Spore/Mass Effect Requires A Virgin Sacrifice on Western Coast of Easter Island

[Tebonas]

Except it is lawful to make a private copy for yourself to ward against media failure.

The game industry seems to drink from the same cool aid the music industry passes around. You don't have all the rights and the customer none of them. At least not until you at least pony up the cash to buy you the relevant law changes.

[Trippy]

Morality is a two-way street. If you sell me something and tell me I "own" it then I find out that it self-destructs after a while you've essentially stolen from me. I don't see any developers complaining about that. How exactly is it "moral" that I buy a product and I go back and play it two years later, the authentication server is down permanently and it no longer works? (Even though it has no online component) How is it "moral" that according to your EULA the software doesn't have to do anything at all, and can erase my whole computer with liability?

How is that functionally different to any other item you might purchase? If you buy a car you have a reasonable expectation that it will last you for a certain amount of use and after that it is likely to be unusable as parts wear out and are irreplaceable. Are manufacturers who build in obsolescence also stealing from you?

"Wear and tear" is different than controlling access to something you purchased. The car equivalent analogy would be if you were required, say, every year to have a dealer "validate" your engine management chip to keep your car running and then suddenly one year they decide to stop validating that particular car.

People are acting like the software industry are pioneering the field of selling you a limited licence but that isn't true. If you buy a car you are permitted to do what you like with the physical media of the car but you aren't given any licence to any of the IP or reproduction rights. Same with games, you buy a game and can dispose of the physical media as you like but your use of the IP is limited by the rights the publisher gives you.

Except you often can't do with the game the same things can do with a car. E.g. I have an extra copy of Half-Life 2 I got through the Orange Box. I can't legally sell that copy to anybody even though I physically have the disc for that game (I bought the boxed version). The best I can do is give it away to somebody. Valve has effectively taken away my rights under the First Sale doctrine.

Another example. Most games are copy protected. That takes away my rights under software copyright laws to make a backup of that game. Sure I could circumvent the copy protection and make a copy that way but that's illegal under the DMCA.

[Threash]

Note: I'm quoting Threash, but this is a general rant, not aimed at him as an individual (although the rant certainly applies), but the entire generations that seem to think they can steal what they want, when they want.

[rant]

Which means rather than buying them i will pirate them completely guilt free.  Here is the link, don't know if this has been posted yet.

What gives you the right to steal a product simply because you don't like the way they decide to protect it?

Some analogies to drive it into your morally corrupt, thieving brain:

--I don't like the way McDonald's packages their happy meals, so I'm going to break in and steal them.
--I think automobiles shouldn't have finance charges, therefore I'm going to carjack whatever one tickles my fancy.

Stealing a software product because you don't agree with how the company does business isn't "speaking with your wallet", it isn't being a rebel, it's breaking the law.

If you don't agree, don't buy it--but this sense of entitlement that gives the gaming world the impetus to steal what they don't want to pay for because it's software is fucking things up for everyone--developers and gamers.

Do you think we (developers) LIKE having to protect our software? Do you think we all drive ferraris and dine on caviar off the breasts of $1000 whores every night? It's how we make our freaking living...and you are stealing our product.

Stop it. You don't have the right--you aren't entitled no matter what you seem to think.

[/rant]

Its more like mcdonalds decided to spit in MY burger and piss in MY drink because some jerk stole from them.  Its not about entitlement or having the right to steal, its about the stolen product actually being BETTER than the one you have to pay for.  If the only way to get a spit free burger is stealing it then thats what im going to fucking do.  I am perfectly ok with breaking some laws and if you think that makes me morally inferior then fuck you, you can't sit there and tell me you never smoked weed, drank before you were 21 or even broke a fucking speed limit.  I could understand developers using anti piracy measures if any of them actually you know... worked, but none of them ever fucking has.  You are not going to stop pirates, you are just pissing off customers.

[ajax34i]

Ok so basically I am NOT going to buy and play Bioshock or Mass Effect, despite wanting to.  I hate copy protection.

Oh well, too bad.

[Samwise]

I predict that this thread is one more post about "it's your moral obligation to obey any and every law no matter how unjust you think it is" from being Godwinned.  Possibly by me.

[NiX]

The car analogy died 1 page back. I'm on the side of it being a silly method of protection.

Samwise, you need to message me when you do it so I can further the cause with motivational poster images.

[schild]

I think we need to equate piracy to more situations where someone directly takes something tangible from someone else.

UNFORTUNATELY, Piracy IS a victimless crime. This isn't a discussion of whether or not it is a crime - because, of course it is a crime. This is, when is it OK to pirate.

If you want to compare it to something tangible.

Someone breaks into your house with a weapon. You have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to KILL that man.

Meanwhile, murder is a crime.

That's the comparison you guys are wanting to make, but you're so high up your fucking mountain that the oxygen is getting thin and you look like loonies.

[IainC]

I predict that this thread is one more post about "it's your moral obligation to obey any and every law no matter how unjust you think it is" from being Godwinned.  Possibly by me.

You have an alternative to breaking the law however which is not to buy the game and not to break the law. People are acting as though their only options are to steal the game or to buy it. There is a third way and that is to not have anything to do with the game. If you can't bring yourself to buy it due to your deeply held digital freedom convictions then taking the game for free doesn't magically become morally right as a result.

Shunning the game and being clear about your reasons for doing so is more likely to cause a change in attitudes by media companies than simply pirating the game. One way puts your motivations in question, the other doesn't.

[schild]

You have an alternative to breaking the law however which is not to buy the game and not to break the law.

Of course that's an option. But as a reasonable option, it goes out the fucking window when the developer acts like paranoid douches. They are practically saying "Pirate our game, we're gonna spend a shitload of money on pointless DRM, OBVIOUSLY we don't get it, and we want to punish the legit customers.

There's a reason GOOD customers hate DRM. It's because really, it only affects them. If EA didn't want people pirating their game, they should've used Starforce and triplefucked everyone.

Shunning the game and being clear about your reasons for doing so is more likely to cause a change in attitudes by media companies than simply pirating the game. One way puts your motivations in question, the other doesn't.

You can pirate something and still act like a white knight on the internet and in person. See, the thing about piracy is when you do it right, pretty much NOBODY ever has to know. That's why the previous examples of stealing an article, robbing an old lady, and shit were just absolutely moronic in their effort to be used for comparison.

[Samwise]

You have an alternative to breaking the law however which is not to buy the game and not to break the law.

I want to throw a hypothetical at you.  Actually, not much of a hypothetical, because this is an incredibly frequent occurrence.  Suppose I have bought the game, and the copy protection prevents me from playing it.  Is it all right for me to download a pirated copy of it at that point?

Keep in mind that even though I have paid for the game, in the eyes of TEH LAW by downloading a pirated copy I am "stealing" the game, I am violating the EULA, and I am violating the DMCA.  The fact that I have paid money for it and theoretically "own" it is immaterial from a legal standpoint.

Which is it, goose-steppers -- hypocrites or douchebags?

[IainC]

You have an alternative to breaking the law however which is not to buy the game and not to break the law.

I want to throw a hypothetical at you.  Actually, not much of a hypothetical, because this is an incredibly frequent occurrence.  Suppose I have bought the game, and the copy protection prevents me from playing it.  Is it all right for me to download a pirated copy of it at that point?

Keep in mind that even though I have paid for the game, in the eyes of TEH LAW by downloading a pirated copy I am "stealing" the game, I am violating the EULA, and I am violating the DMCA.  The fact that I have paid money for it and theoretically "own" it is immaterial from a legal standpoint.

Which is it, goose-steppers -- hypocrites or douchebags?

Which is why I said that licence restrictions should be more visible prior to purchase so that consumers can make informed decisions. In the particular case you mention then you basically have a broken game. it doesn't matter if it's broken due to the DRM or because the devs can't code an installer properly. The devs should make it right and failing that you should get a refund same as for any product that's broken.

Let me make my position clear here, I'm not pro-DRM. As a gamer and a consumer I hate the fact that my experience becomes more complex and more restrictive. I am however very much anti-piracy, the reason for this restrictive DRM is entirely down to people who think that stealing is cool, as a result we're all paying a price for that. As such validating piracy - even for 'legitimate' reasons like Samwise's example above - sends a very bad message and just perpetuates the problem.

[Threash]

I predict that this thread is one more post about "it's your moral obligation to obey any and every law no matter how unjust you think it is" from being Godwinned.  Possibly by me.

You have an alternative to breaking the law however which is not to buy the game and not to break the law. People are acting as though their only options are to steal the game or to buy it. There is a third way and that is to not have anything to do with the game. If you can't bring yourself to buy it due to your deeply held digital freedom convictions then taking the game for free doesn't magically become morally right as a result.

Shunning the game and being clear about your reasons for doing so is more likely to cause a change in attitudes by media companies than simply pirating the game. One way puts your motivations in question, the other doesn't.

If i dislike something about a game i will not buy it.  If a game company is actively trying to fuck their customers i will actively try to fuck them back.  I buy LOTS of games, pissing people like me off is a really fucking BAD idea.  That picture doesn't include all the games whos boxes i didnt save nor all the tons of stuff ive bought online from steam and individual developers like mount and blade.  

[Samwise]

I'm guessing from your last sentence you're falling on the side of "douchebags" but I'll make one more attempt to get a more definite answer out of you:

The devs should make it right and failing that you should get a refund same as for any product that's broken.

You and I both know that there is no guarantee of developers spending effort on "making a product right", especially after you've already paid for it, and especially if "making it right" means removing their shitty copy protection that they've already invested a fair amount of money into.  And there are all sorts of reasons I might not be able to get a refund -- maybe the game sat on my shelf for a while and I'm past the 30 day mark now (I've had games sit unopened for literally YEARS before firing them up).

In a shiny happy perfect world we wouldn't have any broken-ass copy protection in the first place, so stop adding your own hypotheticals and answer mine.  Is it all right for me to play the game I paid for or not?

[Stephen Zepp]

Just to go on the record, I'm anti-DRM as well--in fact, within my division at GarageGames I'm one of the strong supporters of removing what little content locks we have already. As hugely beneficial as it would be from a marketing/product tailoring perspective, every time someone brings up the phrase "phone home" for one of our products, I cringe, then put the debate gloves on.

Now, let's drive the "off to politics" nail in deep:

How many people here read the thread 3rd Grade Murder Plot--WTF is the world coming to??

First, don't even bother trying to imply I'm equating murder (or conspiracy to murder) with piracy. I'm not. I'm trying to get all of you that "thinks it's ok to do what they want if they can rationalize it" to think about the moral implications of that attitude, taken to it's logical conclusion.

Now, read some of the comments, especially the first page. I'll quote Morat here (the irony of that blows me away!), who is responding to Arrrgh that says:

Perhapsn if we had some sort of system of belief that taught children that murder was wrong...

(Note: the original quote is semi-out of context, it could easily have been meant as sarcasm, but it's not really apropos to what I want to quote in any case)

Well, given the mental development of your average third grader, it's called "Because I said so" -- which means that the children in question suffer from one of a particular handful of problems:

1) They're psychopaths.
2) They've never been told by someone in authority -- like, say, a parent -- that you don't kill people.
3) They've been raised to believe that, frankly, rules don't matter to them.

At that particular developmental stage -- one they'll remain in until they're at least 11 or 12 -- it doesn't matter if it's God, Dad, Mom, or Happy the Clown telling them that "Don't Do X". It's just a matter of whose authority they respect, and by "respect" I mean "feel sufficiently worried they'll get punished by".

We don't see a lot of murderous 8 year olds mostly because 8 year olds rarely have access to lethal weapons, lack the experience to make them, and are generally not strong enough to do damage with what they can get their hands on. I've seen 8 year olds fling scissors (real ones, not that safey shit) at other 8 year olds, barely managed to prevent one from braining another with a large rock (concussion at most, but still). They're occasionally quite violent.

No preplanned murder, that's probably more of number 3. They were taking SOME steps not to get caught.

But "I don't do X because X is morally wrong" is a stage of moral reasoning a third grader isn't going to get. (He could probably parrot it back to you, though). "I don't do X because I'll get in trouble if I do X" is pretty standard.

All of you are adults, yet you are still sitting firmly in either #2, or #3, and/or have slammed right into a new #4: "It doesn't apply to me if I want to make a point/want revenge on the other person".

One more question: Do any of you have kids? How do you explain to them that it's ok to pirate software if you don't like what the company is doing, but it's not ok to steal candy, even if you don't like what the store manager is doing?

[IainC]

You're putting forward one argument then asking a different question.

Yes it is 'alright for you to play the game you've paid for'. Without a doubt. If you buy a game you should be able to play that game. Nobody is ever going to argue against that.

I don't agree (as you noted) that you have the right to redress that via piracy for the reasons I've already explained.

[Stephen Zepp]

I'm guessing from your last sentence you're falling on the side of "douchebags" but I'll make one more attempt to get a more definite answer out of you:

The devs should make it right and failing that you should get a refund same as for any product that's broken.

You and I both know that there is no guarantee of developers spending effort on "making a product right", especially after you've already paid for it, and especially if "making it right" means removing their shitty copy protection that they've already invested a fair amount of money into.  And there are all sorts of reasons I might not be able to get a refund -- maybe the game sat on my shelf for a while and I'm past the 30 day mark now (I've had games sit unopened for literally YEARS before firing them up).

In a shiny happy perfect world we wouldn't have any broken-ass copy protection in the first place, so stop adding your own hypotheticals and answer mine.  Is it all right for me to play the game I paid for or not?

I shouldn't freaking have to tell you Sam--I know you're old enough to drink beer, and I should think you're mature enough to figure out a simple ethics question on your own, but a lot of y'all are proving me wrong.

No, it's not ok to use a pirated version because yours doesn't work. You have no innate "right" to use the software that validates the illegal/immoral/unethical action of participating in a crime (receipt of stolen goods if you want, or conspiracy to commit fraud, or whatever other crime you want to name that's appropriate).

Your rights are limited to redress from the publisher, or returning the product--and yes, I fully agree that is fucked up in the industry, and that part needs to be fixed. It's not going to be fixed by stealing games.

This actually kept me up last night--not because I am worried about the ::moneyhat::, but because I'm worried that the most recent 3 generations or so are all growing up thinking they set the line of when something is unethical, illegal, or immoral in their own minds, not authority/society.

The behavior and rationalizations I'm seeing here are all described under the ICD-10 Criteria for Dissocial Personality Disorder

[schild]

So, Stephen - if 6 million people pirate Mass Effect, is it from henceforth known as the Digital Holocaust?

Where do we put all the shoes??!?!??!?!?!

[Stephen Zepp]

So, Stephen - if 6 million people pirate Mass Effect, is it from henceforth known as the Digital Holocaust?

Where do we put all the shoes??!?!??!?!?!

Dude, that's totally uncalled for. Fuck off.

[Megrim]

Stephen, just to, ugh, throw a little wrench into your blitzkrieg of moral indignation;

what is it that this vicious DRM hopes to achieve? How does allowing a legitimate user only four installs actually help fight piracy? Do you honestly think that once someone like EA comes out with a system such as this, that the actual pirates are going to turn off their bittorrent and head down to the shops to purchase legit copies?

I realise that you've stated as you yourself being against DRM. This however is neither here nor there, since all faulty analogies aside, all we have heard (or seem to hear) is hysterical screaming about how some of us may be amoral cp-loving philistines, who deserve no worse then death. You say that there are "thing terribly wrong in the industry".

And? Stating this doesn't exactly make it any easier for the legitimate customer who brings in the money. So all we have, are companies making things harder for the very people who keep them in business, all the while screaming at the top of their lungs that this is somehow the fault of some other third party.

I think that this 'holier than thou' is exactly what most people are really complaning about.

[K9]

If you don't agree with a company's business practises you don't buy their product. These products are not vital to your existence, so you cannot claim any moral justification for a theft where you are basically motivated by greed.

Saying "fuck you I'm going to pirate your shit" is just childish.

[Morat20]

All of you are adults, yet you are still sitting firmly in either #2, or #3, and/or have slammed right into a new #4: "It doesn't apply to me if I want to make a point/want revenge on the other person".

One more question: Do any of you have kids? How do you explain to them that it's ok to pirate software if you don't like what the company is doing, but it's not ok to steal candy, even if you don't like what the store manager is doing?

Actually, buried beneath a lot of crap, most of us here are operating at the post-law and order stage of morality.

In short, we obey the law when it coincides with our moral beliefs, and disobey it when it conflicts. (In short, we hold personal morality superior to societal morality). The moral calculus is more complex than that -- I might find a given law immoral, but feel that the results of flagrantly disobeying it are worse for society at large, and thus choose the 'lesser' of two evils. I might find a law immoral, and break it, but takes steps to minimize the impact of doing so -- like, say, only lighting up a joint in private and not doing it in front of cops.

Or I might find a law so morally repugnant that I would flagrantly violate it, accepting punishment in the hopes of having the law changed.

Digital rights -- and sort of intellectually property concepts -- are really a complex stew of moral choices, and where the individual balance is is hard to say. (Me? I go by the lifetime of the creator -- not the corporation. If it was the work of multiple hands, I say it should be public domain when the last royalty-earning creator dies or formally opens it up to the public domain. Mickey Mouse shit is bullshit, although given the way Mickey's changed over the years I suspect Disney could re-copyright as a seperate, but derivative work. The original Steamboat Willie-era shit would be public).

Now, I find issues like this pretty simple: I'll happily pirate a copy -- if I have, at some point, bought the software and haven't loaned it out. I'm not going to pirate a copy just because I lent my physical one to a friend. I will if I broke the CD, can't find my original key, etc. I feel the same way about music, and lord knows the RIAA is even less sympathetic than EA. :)

I DON'T find things like, say, making backup copies of software to be morally wrong -- even if the EULA attached to that software says it is.

And I happen to agree that overly vicious DRM is only going to slow sales and fuck the companies using it. Steam seems a good compromise -- allowing only the number of licensed copies you own to run at any one time, but allowing access to those copies anywhere. Steam may be a bitch at times, but I suspect their model is the future of DRM.

Let them pirate. They need a unique key for activation, a key that can only be associated with one user ID.

[schild]

Thinking piracy needs to be justified or some kind of moral obligation is the first turn to Not Getting It. You don't need moral justification to pirate. And saying it is such a thing is just a shitty straw man that collapses under it's own weight.

[K9]

Thinking piracy needs to be justified or some kind of moral obligation is the first turn to Not Getting It. You don't need moral justification to pirate. And saying it is such a thing is just a shitty straw man that collapses under it's own weight.

You can't justify a criminal position on the basis that the person you are commiting the crime against is doing something wrong. There is no justification for piracy; it is solely motivated by greed. If you want to make a point, don't buy the product. I'm not saying what the developers are doing is right, but taking the stance that their slight towards you justifies a crime is grade-A shortbus logic. You can take morality out of the argument if you want, since as crimes go piracy seems the most victimless; but that doesn't mean that what you are doing is right.

But please, I'd love to hear an argument why you have the right to steal someone elses creative property.

[bhodi]

Why do I feel the need to bring up that it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement? People keep forgetting.

[schild]

Thinking piracy needs to be justified or some kind of moral obligation is the first turn to Not Getting It. You don't need moral justification to pirate. And saying it is such a thing is just a shitty straw man that collapses under it's own weight.

But please, I'd love to hear an argument why you have the right to steal someone elses creative property.

I'd love to hear where I said I have the right to.

[Stephen Zepp]

Why do I feel the need to bring up that it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement? People keep forgetting.

It's theft of services, pure and simple. I concede that the software isn't previously contracted services, but then again neither is turnstile jumping, yet it's still theft.

Schild: and I don't claim I have a right to hack into the f13 servers and destroy all your data--but it's still a crime, and still morally wrong to do so.

[schild]

You keep comparing it to single crimes against people.

That's such a terrible, TERRIBLE argument. It's making you look insane.

[K9]

You don't need moral justification to pirate.

If you don't need any justification (moral or otherwise) to pirate stuff, what do you need? If you will say that you have no right either then you should never pirate anything.

UNFORTUNATELY, Piracy IS a victimless crime. This isn't a discussion of whether or not it is a crime - because, of course it is a crime. This is, when is it OK to pirate.

If you have no right or justification to pirate something, how can it ever be "OK". It's a crime, no matter which way you try to chop it, and thus there really is no situation where it's acceptable. Voting with your wallet is making a point, piracy is a purely selfish act.

Also saying that piracy is a victimless crime is blindingly naive, just because the victims don't always have faces doesn't mean that there's no consequences.

edit:

You keep comparing it to single crimes against people.

Is it somehow "less bad" to steal from a corporation than from an individual?

[Stephen Zepp]

You keep comparing it to single crimes against people.

That's such a terrible, TERRIBLE argument. It's making you look insane.

You keep saying you can't be bothered by society's laws, the rights of others, and paying for what you recieve, which makes you both a criminal and a sociopath.

[Threash]

You keep comparing it to single crimes against people.

That's such a terrible, TERRIBLE argument. It's making you look insane.

You keep saying you can't be bothered by society's laws, the rights of others, and paying for what you recieve, which makes you both a criminal and a sociopath.

Bullshit, EVERYONE breaks laws.

[schild]

You keep comparing it to single crimes against people.

That's such a terrible, TERRIBLE argument. It's making you look insane.

You keep saying you can't be bothered by society's laws, the rights of others, and paying for what you recieve, which makes you both a criminal and a sociopath.

[Tale]

Saying "fuck you I'm going to pirate your shit" is just childish.

QFT. The spoilt children are going to steal the lollipops because the lollipops come in sticky wrapping.

[Morat20]

Thinking piracy needs to be justified or some kind of moral obligation is the first turn to Not Getting It. You don't need moral justification to pirate. And saying it is such a thing is just a shitty straw man that collapses under it's own weight.

Schlid, the mere act of doing it (or really, deciding to do it) is a moral judgement. Even if the moral judgement is "there's no moral issue here".

Everything you do in life is a moral judgement.

In this case, given it's copyright infringment and against the law, there's really no way to AVOID a moral judgement. Even if, in your case, the judgement appears to be "I don't care what the law is". You're doing the moral calculus instinctively, as everyone does, but you're STILL making a series of moral judgements.

You're deciding the law in this case is stupid, and not worth following. You're deciding you'd rather take for free what others are trying to sell, because you have cheap (money/effort) means to do so.

I'm not even sure, really, what your moral justifications are for taking the fruits of other's labors without payment. I'm sure you have some, or choose not to think about, but I haven't the foggiest idea what they are. Frankly, it seems like it boils down to "They're pissing me off to much to pay for their product, and I want it, so I'll take it for free" -- you're justifing piracy as punishment because others didn't create the product exactly how you wanted it to be.

[Tebonas]

Why isn't it enough to say "Fuck them, they can keep their crap" if you don't want to put up with their particular copy protection scheme?

Hell, there are enough other games you can buy instead.

[eldaec]

You keep comparing it to single crimes against people.

That's such a terrible, TERRIBLE argument. It's making you look insane.

You keep saying you can't be bothered by society's laws, the rights of others, and paying for what you recieve, which makes you both a criminal and a sociopath.

I don't think he did.

What he and most people have been saying is that the reason that much of the reason copyright infrigement remains socially acceptible is that the industry, and various people in this thread keep making invalid comparisons that make you sound as loopy as the RIAA. Comparing copyright infringement to stealing property makes the industry sound shrill, and is part of why they lose the argument.

And even if I don't condone copyright infringement, I have no particular sympathy for the victims of it who have encouraged piracy through their misguided attempts to snuff out sharing or resale of legitimately purchased products.

Incidentally, this argument would be a lot easier to have if more countries took the lead of places like Germany, where consumer protection statutes prevent companies taking action to strangle the secondary market. Which as various people have pointed out, is usually what DRM is about in the games market.


I'd also have more sympathy for the industry if those formats where piracy is more rare (ie. consoles) didn't typically have higher prices. If the shrill warnings from the industry regarding the cost of piracy were accurate, then the fact that console games have historically been more expensive than PC games suggests an anti-trust investigation is long since due.