturally in society without government inventing and imposing them. Examples of these are copyrights and patents, and the fact that their supporters refer to them as "property" no more makes them so than a random guy becomes your father just because him and his friends refer to him as your father. To be clear:
A) government grants of monopoly privilege have utterly nothing to do with property
B) by definition, free markets don't automatically value and develop government granted monopoly privileges
C) government grants of monopoly privilege fly in the face of property based moral norms and justice systems, because they rely on violence to restrict what peaceful people can do with their own actual property

So no, copying files has utterly nothing to do with theft. When you steal a car, it's theft because the car is scarce—the owner can't control it while you do. When you copy a file, it isn't theft because the owner's of control over his scarce resource (data on a computer chip, or something) isn't violated.

soundr
Mar 29, 2013, 10:22 PM
No it's not. 1. When you steal a car, you're not leaving the original car behind. 2. You get to test drive cars.

1. Then lets compare it to counterfeiting money. I'm sure you see nothing wrong with that.

2. You don't get to test drive cars without permission.

aristokrat
Mar 29, 2013, 10:51 PM
Finally someone on the internet who can think with his brain instead of his emotions.

Scarcity is the root concept you seem to be getting at. Concepts of property arose to avoid conflict over scarce resources. Almost universally, moral norms and justice systems across humanity stem from concepts of property in scarce resources. This development is automatic, spontaneous, a necessary fact of the human condition, across almost every culture throughout different times on different continents. To my point, for concepts of property to be valued and respected in society, a class of people calling themselves "government" isn't required to invent the concept and impose it on society. Free markets, religious folk, justice systems, families, communities, naturally develop and value property due to it's capacity to reduce conflict over scarce resources.

Property is wholly separate from government grants of monopoly privilege. These do not arise naturally in society without government inventing and imposing them. Examples of these are copyrights and patents, and the fact that their supporters refer to them as "property" no more makes them so than a random guy becomes your father just because him and his friends refer to him as your father. To be clear:
A) government grants of monopoly privilege have utterly nothing to do with property
B) by definition, free markets don't automatically value and develop government granted monopoly privileges
C) government grants of monopoly privilege fly in the face of property based moral norms and justice systems, because they rely on violence to restrict what peaceful people can do with their own actual property

So no, copying files has utterly nothing to do with theft. When you steal a car, it's theft because the car is scarce—the owner can't control it while you do. When you copy a file, it isn't theft because the owner's of control over his scarce resource (data on a computer chip, or something) isn't violated.

Finally, someone on the internet who hides behind semantic arguments to support immoral acts. Scarcity is not what gives rise to the definition, but rather a society's legal definition of property rights, be they physical or intellectual. If the definition of property rights includes that a king is allowed to take anything he wants from his subjects, then his claiming of any good, no matter how scarce, is not theft, even though he is depriving its original owner of its use. On the other hand, if a society defines property rights to include things like ideas or books, then appropriating them for your own use is theft.

Stealing is simply the violation of property rights, and property rights define what is stealing. Making semantic arguments about scarcity and deprivation of use are moot points. There is no universal law or code of conduct, and thus there is no absolute definition of theft. But since society currently includes intellectual property in the definitions of property rights, taking intellectual is theft.

bonehead
Mar 29, 2013, 10:53 PM
Finally someone on the internet who can think with his brain instead of his emotions.

Scarcity is the root concept you seem to be getting at. Concepts of property arose to avoid conflict over scarce resources. Almost universally, moral norms and justice systems across humanity stem from concepts of property in scarce resources. This development is automatic, spontaneous, a necessary fact of the human condition, across almost every culture throughout different times on different continents. To my point, for concepts of property to be valued and respected in society, a class of people calling themselves "government" isn't required to invent the concept and impose it on society. Free markets, religious folk, justice systems, families, communities, naturally develop and value property due to it's capacity to reduce conflict over scarce resources.

Property is wholly separate from government grants of monopoly privilege. These do not arise naturally in society without government inventing and imposing them. Examples of these are copyrights and patents, and the fact that their supporters refer to them as "property" no more makes them so than a random guy becomes your father just because him and his friends refer to him as your father. To be clear:
A) government grants of monopoly privilege have utterly nothing to do with property
B) by definition, free markets don't automatically value and develop government granted monopoly privileges
C) government grants of monopoly privilege fly in the face of property based moral norms and justice systems, because they rely on violence to restrict what peaceful people can do with their own actual property

So no, copying files has utterly nothing to do with theft. When you steal a car, it's theft because the car is scarce—the owner can't control it while you do. When you copy a file, it isn't theft because the owner's of control over his scarce resource (data on a computer chip, or something) isn't violated.

Do you like getting paid for the work you do? Don't you think a worker should benefit from the fruits of their labor? Copying files is not paying a worker for their output. I would think a person with your views wouldn't want to shaft their brother worker.

anarchopath
Mar 29, 2013, 11:37 PM
Do you like getting paid for the work you do?

Yes, within strict limits (based on property first, and then contract). So for example regarding property, someone doesn't deserve to get paid for a statue that he built from gold bars taken out of your house while you were away. And regarding contracts, I don't expect you to pay me for the work I do for my clients.

You're talking about justice. Like I said originally, justice is a concept stemming from the root of property.

Don't you think a worker should benefit from the fruits of their labor?

Within reasonable limits, sure; but not necessarily. Like I said, if someone labors to make a statue out of gold bars stolen from your home, he doesn't deserve to benefit from that. And a street performer doesn't deserve the money of everyone who happens to see him.

Copying files is not paying a worker for their output.

Ok, but so what? People don't just automatically deserve money by mere virtue of the fact that they've labored.

Property rights...

No, you're making stuff up to rationalize your belief system ex post facto. Property (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/property?s=t) is independent of a person's opinion about rights. Whether theft (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft?s=t) has occurred has nothing to do with whether you believe someone had some mystical "right", or even whether several people agree with you.

ArtOfWarfare
Mar 30, 2013, 12:54 AM
Oh look, MR has decided to post another story from this whiney developer.

Sheesh, once they publish about you just once, it doesn't matter what you have to say anymore, they'll just publish it.

I really need to make my own crappy server based app so that MR will cover it for me.

Hey guys, I'm going to limit Battery Status to only receive statuses from 5 other computers on your network, because if you have people running illegal copies on your network, you might consume too much bandwidth, and you wouldn't want that.

In a few months, I'll just upload a new version of Battery Status that completely lacks the networking features and Mac Rumors will run a second article on it. Worked with Mailbox. Worked with Hunted Cow. Why wouldn't it work for me?

Rajani Isa
Mar 30, 2013, 01:19 AM
That's true, but it's similar to someone sneaking into a theater and taking a seat, thereby depriving someone else of a seat. It's still similar to trespass, not theft. The thing being stolen is commoditized in this case, but I still don't think its exhaustible.


Except in this case, you're also sneaking behind the concession stand and getting a soda.

In this specific case the big/main issue was that the pirated copies used the official servers. This meant not only did they not get money for each copy, but unlike someone sneaking in a theatre to steal a seat, each copy caused additional expense (unlike most other pirated software, which either is single/offline play or uses unofficial servers). Even if they didn't have the money right away from Apple, with the sales of all those copies they could of gotten credit, no doubt, to get the needed extra server capacity and tech support.

Note I don't care to get in a general property rights debate; I am just referring to the specific case with Battle Dungeon.

----------

Oh look, MR has decided to post another story from this whiney developer.

Sheesh, once they publish about you just once, it doesn't matter what you have to say anymore, they'll just publish it.

I really need to make my own crappy server based app so that MR will cover it for me.

Hey guys, I'm going to limit Battery Status to only receive statuses from 5 other computers on your network, because if you have people running illegal copies on your network, you might consume too much bandwidth, and you wouldn't want that.

In a few months, I'll just upload a new version of Battery Status that completely lacks the networking features and Mac Rumors will run a second article on it. Worked with Mailbox. Worked with Hunted Cow. Why wouldn't it work for me?

So how do you know it's crappy? :)

And oh noes, someone tried to make a multi-player game you can play over the internet! (Mailbox being server based, that you might have a point on).

skwash
Mar 30, 2013, 01:32 AM
I'm amazed by some of these responses..

So it's okay to steal somebodies time, because it is their time and not their property? These developers spend 100's of hours building these Apps in the hope that they get paid. They usually don't have the backing of a huge company like EA or Microsoft.

I don't know what their server side looked like, but I can tell you from experience that if they are using some sort of cloud hosting you usually pay per server or per transaction. They developer would need $X number of dollars per user per server. If a large number of those user's have paid nothing, then they can't afford to bring up more servers.

A decade ago I could see why people would pirate games. $60 for a game can be pretty expensive for a lot of people. But the majority of these types of games cost less than a gallon of milk.

beelsebob
Mar 30, 2013, 03:37 AM
Looks neat and all, but until I see a sentence that specifically states that the single-player experience in no way requires server connectivity, no thanks. Sad that we've found ourselves here, isn't it?

Hi, I am Beelsebob, I'm the project lead on Battle Dungeon: Risen. I can confirm that no connection to any server is required.

AFDoc
Mar 30, 2013, 04:24 AM
Well said Sir.

On a side note, I hate people who say "I download stuff to try it out. If I like it, I'll buy it." The logic is so stupid, it's like stealing a car for a weekend, and then going back to the dealership, or driving it off a pier.

Just buy stuff, or look up reviews. Save the economy, and small businesses.
Logic is silly... I can test drive a car if I wish. IF I pay for an app and it's **** I'm stuck with a crap app and out my X$. Sorry but people are stupid and their reviews can't be trusted. I am one of those, "I download stuff to try it out" people. Give a refund policy on apps and this wouldn't be an issue. I d/l, try, delete if crap, purchase if good. Developer gets my business/money if their product is worth it, no one is harmed if it's crap because I certainly don't keep it.... so basically I keep myself protected from the developer's possibly crappy app and them keeping my money if I'm not satisfied with their app.

Brian Y
Mar 30, 2013, 06:19 AM
I don't agree with piracy. But please, for the love of god, if you're going to comment - look up the definition of stealing. Piracy, no matter how wrong, is not stealing.

There's a reason, when the RIAA/MPAA take somebody to court, they sue for piracy, not theft.

theluggage
Mar 30, 2013, 07:07 AM
It's a shame that server-side/multiplayer gaming can be at the mercy of pirates.

Unfortunately, its also at the mercy of legitimate sales - just see the recent Sim City debacle (and many similar cases in the past). Ironically, one of the reasons big developers like it is that it prevents piracy - provided you incorporate some sort of mechanism to make it difficult for pirated copies to access the servers. Of course, big developers with big brands like Sim City have the luxury of being able to **** off their customers and get away with it.

So are the developers saying that they sold X copies of the game, but for every legitimate copy there were Y pirate copies being played? I don't understand how this resulted in their server experiencing too much congestion unless Y is a really large number right?


Or, X was a very small number and they were relying on sufficient income from X sales to pay to keep their server running.

Essentially, this sounds like a broken business model. If you're going to run a MUD game then you need some sort of income stream (subscriptions or ads) to keep enough server capacity to deal with fluctuations in demand. Maybe it was brought down by a spike in piracy, but if so it could just as easily been killed by a surge in demand from legitimate buyers (say it got made App of the Day or received a good write-up on a popular website...)


I'm amazed by some of these responses..

So it's okay to steal somebodies time, because it is their time and not their property? These developers spend 100's of hours building these Apps in the hope that they get paid.


Its not about it being "ok" - personally, I pay for my software - its about exaggerating the scale of the problem to justify excessive penalties and intrusive enforcement regimes. The problem is developers who wishfully see every pirate copy as a lost sale and don't realise that the majority of pirate copies cost them nothing, and a fraction will eventually turn into real sales.

Except in this case, where a bad business model meant that every pirate copy did cost the developers money.

The same factors that make piracy easy (and, as some would argue, "not theft") are also hugely beneficial to software developers. If software was "physical" then most small developers would currently be begging their banks for a loan to finance manufacture of the 10,000-unit minimum order from Buy More (n.b. that would be the number you loan them - you won't get paid unless they actually sell them), or be haggling with bookstore owners who thought they deserved a 50% cut of a single copy ordered by a customer.

Software has always been prone to piracy - but then its always been vastly easier and cheaper to 'manufacture' than physical goods (even in the floppy disc/CD-ROM days) and now with 'app stores' there's no physical manufacture at all and Apple/Google handle all the distribution and billing for a modest 30% cut.



They developer would need $X number of dollars per user per server.

...which is a broken business model. Even without piracy you're going to get an initial spike in sales slowing to a trickle over the following months, but you're going to be paying regular server charges indefinitely.

If you have an app which benefits from being server-based then its perfectly reasonable to have a subscription model driven by in-app purchases of game time (what gets my goat is when in-app-purchases get blurred with gameplay - e.g. by letting you buy in-game currency).

SmoMo
Mar 30, 2013, 08:52 AM
Hi, I am Beelsebob, I'm the project lead on Battle Dungeon: Risen. I can confirm that no connection to any server is required.

Hi Beelsebob, what percentage of games being played were pirate ?
I'm not asking for your private sales data of course :) , just the ratio of games played over the number of known sales?

----------

Logic is silly... I can test drive a car if I wish. IF I pay for an app and it's **** I'm stuck with a crap app and out my X$. Sorry but people are stupid and their reviews can't be trusted. I am one of those, "I download stuff to try it out" people. Give a refund policy on apps and this wouldn't be an issue. I d/l, try, delete if crap, purchase if good. Developer gets my business/money if their product is worth it, no one is harmed if it's crap because I certainly don't keep it.... so basically I keep myself protected from the developer's possibly crappy app and them keeping my money if I'm not satisfied with their app.

You can try free versions of thousands of Apps so you can just stick to those ones and all your needs are met.

But consider this, the quality of an App is subjective and sometimes you may buy an App, not like it at first, continue playing ( you know, because you've paid for it now and you may as well see if it gets better) and wham, imagine this, you change your opinion.
Turns out you see, you had been wrong, it wasn't **** at all, it was smarter than you had first thought.

Sure, we could design all our games to be simplistic and 1-dimensional experiences where we try and impress the people with the shortest attention spans, like the worst Hollywood summer action movies.
Or we could benefit from the knowledge that you've bought the game and are prepared to invest some of your time into your investment before you just give up like a spoiled brat.

But you personally, are not even part of this dynamic anyway, no one cares about you because you are too poor or stupid to spend a dollar and see if you like something so just keep going ahead and pirating away, the technologies improve on both sides all the time, one day you might find the smart hackers making this possible for you have stopped, enjoy it while you can I guess.

ThunderSkunk
Mar 30, 2013, 09:40 AM
"you can just stick to those ones and all your needs are met."

"But consider this, the quality of an App is subjective and sometimes you may buy an App, not like it at first, continue playing..."

"invest some of your time into your investment before you just give up like a spoiled brat."

"But you personally, are not even part of this dynamic anyway, no one cares about you because you are too poor or stupid to spend a dollar and see if you like something.

I can't imagine why people think you game programmers are overvalued, and don't want to just throw their money at you blindly. What a mystery.

I stopped trial-downloading games, and thus, stopped buying games.
Where you had a potential customer, now you don't.
Rejoice.

swagi
Mar 30, 2013, 09:47 AM
Logic is silly... I can test drive a car if I wish. IF I pay for an app and it's **** I'm stuck with a crap app and out my X$. Sorry but people are stupid and their reviews can't be trusted. I am one of those, "I download stuff to try it out" people. Give a refund policy on apps and this wouldn't be an issue. I d/l, try, delete if crap, purchase if good. Developer gets my business/money if their product is worth it, no one is harmed if it's crap because I certainly don't keep it.... so basically I keep myself protected from the developer's possibly crappy app and them keeping my money if I'm not satisfied with their app.

Maybe you should try out Android then. Google Play allows you to "try out" every app for 14 days, because this is your refund period. If you don't like your App you just press a button, the app is deleted from your device and you get your money back.

A shame something like this is not implemented n the iOS AppStore.

SmoMo
Mar 30, 2013, 09:56 AM
I can't imagine why people think you game programmers are overvalued, and don't want to just throw their money at you blindly. What a mystery.

I stopped trial-downloading games, and thus, stopped buying games.
Where you had a potential customer, now you don't.
Rejoice.

But this is my point exactly, we don't really care about you, as I said have fun pirating all you can, I certainly did the same when I was a kid back on the Amiga and the Atari ST.
( piracy is suggested to be one of the reasons that home computer market collapsed in the 90s when faced with the far less pirate-able console competitors )

What I was trying to tell you, and I'll try to explain it better this time, is that some forms of art are catchy and rewarding from the very first contact. Just think of whatever cheesy pop song has just been released. However when you have the whole album it is often the songs you didn't like to start with turn out to be the ones you end up loving in the end. And you often end up hating the catchy tunes as you learn how flat they really are.

Any artist in every medium has this same scenario, do they want to pander to first impressions and folk with short attention spans, or stick to their own judgement and make something truly awesome.

I'm dissing you, personally, because you are this first type of human, you want to try a game for a few minutes ( for free) and then you abort it if you dont get instant gratification.

Absolutely fine with me, maybe this is the best you can get out of life, as I said before maybe you are just stupid, and I'm happy for mentally disabled people to play whatever games they want, hey do it for free, life owes you one right!

But you don't have any moral entitlement to do that, be humble, and graciously acknowledge the time and skill of the artists who have made these games for you. That won't cost you anything after all.

Unggoy Murderer
Mar 30, 2013, 10:14 AM
No it's not. 1. When you steal a car, you're not leaving the original car behind. 2. You get to test drive cars.
Does that make it right? No.

Just because the original is left doesn't mean you can take it. That's the excuse of a 8 year old, absolutely pathetic.

cmChimera
Mar 30, 2013, 10:36 AM
1. Then lets compare it to counterfeiting money. I'm sure you see nothing wrong with that.

2. You don't get to test drive cars without permission.

1. Well first off, I didn't express an opinion as to whether it was right or wrong to pirate a game. I simply said your analogy was poor. Secondly, so is this one. Counterfeiting money doesn't do anything until you buy something with fake money. At that point you have tricked someone into giving you the product, which again is not duplicated, for no money at all essentially. You should stop trying to compare copyright infringement to other concepts. Copyright infringement is like copyright infringement. Leave it at that.

2. What's your point? You can't trial an iPhone game unless there's a free version. If you're going to buy a car, you're going to be able to test drive it.



Does that make it right? No.

Just because the original is left doesn't mean you can take it. That's the excuse of a 8 year old, absolutely pathetic.

Where in my post did I express an opinion on the morality of copyright infringement?

lordofthereef
Mar 30, 2013, 10:44 AM
Slightly tangental point, but doesn't apple pride iOS because it reduces piracy? Obviously not enough. Obviously there will always be pirates so long as there is digital content to steal. This is proof in point that even the most locked down os is vulnerable to piracy.

That said, this is the first I'm hearing of this, but it begs the question how many copies were actually pirated and how many copies were projected to sell. I would have to think millions, as a server shouldn't just buckle like this.

Krazy Bill
Mar 30, 2013, 10:58 AM
On a side note, I hate people who say "I download stuff to try it out. If I like it, I'll buy it." The logic is so stupid, it's like stealing a car for a weekend, and then going back to the dealership, or driving it off a pier.

It's your logic I don't understand (nor the analogies). You do know you can "test drive" a car, right? All software should offer some kind of trial portal before you buy it.

Just buy stuff, or look up reviews. Save the economy, and small businesses.Yes indeed. Let's all just fall in line with glazed eyes.

kanselmo
Mar 30, 2013, 12:07 PM
Wow. A lot of people are really putting a lot of effort into hiding behind semantics to justify software and media piracy.

blueroom
Mar 30, 2013, 12:14 PM
Wow. A lot of people are really putting a lot of effort into hiding behind semantics to justify software and media piracy.

True. Amazing how some folks can justify anything. Even stealing or whatever they want to call it.

smetvid
Mar 30, 2013, 12:45 PM
Perhaps piracy itself may not be considered stealing but using a server connection without paying for it is. As somebody who writes software that uses a cloud connection for multiple users I can tell you if you use my connection without permission you are in fact stealing bandwidth with me. Bandwidth is something I have to pay for per user much like electricity or making a long distance phone call. Using an online based game when you should not be is no different than cheating a phone company or utility company by not paying them but using their services.

That is theft and the reason why this particular game was hurt.

With that said I do question how this particular company was going to keep their servers going long term anyway. If their means of paying for the server was the sale of the game even then eventually their cash would have dried up anyway and they would have had to shut down the servers. You cannot maintain a large volume of server connections for a long period of time without a steady flow of cash. Online games for mobile are going to need to figure out a way to keep cash coming into the company or this model will never work. Pirates or no pirates eventually people would stop buying the app and they would not be able to maintain the server costs for those who already own the game and still want to play.

satyrica
Mar 30, 2013, 01:07 PM
Well said Sir.

On a side note, I hate people who say "I download stuff to try it out. If I like it, I'll buy it." The logic is so stupid, it's like stealing a car for a weekend, and then going back to the dealership, or driving it off a pier.

Just buy stuff, or look up reviews. Save the economy, and small businesses.

On another side note, I hate people who say "Well said Sir".

Dagless
Mar 30, 2013, 02:10 PM
This reason closed down some of the games I worked on years ago. It's a shame it affects legit customers too. Silly pirates, how much did this game originally cost?

AFDoc
Mar 30, 2013, 07:47 PM
A shame something like this is not implemented n the iOS AppStore.
agreed.

gorskiegangsta
Mar 30, 2013, 08:07 PM
Finally someone on the internet who can think with his brain instead of his emotions.

Scarcity is the root concept you seem to be getting at. Concepts of property arose to avoid conflict over scarce resources. Almost universally, moral norms and justice systems across humanity stem from concepts of property in scarce resources...
...
...

Arguing about semantics of "property" does nothing but dance around the true subject at hand, namely that of fair trade.
Since the beginning of human civilization, humans utilized the concept of trade, whereby two parties agree to exchange goods and/or services fairly, for the benefit of both parties. It still continues to this day, though people became detached with the concept with invent of currency and 3rd parties such as stores/shops and other various retailers.

There are a couple of core examples of fair trade:
A. I offer you a resource in exchange for another resource (incl. gold/money)
Ex: when you buy groceries, clothing, housing, tools, electronics, etc.. and pay money for it.
B. I offer you a service in exchange for a resource (incl. gold/money)
Ex: when you go to the physician/dentist/psychiatrist/gynecologist, or a lawyer, or a barber, or hire a plumber, and pay them in exchange for their service and/or expertise.
C. I offer you a service in exchange for another service (i.e. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.")

The case of online piracy almost universally deals with illegally obtained copyrighted content. The content itself, whether a piece of entertainment (e.g. song, a movie, or a game) or a utility/productivity tool (i.e. an app, or other piece of software), is made available to end user via some form of digital distribution.
The aforementioned content is qualified as both a resource and a service, provided by the developers/producers to the, and for the benefit of the, end user. So, utilizing the concept of fair trade, by simply using the content, one becomes morally obligated to reimburse the content owner for their hard work.

So, to summarize:
-The content creator put hard work into creating/providing something for user's benefit.
-By obtaining (e.g. downloading it, legally or illegally) and/or using it, the user acknowledged that the content in question is useful/beneficial to them.
-Consequently, by doing the above, the user acknowledged that the content creator fulfilled their side of the trade.
-With that, it is user's moral obligation to fulfill/finalize the trade by reimbursing the IP owner(s) and/or creator(s) for their work.

----------

On another side note, I hate people who say "Well said Sir".

Well said Sir! :p

yusukeaoki
Mar 30, 2013, 11:26 PM
Tbh, I do pirate games.
And if I like it I buy it.
Ive found out games I like this way.
When I dont like them, I just uninstall them.

I believe game company should have "trials" to test out games.
This was the user can try the game out and see if one likes it or not.

NewAnger
Mar 31, 2013, 12:05 AM
agreed.

Apple can prevent people from downgrading to an older iOS version but they can't do a thing with stopping people from pirating apps. They have an app out that takes a second to run that cracks most apps. I guess Apple is trying to stop this by patching exploits used to JB but a person doesn't even need to JB to install cracked apps.

thewitt
Mar 31, 2013, 12:36 AM
Apple can prevent people from downgrading to an older iOS version but they can't do a thing with stopping people from pirating apps. They have an app out that takes a second to run that cracks most apps. I guess Apple is trying to stop this by patching exploits used to JB but a person doesn't even need to JB to install cracked apps.

And how do you install cracked apps without a jail broken device?

Not all jail breakers are pirates, but all pirates jail break.

NewAnger
Mar 31, 2013, 01:16 AM
And how do you install cracked apps without a jail broken device?

Not all jail breakers are pirates, but all pirates jail break.

Telling how is against forum rules of course.

yusukeaoki
Mar 31, 2013, 01:41 AM
Telling how is against forum rules of course.

He's obviously just making a point that without JB, you cant install cracked apps.

Abazigal
Mar 31, 2013, 04:05 AM
I personally don't like the concept of freemium games (quite a few require you to spend exhorbitant sums of money just to make the game playable, and its competitive online nature all but encourages people to spam upgrades in a neverending arms race), but my heart goes out to the developers who sunk in their time and money into this business venture. :(

anarchopath
Mar 31, 2013, 02:02 PM
Arguing about semantics of "property" does nothing but dance around the true subject at hand
No, you're wrong. Let me repeat: moral norms and justice systems universally stem from property. This has always been, and will always be, because we exist in an environment of scarcity, and property is a construct to reduce conflict over scarce resources. In a world where resources are infinite and instantly accessible, property doesn't exist, and therefore neither does morality or justice, because there is no room for conflict over scarce resources.

The root concept behind mutually voluntary exchange (or what you're calling "fair trade") is property. When two parties exchange, they are exchanging owned scarce resources. At a bare minimum, they own the scarce resource that is their body, and they own the scarce resource they intend to exchange. This is elementary economics.

My point was that this framework develops automatically, spontaneously, as a necessary fact of the human condition. Humans naturally value property as a means to reduce conflict within a reality of scarce resources.

The root premise of government granted monopoly privileges (of which IP is an example) is the use of violence or threats of violence to restrict what people (who aren't given the monopoly grant) can peacefully do with their property. Obviously, peaceful people don't value this, and therefore all of history managed to avoid its institutionalization, until VERY RECENTLY when governments began imposing it—and what else would you expect, from institutionalized monopolies on violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence).

So don't get involved in a philosophical discussion and dismiss the opposition as "semantic". And don't try to rationalize IP via morality, because it flies in the face of everything morality is based on. You don't use violence to intimidate peaceful people, and you don't treat other people as your slaves, deciding what they can't do peacefully with their property.

Michael Goff
Mar 31, 2013, 02:48 PM
As with any topic of piracy, you have people trying to justify it.

I shouldn't be shocked... and I'm not.

SmoMo
Mar 31, 2013, 04:15 PM
No, you're wrong. Let me repeat: moral norms and justice systems universally stem from property. This has always been, and will always be, because we exist in an environment of scarcity, and property is a construct to reduce conflict over scarce resources. In a world where resources are infinite and instantly accessible, property doesn't exist, and therefore neither does morality or justice, because there is no room for conflict over scarce resources.

The root concept behind mutually voluntary exchange (or what you're calling "fair trade") is property. When two parties exchange, they are exchanging owned scarce resources. At a bare minimum, they own the scarce resource that is their body, and they own the scarce resource they intend to exchange. This is elementary economics.

My point was that this framework develops automatically, spontaneously, as a necessary fact of the human condition. Humans naturally value property as a means to reduce conflict within a reality of scarce resources.

The root premise of government granted monopoly privileges (of which IP is an example) is the use of violence or threats of violence to restrict what people (who aren't given the monopoly grant) can peacefully do with their property. Obviously, peaceful people don't value this, and therefore all of history managed to avoid its institutionalization, until VERY RECENTLY when governments began imposing it—and what else would you expect, from institutionalized monopolies on violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence).

So don't get involved in a philosophical discussion and dismiss the opposition as "semantic". And don't try to rationalize IP via morality, because it flies in the face of everything morality is based on. You don't use violence to intimidate peaceful people, and you don't treat other people as your slaves, deciding what they can't do peacefully with their property.

Consider this, lets say that you pirating an App is actually not in anyway immoral. Lets say it is completely neutral, perhaps because you made a digital copy so the author hasn't lost anything, and because you were never going to buy it anyway so they haven't even lost out on the potential of money.

Lets start with this common ground, that you pirating the App is not immoral.

Ok, is that where it ends?
No, because to understand the morality of this situation in which you were free to choose one action over another we also have to consider the situations that didn't happen because of your choice.
Lets say you like the App, or you like what the Author tried to do ( but didn't quite succeed ) so you decide to pay them for the work. Now this is no longer of neutral morality is it, now this is presumably a positive action.
You are supporting the author and in that way supporting something far greater, the progress of art and the global society.

So lets look at person A and person B here, what do we think of them? Is one of them selfish, or childish, is one of them more interesting, more generous and mature with their actions?
Who is really acting as a moral instrument and using their abilities and free-will to shape the world into a better place?

Now what kind of person do you want to be? but more to the point is it immoral to spend your life as person A, and if that is you, wouldn't you want to be prodded by people more enlightened that yourself, and given the chance to use your life to do something good rather than just arguing (with such pointless energy) only to get yourself to a morally neutral position?

Consider the difference between the morality of your actions, and the potential morality of your actions, and you'll see that choosing a neutral path is immoral if you are in fact capable of achieving better.

gorskiegangsta
Mar 31, 2013, 06:24 PM
No, you're wrong. Let me repeat: moral norms and justice systems universally stem from property. This has always been, and will always be, because we exist in an environment of scarcity, and property is a construct to reduce conflict over scarce resources. In a world where resources are infinite and instantly accessible, property doesn't exist, and therefore neither does morality or justice, because there is no room for conflict over scarce resources.

The root concept behind mutually voluntary exchange (or what you're calling "fair trade") is property. When two parties exchange, they are exchanging owned scarce resources. At a bare minimum, they own the scarce resource that is their body, and they own the scarce resource they intend to exchange. This is elementary economics.

My point was that this framework develops automatically, spontaneously, as a necessary fact of the human condition. Humans naturally value property as a means to reduce conflict within a reality of scarce resources.

The root premise of government granted monopoly privileges (of which IP is an example) is the use of violence or threats of violence to restrict what people (who aren't given the monopoly grant) can peacefully do with their property. Obviously, peaceful people don't value this, and therefore all of history managed to avoid its institutionalization, until VERY RECENTLY when governments began imposing it—and what else would you expect, from institutionalized monopolies on violence.

So don't get involved in a philosophical discussion and dismiss the opposition as "semantic". And don't try to rationalize IP via morality, because it flies in the face of everything morality is based on. You don't use violence to intimidate peaceful people, and you don't treat other people as your slaves, deciding what they can't do peacefully with their property.

This is so inaccurate, I don't know where to start.

Firstly, moral norms, justice systems, government-imposed laws, and even religious "commandments" and guidelines, stem from the need to have a normally functional society. Don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness (i.e. don't lie), etc.. are all designed to keep the society healthy and functional because without trust (i.e. everyone stealing from, and lying to, each other) and security (everyone routinely killing and/or harming each other) the society will break down. Morality is by no means limited to dealings with property; personal property is merely a part of it - not the part of it.

Secondly, that world you're talking about, using your own twisted definition of "scarce" and "infinite" resources does not, and will not, exist for as long as humans play any role in creating things. When, and if, the time comes where robots and computers will do all our bidding, including creating new entertainment content (which'll require a great deal of imagination and creativity, effectively eliminating that possibility...), and all humans would do is eat/crap/sleep, then your argument will hold water. As of now, it doesn't.

This brings me to another point. When you acquire (whether legally or illegally) digital content (which is effectively infinite), you aren't utilizing it as a resource - you're utilizing the work, knowledge, expertise and creativity and imagination of the humans that created it - a very much scarce resource - even more so in case of indie developers.

Lastly, I stand by my belief that your "philosophical" tirade is really a diversionary tactic to detach the content creator from the created content, in order to justify piracy. Believe what you want to believe, and justify what you want to justify but my original point stands. By acquiring and using a particular piece of content, one acknowledges that the resource which helped make it, namely the creator's time/expertise/imagination/creativity (which is very much a scarce resource), is useful and/or beneficial to them. By doing that, in turn, one has a moral obligation to pay for the resource they've utilized to their use/benefit.

MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 31, 2013, 07:06 PM
I was just going to say the same. Stealing is taking the original while piracy leaves the original in tact and duplicates it.

Kind of like Samsung with the iPhone/iPad, eh? :D

MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 31, 2013, 08:28 PM
So it's okay to steal somebodies time, because it is their time and not their property?

I devoted 7 years of the spare time of my life to making pinball games for Visual Pinball and gave it all away for free. I released a music album on iTunes, Amazon, etc. and it costs less than $1 per song. I don't see tons of people buying it. Frankly, I'd be happy if people just listened to it. An artist doesn't make art for it to sit in a glass case underground in a vault. I used to copy software for the C64 when I was a kid, but we were very poor and I wasn't going to be able to buy them anyway. So maybe that's why I have a slightly better attitude about giving away software in return. If I make money, great. If not, it's a hobby. Developing cheap games for an iPhone isn't exactly something one should bet their lives on, IMO. I have a job with a regular income that comes first. iOS games might be a good way to get rich at some point, but I wouldn't bet my house mortgage on it to do it full time.


These developers spend 100's of hours building these Apps in the hope that they get paid. They usually don't have the backing of a huge company like EA or Microsoft.


Yeah well I spent THOUSANDS of hours making those pinball games to give away for free and only asked people donate to charity in return if they liked the game. I seriously think some people have too much greed in their minds rather than thinking about the less fortunate as I think back to my own childhood. Yeah, adults with jobs should buy the games if they like them, but on the other hand, Apple has created a system whereby you cannot try a DEMO of the game first at all. I know I don't like buying games I can't try first (particularly those $60 ones you talk about). In other words, just because someone tries a game off a pirate site, it doesn't mean they won't buy it later if they actually like the game. Intellectual property that can be copied/borrowed/duplicated simply doesn't always "neatly" fit the right/wrong category like some want to portray it. I used to try those $60 type games by renting them at Blockbuster first, but they're all gone now. I've also tried various console and computer and even iOS games at a friend's house on their system using their game. Who hasn't watched a movie at a friend's house? So if someone gets a torrent of a game to try it out first and then buys it later are they still a low life? :confused:



A decade ago I could see why people would pirate games. $60 for a game can be pretty expensive for a lot of people. But the majority of these types of games cost less than a gallon of milk.

Angry Birds and Bejeweled were worth every penny and then some, but even then they're better on a larger screen, IMO. I haven't been too crazy about anything else I've tried on the iOS platform (solitaire/card games and word puzzles get some play, but otherwise, I stick mostly to music here. iOS is a lousy gaming platform, IMO. I prefer actual computer/console games.

I think my point is that worrying about so-called "lost sales" is just worrying. Most of these people wouldn't buy the game even if they couldn't get it for free. They'd just do without (whether by choice or fortune) and find something else to do. Again, I'd rather someone listen to my songs for free on Spotify (yeah it might as well be for free there seeing they don't even pay 1 cent per play) than not listen at all since art is meant to be seen/heard/played and not just for the well off (the $60 analogy again). It's why we have libraries (and like it or not they are subsidized by tax payers...OMG it's socialism run amok! :eek: )

I was once told people get their real award in Heaven. Well, unless Heaven is some kind of Capitalistic Paradise, I don't think whining about people not paying for a copy of something in life is the point of it all. Maybe I'm just crazy that way (and yes I do buy games now as do a lot of people who can afford it). But even so I won't be "buying" Diablo 3 until they either lower the price or make it stand-alone so I'm not just "leasing" for $60 since that game being based on the auction house system and having to be connected to play it is more like trying to grab someone's money than making an actual good game, IMO so I bought Torchlight and Torchlight 2 instead. ;)

In other words, I'm not trying to justify piracy, but rather I'm pointing out that it's not always quite as black and white as it appears to be. The concept of "intellectual property" is a relatively new thing in the past couple of centuries and the difference between downloading a movie torrent and watching it and then deleting it and going to your local library and borrowing the SAME movie on a DVD or BD and watching it and then returning it is functionally identical but legal opposites (i.e. one is legal and the other is illegal and yet in either case you watch the movie for free and no property is lost). Personally, I'd stick more with a motto of supporting artists you like, especially if you want them to keep making art. That makes logical sense. Calling someone a thief for playing a game on their friend's XBox instead of buying their own copy doesn't make quite so much sense, IMO but that's the way newer DRM online games are trying to make it, so you have to have your own serialized copy to even start the game. Who didn't trade Atari/Coleco type cartridges with their neighbors when they were a kid that grew up back then?

RobertMartens
Apr 1, 2013, 05:30 AM
Pirating software is not theft. It is wrong, it is morally reprehensible, the people who do it are culpable, but it is not the crime of theft nor should it be analogized to it. It's plain different.

Theft, as defined by some the top legal minds, is only applies to things that are commoditizable and exhaustible. Meaning, it only applies to things that can be bought and sold, and only when the wrong committed deprives the rightful owner of doing what they want with it.

Infringing on someones copyright does not deprive the original owner of buying, selling, copying, etc. their original copy. Also, the right to copy and sell copies is not really a commodity, not in the traditional sense anyway.

Of all analogies to common crimes, infringing a copyright is most similar to trespass. The copyright owner has this metaphorical piece of property, and the infringer goes onto this property and uses it. He does not deprive the owner of their use (he stays out of his way), and he does not lower the properties value. He is intruding on the owner's right to exclude, that is all.


So I close this argument by saying software is analogous to nothing else. Therefore don't try.


Secondly, calling it piracy seems to be a big mistake. It seems to romanticize the issue.


pirate |ˈpʌɪrət|
noun
• a person who appropriates or reproduces the work of another for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright: [ as modifier ] : pirate recordings.


Apparently you need to appropriate for profit. How does one profit by simply playing a game?

"It is wrong,
it is morally reprehensible,
the people who do it are culpable."

Your claims, especially the moral ones seem not to have the following of most people who use computers.

If morality doesn't have the support of the people, what kind of morality is it?

"infringing a copyright is most similar to trespass."

Have you ever swum at someone else's private beach without them knowing it?

How about rode mountain bikes on someones else's mountain?

reprehensible!

RobertMartens
Apr 1, 2013, 06:06 AM
On another side note, I hate people who say "Well said Sir".

Actually I hate when people say, "I hate people who..." when they really mean " I hate when people..."

----------

This is so inaccurate, I don't know where to start.

Firstly, moral norms, justice systems, government-imposed laws, and even religious "commandments" and guidelines, stem from the need to have a normally functional society. .....

Secondly, that world you're talking about, using your own twisted definition of "scarce" and "infinite" resources does not, and will not, exist for as long as humans play any role in creating things. .....

This brings me to another point. When you acquire (whether legally or illegally) digital content (which is effectively infinite),...

Lastly, I stand by my belief that your "philosophical" tirade is really a diversionary tactic to detach the content creator from the created content, in order to justify piracy. Believe what you want to believe, a.....


Do you know many people who share all of your beliefs?
It seems most everyones beliefs are slightly or greatly different from each other.

Good to see you have nailed down the exact right beliefs for us.

CylonGlitch
Apr 1, 2013, 09:08 AM
I personally don't like the concept of freemium games (quite a few require you to spend exhorbitant sums of money just to make the game playable, and its competitive online nature all but encourages people to spam upgrades in a neverending arms race), but my heart goes out to the developers who sunk in their time and money into this business venture. :(

Agreed whole heartedly.

smetvid
Apr 1, 2013, 09:14 AM
The argument that if there was a trial version this wouldn't happen is just not true. Look at software like Adobe Photoshop that does in fact have a 30 day fully functional trial version and yet is one of the most pirated pieces of software out there. Having a trial version does nothing to curb pirating. Diablo 3 in fact had a trial version up to a certain point in the game but people still pirate it.

Humans are not honest enough for that kind of thinking. Maybe some of you can sleep at night with this justification but that doesn't change the fact that you are making up your own rules to cater to your own selfish needs. You as an individual do not get to decide how and when a copyrighted material is ok or not ok to pirate.

Digitalclips
Apr 1, 2013, 09:37 AM
So I close this argument by saying software is analogous to nothing else. Therefore don't try.


Secondly, calling it piracy seems to be a big mistake. It seems to romanticize the issue.


pirate |ˈpʌɪrət|
noun
• a person who appropriates or reproduces the work of another for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright: [ as modifier ] : pirate recordings.


Apparently you need to appropriate for profit. How does one profit by simply playing a game?

"It is wrong,
it is morally reprehensible,
the people who do it are culpable."

Your claims, especially the moral ones seem not to have the following of most people who use computers.

If morality doesn't have the support of the people, what kind of morality is it?

"infringing a copyright is most similar to trespass."

Have you ever swum at someone else's private beach without them knowing it?

How about rode mountain bikes on someones else's mountain?

reprehensible!

This entire discussion has been fascinating thanks guys. I reply here to all involved not this poster per se.

I'd suggest one more analogy (just for fun ;)) ... if you 'borrow a key and duplicate it, then return the original then use that duplicated key to access the key owner's house to tap a connection to his electrical supply to run your house... are you guilty of any kind of theft? Or is it copyright infringement? /s

The key is duplicated and the electricity is not exhausted but I'd say the software / server analogy is pretty close. I'm sure a judge would look on the free electricity, paid for my the owner as theft. Those servers cost money to build and run!

My 2 cents is this is another case of the legal experts here spouting laws that are simply from a pre internet / computer world that don't fit. Remember when it was OK to register a domain name called Delta.com but you sure as hell couldn't open a burger joint called McDonalds? Eventually the law caught up and names of established companies had protection for domain names. This whole piracy / theft / duplication thing needs to catch up too.

oneMadRssn
Apr 1, 2013, 09:54 AM
Secondly, calling it piracy seems to be a big mistake. It seems to romanticize the issue.


pirate |ˈpʌɪrət|
noun
• a person who appropriates or reproduces the work of another for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright: [ as modifier ] : pirate recordings.

The term "piracy" has been used to describe copyright infringement since the 18th century. I agree with you that it's a misnomer. Pirates, in the original sense, stole goods and people using violence. So by calling copyright infringement piracy, we are implying that it is as bad as violence and we are imputing the idea of theft. Both are incorrect, in my opinion.


Apparently you need to appropriate for profit. How does one profit by simply playing a game?
It is a federal crime, with some hefty punishments, to infringe a copyright for the purpose of profit. See chapter 17 of the USC. Case law has developed this a bit further, and you don't have to actually profit; further simple malice is enough. So, if one could prove that whoever released those pirated games did so for the purpose of selling banner ads on the site, or to specifically harm the game creator, they could be criminally guilty.


"It is wrong,
it is morally reprehensible,
the people who do it are culpable."

Your claims, especially the moral ones seem not to have the following of most people who use computers.

If morality doesn't have the support of the people, what kind of morality is it?

"infringing a copyright is most similar to trespass."

Have you ever swum at someone else's private beach without them knowing it?

How about rode mountain bikes on someones else's mountain?

reprehensible!
First, it does have the support of the people. Few people say its 100% ok to infringe someones copyright, or to use someones hard work without attributing them or paying them something. It's all relative though. How blameworthy is a certain action? Many studies show that (obviously) holding someone up at gun point to steal their book is more blameworthy than downloading an infringing ebook. This doesn't mean the people support downloading infringing ebooks.

I still maintain that copyright infringement is most analogous to trespass. I'm not sure what your examples are trying to illustrate, but yes I have done those things. They were wrong (in a very small way, but still wrong), but I did them. If those landowners wanted, they could bring a civil case against me. Trespass is a common law crime, and I would have to repay them for the rights I deprived them of. For mountain biking across someone's forested acre, it would probably be nominal damages, $1. With copyright infringement, the civil damages should be similar: figure out how much harm I actually caused, and make me repay it. None of that $35 per song nonsense they came up with in the Tenenbaum case, but figure out the actual harm once the infringing song has been deleted from my computer. My guess is it would also be a nominal $1.

Swimming at a private beach is different, since water has special rules depending on the state. In most states, just swimming at someone's beach is not trespass at all.

moogleii
Apr 1, 2013, 10:43 AM
Why couldn't Y be a really large number? That is what they were saying, isn't it? If EA couldn't pull off a simcity launch correctly (among other companies in the past), I imagine it's not as easy as you're implying to handle unforeseen server usage. That's the nature of the beast: it's unforeseen; a surprise.

If they weren't using a scalable cloud service, then that would mean even if they were able to somehow predict the pirate swarm, they would have had to over-buy non-scalable server power, putting in excessive initial capital that they might not have had. And that's just assuming they could accurately predict pirate traffic.

If they were using scalable cloud services, then of course, if Y is significantly greater than X, you're spending more money than you're bringing in.

So are the developers saying that they sold X copies of the game, but for every legitimate copy there were Y pirate copies being played?

I don't understand how this resulted in their server experiencing too much congestion unless Y is a really large number right?
Even if 99% of the copies were pirate I am surprised the server could not cope, after-all surely they were prepared for that eventuality in case they had actually managed to sell that many copies.

Perhaps they were using a scalable cloud service and they just couldn't afford to keep it running due to such poor sales, and emphasising the large number of pirate copies was a way to save face.

I don't know, so I would take what they say at face value, but I'd love to know the value of Y.

alent1234
Apr 1, 2013, 10:58 AM
they were using Amazon EC2 like everybody uses. with amazon you pay for storage and for the amount of data in and out you use.

pirated copies hitting the server means you are paying for bandwidth you didn't get paid for

JAT
Apr 1, 2013, 11:55 AM
Tbh, I do pirate

Found that amusing.

anarchopath
Apr 1, 2013, 12:14 PM
Firstly, moral norms, justice systems, government-imposed laws, and even religious "commandments" and guidelines, stem from the need to have a normally functional society.
Circular logic is fallacious reasoning. Norms don't arise from a need for norms, lol. Norms are what we observe to be the spontaneously arrived at standard, the general tendency.

My point is moral norms and justice systems almost universally have their foundation in property. You don't assault, you don't steal, and you don't trespass.

This is why you can't have IP while supporting morality or justice—because fundamentally, IP relies on the use of violence and threats of violence to restrict what peaceful people can do with their property.

Secondly, that world you're talking about...of "scarce"...resources does not, and will not, exist

I can't really take you seriously here... Of course we exist in a world of scarce resources, that's why property is a naturally pervasive construct—to reduce conflict over scarce resources. This is elementary economics/common law...

[If you derive value from information, you owe money to the originator.

No. That's absolutely preposterous and intellectually bankrupt. When someone releases information into the world, they take responsibility for that. They can't just go around hurting people and threatening people (via government) who happen to make productive, peaceful use of information! That's economically damaging and morally void—naturally though, right? I mean what else would you expect from government, the single institution responsible for by far the vast majority of theft, slavery, and killing (not to mention maming and ruining lives and families) in history.

And I wouldn't expect the mindless drones who support government out of failure to think critically to challenge it in one of it's most economically and morally defunct institutions: IP. So I understand why you support government and IP, but please, for justice and humanity, stop to think for a second.

Consultant
Apr 1, 2013, 12:52 PM
1. Developers spent time and resources to create their product
2. You used it without paying, incurring costs and lost revenue

Do you like getting paid for your work? Does your boss take your work and say: I don't like it thus you are not getting paid?

Perhaps you don't have a job, thus you don't understand the concept of getting paid for work?

If you do have a job, why do you try to justify stealing few dollars from developers?

Do you think laws against violent crimes are "immoral" or "unjust"?

Circular logic is fallacious reasoning. Norms don't arise from a need for norms, lol. Norms are what we observe to be the spontaneously arrived at standard, the general tendency.

My point is moral norms and justice systems almost universally have their foundation in property. You don't assault, you don't steal, and you don't trespass.

This is why you can't have IP while supporting morality or justice—because fundamentally, IP relies on the use of violence and threats of violence to restrict what peaceful people can do with their property.



I can't really take you seriously here... Of course we exist in a world of scarce resources, that's why property is a naturally pervasive construct—to reduce conflict over scarce resources. This is elementary economics/common law...



No. That's absolutely preposterous and intellectually bankrupt. When someone releases information into the world, they take responsibility for that. They can't just go around hurting people and threatening people (via government) who happen to make productive, peaceful use of information! That's economically damaging and morally void—naturally though, right? I mean what else would you expect from government, the single institution responsible for by far the vast majority of theft, slavery, and killing (not to mention maming and ruining lives and families) in history.

And I wouldn't expect the mindless drones who support government out of failure to think critically to challenge it in one of it's most economically and morally defunct institutions: IP. So I understand why you support government and IP, but please, for justice and humanity, stop to think for a second.

anarchopath
Apr 1, 2013, 01:18 PM
1. Developers spent time and resources to create their product
2. You used it without paying, incurring costs and lost revenue

1. Bank robbers spend time and resources robbing a bank. Just like IP supporters, bank robbers use violence and threats of violence to control your property. So what? That doesn't make it right.

2. No, you used A COPY. The lost revenue is due to the creators failed business model that relies on government grants of monopoly and threats of violence in order to maintain relevance, instead of being mature and dealing honestly, networking, and advancing with the times.

alent1234
Apr 1, 2013, 01:37 PM
1. Bank robbers spend time and resources robbing a bank. Just like IP supporters, bank robbers use violence and threats of violence to control your property. So what? That doesn't make it right.

2. No, you used A COPY. The lost revenue is due to the creators failed business model that relies on government grants of monopoly and threats of violence in order to maintain relevance, instead of being mature and dealing honestly, networking, and advancing with the times.

copyright/patents and IP laws in general are hundreds of years old. they were passed because people would rip off the work of others. specifically in England in the 1600's

anarchopath
Apr 1, 2013, 01:48 PM
copyright/patents and IP laws in general are hundreds of years old. they were passed because people would rip off the work of others. specifically in England in the 1600's

Yes, very new indeed, because in the entire history of humanity, people weren't violent and ignorant enough to support such a morally and economically bankrupt system. It took the modern state to forcefully impose monopoly grants (e.g. copyright, patent, etc.) and enforce them. So what's your point?

Who cares what propaganda is used to pass a law? Governments used to enforce slavery laws because slaves were considered property. That didn't actually mean slaves SHOULD be property, and IP laws don't mean IP actually IS property. A law isn't de facto just, by mere virtue of being passed.

alent1234
Apr 1, 2013, 02:16 PM
Yes, very new indeed, because in the entire history of humanity, people weren't violent and ignorant enough to support such a morally and economically bankrupt system. It took the modern state to forcefully impose monopoly grants (e.g. copyright, patent, etc.) and enforce them. So what's your point?

Who cares what propaganda is used to pass a law? Governments used to enforce slavery laws because slaves were considered property. That didn't actually mean slaves SHOULD be property, and IP laws don't mean IP actually IS property. A law isn't de facto just, by mere virtue of being passed.

for most of human history almost 100% of the population has been involved in the production of food. until the last few decades there was no supermarket where you could buy food all year round. for most of human history you saved enough food for the winter or you died

as agriculture improved people were freed up to do other things. this is when IP laws came into existence. as a nation advances there are less and less people involved in the production of food and manufacturing. more people are involved in the production of knowledge and art.

anarchopath
Apr 1, 2013, 02:31 PM
for most of human history almost 100% of the population has been involved in the production of food. until the last few decades there was no supermarket where you could buy food all year round. for most of human history you saved enough food for the winter or you died

as agriculture improved people were freed up to do other things. this is when IP laws came into existence. as a nation advances there are less and less people involved in the production of food and manufacturing. more people are involved in the production of knowledge and art.

So what's your point?

Who cares what propaganda is used to pass a law? Governments used to enforce slavery laws because slaves were considered property. That didn't actually mean slaves SHOULD be property, and IP laws don't mean IP actually IS property. A law isn't de facto just, by mere virtue of being passed.

alent1234
Apr 1, 2013, 02:36 PM
the point is that people learned hundreds of years ago that you need to use the power of law to keep the leachers and freetards at bay or else progress will end

patents and copyrights are in the constitution because the founding fathers used Europe as a model

anarchopath
Apr 1, 2013, 02:57 PM
the point is that people learned hundreds of years ago that you need to use the power of law [to enforce slavery]

No, no you don't. Just because people believe something barbaric and use the violence of government to enforce their savage opinions doesn't mean a law is morally viable or economically efficient.

keep the leachers and freetards at bay or else progress will end

Wow... articulate finely tuned fearmongering... we're all frightened of the world grinding to a halt if government fails to hand out monopoly privileges...

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, because you provided only your baseless opinion, the question stands: at what cost? I mean you can rationalize all sort of evil if you're just willing to sacrifice morality and economics "for the greater good".

And at least one IP attorney disagrees with you (http://mises.org/document/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property).

SmoMo
Apr 1, 2013, 02:59 PM
Circular logic is fallacious reasoning. Norms And I wouldn't expect the mindless drones who support government out of failure to think critically to challenge it in one of it's most economically and morally defunct institutions: IP. So I understand why you support government and IP, but please, for justice and humanity, stop to think for a second.

Wow, what an interesting conversation, but I do think we need to really focus back on the main question of Piracy.

Look there, is no guarantee that you are definitely going to enjoy the App, some things in life come with a guarantee, some don't.

Should everything in life should come with a money-back guarantee?

Is this really your whole crusade in life, that you want a money back guarantee for spending a $1 on a game for your iPhone?

What about all those aggressive and violent corrupt and immoral IP inventing and imposing glazed eyed modern overly powerful propaganda governments you've been invoking at every opportunity in a conversation about iPhone App piracy?

Do you actually care about the real people in the world who are being tortured and killed , or living in poverty, or crushed by violent regimes?

If you do care about them, then please do something more than just pleading for a money-back guarantee on a $1 game for your iPhone.

You have completely missed the point.

Snowy_River
Apr 1, 2013, 04:28 PM
I devoted 7 years of the spare time of my life to making pinball games for Visual Pinball and gave it all away for free...

Interesting argument. The main thrust, as I see it, is "I chose to give away a bunch of my work for free, therefore no one can really expect to get paid for their work, and thus piracy is completely justified."

anarchopath
Apr 1, 2013, 05:40 PM
...therefore no one [is entitled to income] for [copies and derivatives of non-scarce information]

Fixed your red herring and turned it into a relevant comment.

...thus [peacefully making use of non-scarce information] is completely justified.

Fixed that for you.

SmoMo
Apr 1, 2013, 06:14 PM
Fixed your red herring and turned it into a relevant comment.
Fixed that for you.

In your fixing you replaced the word 'expect' into 'entitled' but why?

To expect payment for creating an App, and to be entitled to payment for creating an App are quite different things, but in this context does it make any difference?

Of course the majority of App authors expect payment, this is why they put a price on the App and don't just release it for free.
And y'know what, they are pretty much right in their expectations most of the time, perhaps they are surprised at how little ( or even how much ) they get paid but to expect payment for making an App is a very sensible expectation.

Now to be entitled to something, what does that mean? I'm not sure if you can really be entitled to anything without that entitlement being written into a legal system. Would you say you were entitled to clean air and water just from the fact of being a human, it seems to me that everyone should get that, but to be 'entitled' to it seems to be that it should be written in some kind of constitution right?
Or a bill on human rights etc..

So is an App author entitled for payment for his App, well the law says that if he puts a price on it and someone makes use of the App then Yes, quite clearly yes he is entitled to payment for the App.
As we just saw, there isn't any other meaning of entitlement outside of the law, so you just demonstrated nothing by changing the word from 'expecting' to 'entitled'

Are you actually reading back what you have been writing, it is very ill thought out, repetitive and has all the hallmarks of a poncy pseudo-intelectual, I have a good mind to ask you what books you have read.
How about we move the discussion onto Hobbes' social contract, contrasting with Rousseau's Popular sovereignty, I'd be fascinated in your views on how you reconcile Jean Baudrillard's total simulacrum of those govermental foundations with DeBord's Society of the Spectacle.
Alas I've only read an English translation, I'm sure you will have read the French original so you can lead.

MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 1, 2013, 06:27 PM
Interesting argument. The main thrust, as I see it, is "I chose to give away a bunch of my work for free, therefore no one can really expect to get paid for their work, and thus piracy is completely justified."

Well, I guess you only see what you want to see because that sure as heck isn't what I was saying at all.

coolspot18
Apr 1, 2013, 07:52 PM
Well said Sir.

On a side note, I hate people who say "I download stuff to try it out. If I like it, I'll buy it." The logic is so stupid, it's like stealing a car for a weekend, and then going back to the dealership, or driving it off a pier.

Just buy stuff, or look up reviews. Save the economy, and small businesses.

When you steal a car, you are stealing a single, unique, physical item.

Stealing software or other intellectual property is different, you are a stealing an idea, which has no material value.

This being an online game is different in the fact that physical resources are used to support the game, but if it were an offline game, if 1 or 1 million stole the game, the developer has lost nothing really.

anarchopath
Apr 2, 2013, 08:55 AM
In your fixing you replaced the word 'expect' into 'entitled' but why?

To expect payment for creating [non-scarce information], and to be entitled to payment for creating [non-scarce information] are quite different things

Sure, I'm all for a deep intellectual discussion, but you'll have to demonstrate that you can pay attention to detail... You pretty much explained in several paragraphs what I'd already said. ;) Of course someone isn't entitled to income by mere virtue of creating something.

What I was saying is no one is entitled to income for copies of non-scarce information. Granted, a person may be said to be entitled to income for copies where he and the buyer have made a mutually voluntary exchange, but people copying information over the internet are generally quite happy to avoid promising money for non-scarce information.

well the law says that if he puts a price on it and someone makes use of the App then Yes, quite clearly yes he is entitled to payment for the App.

And if the law says I'm your slave, does that mean you're entitled to me? You aren't able to jump to the moon just because a law says you are.

Anyway I've read a lot. I'd be interested in a rigorous intellectual discussion, especially since I happen to have a lazy day at work today! :)

iSee
Apr 2, 2013, 09:27 AM
So are the developers saying that they sold X copies of the game, but for every legitimate copy there were Y pirate copies being played?

I don't understand how this resulted in their server experiencing too much congestion unless Y is a really large number right?
Even if 99% of the copies were pirate I am surprised the server could not cope, after-all surely they were prepared for that eventuality in case they had actually managed to sell that many copies.

Perhaps they were using a scalable cloud service and they just couldn't afford to keep it running due to such poor sales, and emphasising the large number of pirate copies was a way to save face.

I don't know, so I would take what they say at face value, but I'd love to know the value of Y.

If 99% of the players were pirating, then they'd need 100 times the server capacity... Without any money to pay for it. Servers aren't free to buy, rent or maintain, and neither is bandwidth. Pirates like to say that it doesn't take anything away from anyone but obviously that's not true.

Note that they've switched to single-player model, so that at least the piracy doesn't actually cost them money beyond lost sales.

anarchopath
Apr 2, 2013, 11:47 AM
Note that they've switched to single-player model, so that at least the piracy doesn't actually cost them money beyond lost sales.

You're making the same fallacy as most IP supporters: assuming the maintenance and enforcement of a monopoly-grant system is costless. And beyond that, do you stop to consider that the cost to obtain these monopoly grants, and the litigation these companies go through, is born by the consumer?

Nothing in life is free, least of all the leviathan apparatus that supports IP.

iSee
Apr 2, 2013, 12:57 PM
You're making the same fallacy as most IP supporters: assuming the maintenance and enforcement of a monopoly-grant system is costless. And beyond that, do you stop to consider that the cost to obtain these monopoly grants, and the litigation these companies go through, is born by the consumer?

Nothing in life is free, least of all the leviathan apparatus that supports IP.

Sorry, but taking server resources paid for by someone else (stealing, that is) has nothing to do with monopoly grants.
It's not even (directly) an IP matter.
The fallacy, I'm afraid, is all yours.

BTW, I agree that IP systems are not at all free to maintain. Of course, neither is the lack of an IP system. The purpose of an IP system is to encourage ceative endevors to benefit society. Of course, if behooves us to do this in a way that is as cheap to implement effectively as possible. That's really a side issue, though.

The problem is that the companies that are on top right now do not agree on the purpose of an IP system. They want to subvert it so that it maximizes their own profits and keeps them on top.

E.g., in general IP systems work by granting a temporary exclusive right to the results of a creative process, which, after a time reverts to the public. The creator has a chance to profit in the short term, while society ultimately gets the benefit of what is created.
Companies have been chaning temporary into essentially forever (there are limits, but all the cases where real profit is at stake -- that is, where the creative product has most societal value -- the limits have been increased to very long periods.) . And they've been working on subverted the enforcement mechanisms so that the costs of protecting the IP falls mainly on tax payers. That is, the benefit accrues mainly to private companies and the cost fall mainly to tax payers. At this point it's become a pretty ineffective system.
You call me an IP supporter. And I am, in general. I believe a correctly implemented IP system will encourage creative contributions to society. But I don't actually support the current IP system that has been thoroughly subverted.

But none of that justifies stealing stuff. That's what it going on here.

I feel the current IP laws have been subverted by corporations, that they no longer represent an ethical bargain, and I don't feel any ethical obligation to follow them. But that doesn't mean I can just take stuff I want.

If you don't want to be a simple thief, at least go back to the foundations of a fair IP system: don't pirate anything that is less than, say, 10 years old. Before that, either pay the asking price or wait.

anarchopath
Apr 2, 2013, 01:15 PM
The problem is that the companies that are on top right now...want to maximize their own profits and keep on top.

You must not have been following the thread, so let me clarify the fundamental premise of IP, and you'll see why it's inherently violent and therefore corrupt and why it always tends to expand:

Some people with an institutionalized monopoly on violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29) hand out grants of monopoly privilege, and use violence to enforce those grants against peaceful people. What else would you expect besides intelligent people using and expanding the system to their advantage? Power corrupts.

Like someone once said, "you know flies are attracted to ****, so you don't place a gigantic pile of **** on top of society if you don't want flies everywhere." The system (inherently corrupt) is operating exactly as it's intended to. It's not an accident...

bilboa
Apr 2, 2013, 06:12 PM
That's true, but it's similar to someone sneaking into a theater and taking a seat, thereby depriving someone else of a seat. It's still similar to trespass, not theft. The thing being stolen is commoditized in this case, but I still don't think its exhaustible.

The server limit is artificial in a way.

The server limits aren't artificial. Servers are physical computers, with finite computing power, that cost actual money to operate. Server limits are only artificial in the same sense that movie theater seating limits are artificial; sure you could buy more servers or build a bigger theater to handle additional demand, but that takes actual money and time to do.

----------

Logic is silly... I can test drive a car if I wish. IF I pay for an app and it's **** I'm stuck with a crap app and out my X$. Sorry but people are stupid and their reviews can't be trusted. I am one of those, "I download stuff to try it out" people. Give a refund policy on apps and this wouldn't be an issue. I d/l, try, delete if crap, purchase if good. Developer gets my business/money if their product is worth it, no one is harmed if it's crap because I certainly don't keep it.... so basically I keep myself protected from the developer's possibly crappy app and them keeping my money if I'm not satisfied with their app.

True, but on the other hand cars cost tens of thousands of dollars, whereas most mobile games cost about as much as a burger at McDonalds. It's not at all an equivalent situation. I would like it if more game makers provided free demos, but really, when you're talking about apps that cost $2 or $3, or even horrors, sometimes up to $6.99, just read some reviews of the app and decide whether to take the risk, and then pay the developer.

bilboa
Apr 3, 2013, 09:32 AM
The argument that if there was a trial version this wouldn't happen is just not true. Look at software like Adobe Photoshop that does in fact have a 30 day fully functional trial version and yet is one of the most pirated pieces of software out there. Having a trial version does nothing to curb pirating. Diablo 3 in fact had a trial version up to a certain point in the game but people still pirate it.

Humans are not honest enough for that kind of thinking. Maybe some of you can sleep at night with this justification but that doesn't change the fact that you are making up your own rules to cater to your own selfish needs. You as an individual do not get to decide how and when a copyrighted material is ok or not ok to pirate.

I totally agree with this. This justification is even sillier for iOS games, since many of them cost less than $5, and almost all are less than $10. That, combined with the fact that you can read reviews of games on the iTunes store and game websites before buying a game, means that having a demo to try is much less of an issue in this case. I really can't believe that many people are pirating iOS games just to avoid the risk of spending $2 or $3 on a game they end up not liking. Do these same people demand a free sample of every burger or snack they're trying for the first time, before buying it?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have a trial period like the Android store has, but I just don't think the lack of this feature is really the main reason people are pirating iOS games.

MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 3, 2013, 11:59 AM
The argument that if there was a trial version this wouldn't happen is just not true.

And what proof do you have? I have purchased numerous games after playing a demo/trial version. I would not have purchased them without that demo. I'm not alone in this regard. Do you buy a car without so much as a test drive? If you do, you're probably more likely to hate the car you get than someone who has tested it out first.


Look at software like Adobe Photoshop that does in fact have a 30 day fully functional trial version and yet is one of the most pirated pieces of software out there.


Like it or not, it's heavily pirated because of its high price (those who make money can justify that cost while many who do not and never will find it much harder to palette). Logic Pro sales took off into the App Store top ten for most of the past two years when the priced dropped from $499 to $199 (and it was once $999 before that). Because most people don't equate "copying" with "theft" in the material sense (and neither do the laws; they are completely separate), they feel more justified in doing what they feel is FAIR since most laws aren't designed these days to be "fair" but to cater to the richest lobbyists, which sadly isn't the general populace. You can argue they should just change the laws, but that's hard to do when all the money is on one side of the issue. Many people prefer vigilante justice over no justice at all, so to speak. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that's how it is. The Napster versus iTunes examples supports the same idea. People do the right thing when it's FAIR to do so. Ethics are not laws and laws aren't always ethical. And like it or not, copying doesn't remove any material goods so trying to equate it directly to "theft" is just plain wrong and yet that is constantly the first thing people type when they want to argue against it. If you can't even argue the TRUTH, don't even bother to argue since starting with a LIE gives your argument no credence what-so-ever.

From a religious standpoint in the most popular religion in the U.S., is that ALL humans are self-centered (save perhaps one named Jesus) and all have fallen short. From that viewpoint, if you think Steve Jobs is at the 9th level of Heaven right now for never giving a single dime to charity when he had BILLIONS and made no bones about it, I think you might be disappointed. Selfish behavior is not limited to what is "legal" or not in the eyes of God. I don't recall a "Thou shalt not copy" in the 10 Commandments or anywhere else in the Bible and so I don't see a religious foundation for the concept of a "copyright" law. To the contrary, the Bible was widely distributed free of charge as it should be. The Bible also teaches to sell your material wealth and use it to help the poor. I don't see many on here doing that so I'd conclude the Bible is correct in saying all have fallen short.

Of course my faith is not your faith, but it is your lack of respect for ideas other than your own that drives me to reply in the first place. You've taken what is really a complex issue and reduced it to being black and white. That's fine if you're a prosecutor for the legal system, but it doesn't explain human behavior which is a lot more complex. Many people believe in free information and devote a lot of their time to making and giving away free software (I spent 7 years of my life doing it) and even entire operating systems like Linux are based on it and they don't do it because they're "selfish". They do it because they're NOT selfish. Think about it.


Having a trial version does nothing to curb pirating. Diablo 3 in fact had a trial version up to a certain point in the game but people still pirate it.


It does "nothing", eh? I think your argument problems stem from your use of absolutes. It's just plain poppycock at that point. I only have to show one person bought Diablo 3 after playing the trial to prove your statement false and that's not hard to do.


Humans are not honest enough for that kind of thinking.

Your assessment of humans is pretty condescending. I think most people inherently want to do the right thing, but are put off by the sheer examples of greed and carelessness demonstrated by large companies and corporations doing everything from dumping toxic waste (because the fines are less than the disposal fees or they feel they can get away with it). Right or not, vigilante justice is very real. People don't want to hear a murderer got off on a legal technicality. Laws often fall short. Make a FAIR law and people will obey it because they AGREE with it (of course some will always disobey, but this isn't a 100% kind of thing). Make what people see as unfair law and people will often IGNORE it.


Maybe some of you can sleep at night with this justification but that doesn't change the fact that you are making up your own rules to cater to your own selfish needs.


No, I try to follow God's laws, not YOUR laws and I sleep quite well doing that.


You as an individual do not get to decide how and when a copyrighted material is ok or not ok to pirate.

Did the founders of the United States of America get to decide that we split from the British government? What gave them the right to do that? Their own personal desire to REVOLT against their own government??? That sure as hell wasn't LEGAL!!! They decided their WILLS and the use of force makes right, not the existing law and they didn't decide to do it through legal channels. Try reading the Declaration of Independence some time. The believed that corruption and misuse of government was all the justification needed to declare all the laws null and void and create a new government. That is a FAR CRY from the idea that we should blindly obey all laws and people seem to forget that in this country.

So how is that different from what you're talking about? Man's "laws" aren't all there is to life and laws can be changed and they can be ignored and the only thing another person can do is try to force their punishment on that person. If I lived in Nazi Germany should I have obeyed the government's laws??? WTF is a "law" other than someone trying to force their will on you? What if you have a problem with a given law? Do you obey it without question? Think about it.

I'm not responding in this forum to encourage people to pirate. Quite the contrary, I encourage those that can afford it to support those that create good games, music, etc. But I'm also encouraging people to think about things before acting rather than just blindly follow people since they might just end up following them off the side of a cliff. I keep seeing legal arguments when the reason for a law's existence in the first place is supposed to be an ethical one, but it's just not always the case.

In short, I buy software for the RIGHT reason, not just because it's a law and WHY you do things is FAR more important in my beliefs than what you actually do. Obeying laws out only out of fear of being punished shows no decision making and no spiritual progress. If you break a law (ethical or not), you can expect to pay the consequence of that law. In some cases, it might well be worth it (i.e. if it saves a human life like in Nazi Germany). It may not be worth it even if the law is bogus (i.e. perhaps jaywalking when there's no traffic). But that's a decision people have to make for themselves and that decision is an important one. Regardless of the outcome of that decision, at least they made one and will probably learn from it either way instead of being a mindless sheep.

bilboa
Apr 3, 2013, 12:50 PM
And what proof do you have? I have purchased numerous games after playing a demo/trial version. I would not have purchased them without that demo. I'm not alone in this regard. Do you buy a car without so much as a test drive? If you do, you're probably more likely to hate the car you get than someone who has tested it out first.



Like it or not, it's heavily pirated because of its high price (those who make money can justify that cost while many who do not and never will find it much harder to palette). Logic Pro sales took off into the App Store top ten for most of the past two years when the priced dropped from $499 to $199 (and it was once $999 before that). Because most people don't equate "copying" with "theft" in the material sense (and neither do the laws; they are completely separate), they feel more justified in doing what they feel is FAIR since most laws aren't designed these days to be "fair" but to cater to the richest lobbyists, which sadly isn't the general populace.

I think your general point is valid, but I think applying your arguments about cars which cost tens of thousands of dollars, and Nazis oppressing people, to the topic of buying apps whose cost generally ranges from $1 to at most $10, is a bit of a stretch. I agree with your general point that people are more likely to follow rules which they think are reasonable and make sense. For example many otherwise law-abiding citizens think nothing of going over the speed limit on highways, because the speed limits seem unreasonably low on most highways.

I think one of the negative consequences of having laws on the books which most people consider to be unreasonable, is that people can develop a general disrespect for following rules and start using that as a rationalization for breaking other more justifiable rules. To continue with the speed limit example, due to unreasonably low speed limits on major highways, some people might develop a habit of disregarding all speed limits, and drive much too fast through residential areas where they actually are endangering people by doing so. To come back to the present discussion, it seems to me like you're using the fact that some people think software like Photoshop and Logic Pro, produced by large wealthy companies, is unreasonably expensive, to justify people pirating other software which costs just a few bucks and is often produced by small developers.

MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 3, 2013, 01:01 PM
I think your general point is valid, but I think applying your arguments about cars which cost tens of thousands of dollars, and Nazis oppressing people, to the topic of buying apps whose cost generally ranges from $1 to at most $10, is a bit of a stretch. I agree with your general point that people are more likely to follow rules which they think are reasonable and make sense. For example many otherwise law-abiding citizens think nothing of going over the speed limit on highways, because the speed limits seem unreasonably low on most highways.

I was simply trying to give a more extreme example (which thousands used as a defense...they were only following the law/orders) to make a point, not to compare it directly to piracy. The basic principle of evaluating laws versus your own beliefs/ethics is still the same, however.


I think one of the negative consequences of having laws on the books which most people consider to be unreasonable, is that people can develop a general disrespect for following rules and start using that as a rationalization for breaking other more justifiable rules. To continue with the speed limit


This is why I stress that having a strong sense of ethics and respect for others is far more important. If you care about others, you don't try to hurt them. Treat others as you would have them treat you is the basics of all ethical behavior. The problems arise when people make unreasonable laws or behave in unreasonable manners towards others. Those people then feel a desire to "return the favor" so-to-speak.


example, due to unreasonably low speed limits on major highways, some people might develop a habit of disregarding all speed limits, and drive much too fast through residential areas where they actually are endangering people by doing so. To come back to the present discussion, it seems to me like you're using the fact that some people think software like Photoshop and Logic Pro, produced by large wealthy companies, is unreasonably expensive, to justify people pirating other software which costs just a few bucks and is often produced by small developers.

Like I said, I was talking about general principles. It's still a bad idea for Apple to not allow demos.

Unggoy Murderer
Apr 4, 2013, 02:18 PM
When you steal a car, you are stealing a single, unique, physical item.

Stealing software or other intellectual property is different, you are a stealing an idea, which has no material value.

This being an online game is different in the fact that physical resources are used to support the game, but if it were an offline game, if 1 or 1 million stole the game, the developer has lost nothing really.
You're such a child, you should be embarrassed by that statement. If you stole 1 game, then another person did the same, then a million others did, and the game costs $1.00... that dev's lost out on $700,000.

Just because it doesn't have material value doesn't mean it's worthless or right to take. I mean, I could steal your wife, I'd struggle to sell her on Ebay, but she has value to you...

Wake up.

MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 4, 2013, 06:07 PM
If you stole 1 game, then another person did the same, then a million others did, and the game costs $1.00... that dev's lost out on $700,000.

Before I begin, I'll reiterate MY position is to support art I like and artists I like. The copying aspect is meaningless to me since the act itself is just shuffling bits of ones and zeroes around and trying to equate THAT to breaking into someone's house and taking their television is just utterly absurd. Stealing is stealing and copying is copying. The former is always wrong. The latter happens every time you boot your computer whether you know it or not. In fact, just thinking about a song you heard on the radio is pretty much playing back a copy your brain AUTOMATICALLY stored in your head (can they sue me for that too?). You can't un-hear something. God designed my brain to RECORD EVERYTHING so I could technically even make a case that God is 100% for copying information since he designed a brain that does it constantly. But the real QUESTION is whether intellectual ideas that get converted into stored data (i.e. ART) is worth supporting or not and I say YES, it is. But it can't all be supported so I support art I actually LIKE. And if I don't like it, I don't generally watch/listen to it so I find myself in line with copyright law most of the time without even trying.

But the idea that every copy of something like a game or even an album is a lost sale is really a fallacy because it's ONLY true IF those same people would have bought the game if they could have not have gotten a pirated copy but that is obviously NOT always the case (probably not most of the time). In other words, what you'll take for free is different for what you're willing to pay for. People who copies Commodore C64 games at users groups weren't too picky on what they copied. They had no idea what games were good and what weren't until they got home. To say each game they copied was a lost sale is absurd. They wouldn't have bought a fraction of those games if there wasn't a user group and that's were these statistics from the record industry, etc. are WAY OFF.

IMO, it's far more important to stress ethical concerns (i.e. pay for what you actually like/enjoy because you should support artists you like) rather than some strict idea of what you can and cannot preview since it becomes utter absurdity when you get to library comparisons or hearing an album in a friend's car or house, etc. It's illegal to preview a song by downloading it, but legal to hear the same song on the radio or in your friend's car? WTF is the DIFFERENCE!?!? THERE IS NONE and that's why the laws are ridiculous to treat the same as a law against theft since they are not remotely the same thing no matter how much you pretend they are. No goods are missing. It's legal to watch/listen to the same material at Place A but not Place B??? WTF?! It's therefore reduced to pointlessness and that's why it's rarely enforced.

You'd do FAR better to get the ethical idea across to people to support artists they like or those artists won't bother anymore. THAT at least makes logical AND ethical sense and more importantly, it's deals with the SOURCE of the issue which is convincing people to SUPPORT ART. Putting tons of DRM on video games just cheeses off the people who legitimately bought the software while the pirated stuff has all the DRM wiped out so who are these people REALLY hurting???)

Another basic problem is that current laws don't recognize the digital age and allow for ridiculous ease of data transfer (and yet they recognize libraries letting you watch/listen to the SAME art for free so it's absurd). Besides, copyright lengths are far too long for media with very short shelf lives like arcade games that have mostly long since been abandoned and without projects like MAME to preserve those games, they'd eventually be lost as their circuit boards all degraded and failed or were thrown into a landfill. Like old music and books, they had their time. Unlike them, there are only a few nostalgics that still want to play a game a game like Armor Attack or Dig Dug 2.

Even stranger, whether you've even committed a "crime" or not depends on WHEN you do it. If I copy a tv show to watch and later delete it (i.e. time-shifting) it's "fair use" (despite the fact I recorded and therefore COPIED the digital bits). If I copy Beethoven's music and even sell it, it's not a crime. If I copy Lady Gaga, it is a crime. But if I take a lamp out of someone's house, it's still illegal even if it's 300 years old and yet people like you want to say copying is THEFT. No, copying is copying. How wrong it is depends on whom you ask. I personally think it's an ethical matter, not a physical crime. You support art you like because you'd want someone to support your art in that position too if they liked it.

I'm a music artist too with a copyright on an album of rock music so it's not like I have nothing to lose by saying such things. But I have no issue with someone hearing my album for free. It's art. It's meant to be heard. It's on Spotify so it might as well be free anyway. If people like it and want to support me as a music artist, they can buy a copy off iTunes, Amazon, etc. But I'd be a total hypocrite to act like Metallica did with Napster. All they did is piss off potential fans that having heard their music might come and pay big money to hear them play and in the process they looked like a bunch of greedy SOBS (i.e. they're not starving artists or anything so it only came across as pure greed). I lost a lot of respect for them because of that (as if they never listened to music at a friend's house or taped something off the radio in their entire lives).

Ultimately, what is needed are better laws and better education and in some cases better understanding from all involved. But what we get instead are people like yourself yelling THIEF and thus driving those that disagree with you even further away from your position.