31 replies to this topic

[CodeCat]

Here's something I realised about software piracy.

1. If you don't get the program at all, the company that made it loses nothing physically, but makes less profit than if you bought it.
2. If you pirate it, the company that made it loses nothing physically, but makes less profit than if you bought it.
3. Therefore, whether you pirate the program or not get it at all, the company makes the same amount of profit.
4. If a product is more useful, more people will want it, and more people are likely to buy it.
5. If you use the product, you add to the program's user base, making the network effect stronger.
6. The network effect dictates that a product that interacts with other users becomes more useful to everyone if more people use it. Whether a user paid for the product or not makes no difference for this effect.
7. The social behaviour of users that recommend the product to other users ('you just have to get this product, it's great!') also contributes to the network effect. It also makes people more likely to get the product. This behaviour exists only if a person uses the program, whether pirated or otherwise.
8. Therefore every additional user is beneficial to the value of the product to the company that made it. Not using the product at all provides no benefit to the company.
9. If a program is pirated, the company makes no profit from that pirated use of the program. However, the value of the program still benefits from the additional user as in 8.
9. Therefore, piracy is less beneficial to the company than buying, but more beneficial to the company than not using the program at all.
10. It follows then that a company that prevents piracy hurts its profit more than a company that encourages everyone to use the product, even if pirated.

Thoughts?

Edited by CodeCat, 02 November 2008 - 16:04.

[Warbz]

The last may be a bit exaggerated, but otherwise good points, though there are most likely counter arguments to each.

Edited by EpicWarbz, 02 November 2008 - 16:24.

[Teron]

Quote

7. [...]It also makes people more likely to get the product.[...]

or just steal it.

Quote

8. Therefore every additional user is beneficial to the value of the product to the company that made it. Not using the product at all provides no benefit to the company.

Assume the worst: Everyone steals it, which means there's no benefit for the company, except fame. But that won't keep them alive, they need money.

Quote

5. If you use the product, you add to the program's user base, making the network effect stronger.

Are your thoughts only based on games, or also on other software products? You didn't make that clear. Because not all software has that network effect. (think of diagnostic software in the automotive or medical industry, e.g.)

[CodeCat]

I was referring primarily to games, but also to other software affected by the network effect. An OS like Windows has an indirect network effect: the more people use it, the more people will develop software for it, in turn making the OS more useful.

[Sharpnessism]

Teron, on 2 Nov 2008, 13:07, said:

Quote

7. [...]It also makes people more likely to get the product.[...]

or just steal it.

Quote

8. Therefore every additional user is beneficial to the value of the product to the company that made it. Not using the product at all provides no benefit to the company.

Assume the worst: Everyone steals it, which means there's no benefit for the company, except fame. But that won't keep them alive, they need money.

Why would you assume the worst? Assuming the worst is not logical, i.e. there'd be no innovation, risk is too great. We'd see SC:BW over and over. Being gay would be completely banned, no more babies. Etc.

I agree in general with the points brought up by CodeCat.

Edited by Sharpnessism, 02 November 2008 - 21:00.

[Teron]

CodeCat, on 2 Nov 2008, 19:22, said:

I was referring primarily to games, but also to other software affected by the network effect. An OS like Windows has an indirect network effect: the more people use it, the more people will develop software for it, in turn making the OS more useful.

But this won't do anything for the company if everyone steals it. Only for the ones who created the software for the OS.

Quote

Why would you assume the worst? If everyone assumed the worse there would be no innovation, risk is too great.

It's called: Calculated Business (I think, this is the english word for it)

Edited by Teron, 02 November 2008 - 21:03.

[Waris]

It won't be possible that everyone steals it because there are added benefits of buying the proper game (that can't be obtained otherwise) e.g. proper online play. Ergo, there will be people who will but the real thing for the added benefits, if not for the game itself.

[TehKiller]

Plus the argument that you cant steal something that isnt physical still applies.

[Teron]

Quote

Plus the argument that you cant steal something that isnt physical still applies.

Well, you can "acquire it, illegally". Does this sound better in your ears?

In the linguistic usage "stealing" has been used and everyone knows, what's meant by it

Quote

It won't be possible that everyone steals it[...]

I know, but

Quote

9. Therefore, piracy is less beneficial to the company than buying, but more beneficial to the company than not using the program at all.

states, that it's better to steal than not to use it, which leads to the question: Why not let it steal, anyway?
The answer is simple: Because everyone would do so which will lead to the reason, I already mentioned above.


Btw: I see CodeCat's point in this, yes. And I somehow agree, that the software spreading (no matter in what way) is beneficial for the company, instead of everyone ignoring it.

Edited by Teron, 02 November 2008 - 21:55.

[CommanderJB]

The thing is that a large percentage of the people who pirate the games/software packages would otherwise have paid for it. That's the problem here. If they wouldn't have bought the game/software anyway then as you say there's no problem, and some users pirate games they'd never buy just out of curiosity, but the simple fact of the matter is that while you'll never see all the pirates starting to buy things if their methods are denied they wouldn't be trying to get the software for free if they didn't want or need it, and depending on the strength of this desire a large proportion would very likely purchase the software if they could not source it at no cost. Not to mention this extends into areas where there is no 'network effect'.

Edited by CommanderJB, 02 November 2008 - 21:54.

[Whitey]

...No. Just no to this entire topic. The logic is absolutely asinine. It seems to be founded on the idea that a pirated product would not otherwise be purchased. No. The gamer who is doing the pirating would then just ask his/her mommy or daddy to go out and buy it. If the product is inherently bad, then sure, it won't be purchased, but in the case that it's worth having, it will be purchased instead. Other points follow in suit.

EDIT: Crap. JB beat me to it.

-Rorschach

Edited by Rorschach, 02 November 2008 - 22:08.

[Warbz]

CommanderJB, on 2 Nov 2008, 21:52, said:

That's the problem here. If they wouldn't have bought the game/software anyway then as you say there's no problem, and some users pirate games they'd never buy just out of curiosity, but the simple fact of the matter is that while you'll never see all the pirates starting to buy things if their methods are denied they wouldn't be trying to get the software for free if they didn't want or need it, and depending on the strength of this desire a large proportion would very likely purchase the software if they could not source it at no cost.

Longest sentence ever.

[CommanderJB]

Was that all one sentence? Oops. Yeah, that's a bit of a mouthful.
By the way, if you actually want the longest sentence ever, read the unabridged original version of Robinson Crusoe. It damn near gave me a migrane. ...Though that's a little off-topic. My apologies.

Edited by CommanderJB, 03 November 2008 - 01:06.

[CodeCat]

Rorschach, on 2 Nov 2008, 23:08, said:

...No. Just no to this entire topic. The logic is absolutely asinine. It seems to be founded on the idea that a pirated product would not otherwise be purchased. No. The gamer who is doing the pirating would then just ask his/her mommy or daddy to go out and buy it. If the product is inherently bad, then sure, it won't be purchased, but in the case that it's worth having, it will be purchased instead. Other points follow in suit.

I based my initial argument on the assumption that no matter what, people would continue to buy the program. The reverse, that nobody at all would pay, is a lot less likely. After all, a substantial portion of people believes that it's morally better to buy, and there are also many people who don't even know how to get a pirated copy. Yes, despite what is common knowledge here, not everyone knows how to download pirated copies, and I'd guess that less than half of internet users actually use P2P software.

Here's what I think is the order of possibilities from best to worst.

1. All people buy the game, but some pirate-test and then buy if they like it, or discard it if they don't.
2. All people buy the game, nobody pirates at all. (Why is this second? Because it could lead to consumers feeling conned after having paid for a bad game, making them less likely to buy another game in the future. Option 1 avoids that with no ill effect.)
3. Most people buy the game, some pirate it.
4. Most people buy the game, the remainder doesn't plays the game at all.
5. Some people buy the game, the rest pirates.
6. All pirate.
7. Nobody plays the game at all.

From the perspective of the company, there is no real difference between 6 and 7, because in both cases they're not seeing any profit from the game. However I believe that 6 is better than 7 because in the case of 6, people are still using the game and spreading it, which I think is inherently better than if the effort was wasted altogether as in 7.

The current situation with most successful games is 3. EA seems to prefer option 2, but strongly opposes option 1.

[CommanderJB]

CodeCat, on 3 Nov 2008, 9:59, said:

1. All people buy the game, but some pirate-test and then buy if they like it, or discard it if they don't.

Pardon? 'Pirate-test'? Why on Earth would anyone buy a game that they've now decided they like if they have a working copy? And if they don't have a working copy, then why don't they just legally get a demo for the exact same purpose?

[Teron]

CommanderJB, on 3 Nov 2008, 2:12, said:

CodeCat, on 3 Nov 2008, 9:59, said:

1. All people buy the game, but some pirate-test and then buy if they like it, or discard it if they don't.

Pardon? 'Pirate-test'? Why on Earth would anyone buy a game that they've now decided they like if they have a working copy? And if they don't have a working copy, then why don't they just legally get a demo for the exact same purpose?

Here I have to add, that some (myself included) test the game, try it, if it runs well and if it's bugfree and then buy it - or not. (and delete it)

Another thing is, that some games are too expensive and for me not worth to pay 60€. (Games like I play for a month and then never again) I'll buy them, when they get cheaper (>30€)

Edited by Teron, 03 November 2008 - 01:18.

[CommanderJB]

Why not legally use a demo? I just don't get it. I have no problem with testing a game out before purchase, but there are better ways to do it than piracy and I can guarantee you that a large proportion of users who have a working pirate version that they decide they like are not going to take the 'moral step' of then showing their appreciation for the product by purchasing it, even if you would.

Edited by CommanderJB, 03 November 2008 - 01:38.

[Teron]

CommanderJB, on 3 Nov 2008, 2:25, said:

Why not legally use a demo? I just don't get it. I have no problem with testing a game out before purchase, but there are better ways to do it than piracy and I can gurantee you that a large proportion of users who have a working pirate version that they decide they like are not going to take the 'moral step' of then showing their appreciation for the product by purchasing it, even if you would.

Yes, I agree. Many players tend to not buying the game, after they pirated it. I may be an exception there.

@Demo
A demo is not always released or it takes a half year to be available. I just don't want to wait that long.

[Alias]

The experience from a demo can also be drastically different to the real thing. Features may have been added after the demo is released, features may have been removed to make the demo an accessible file size, etc.

You should not judge a game just from a demo. It can take part in some of your judgement but you should have a look at some in-depth reviews as they are actually reviewing the full thing and you may find out how different the final game is. This isn't always true; there are exceptions.

This is a situation where a trial of the "full version" can be useful, whether it is a time based trial or via pirating.

Edited by Alias, 03 November 2008 - 04:43.

[Whitey]

But pirating isn't a trial. Anyone who pirates a fully working game and then buys it is an imbecile.

-Rorschach

[Sharpnessism]

Rorschach, on 2 Nov 2008, 23:52, said:

But pirating isn't a trial. Anyone who pirates a fully working game and then buys it is an imbecile.

-Rorschach

You need to buy it to play online.

And don't say "hamachi", as it's worse than Gamespy is, and can't connect to as many people.

As well, demos are very different from how a game really plays normally. Usually they aren't updated by patches either. Though I wouldn't advocate pirating to try the game. Probably better to just look at a youtube video of the game and look at the forums to see all the problems. Wouldn't advocate looking at reviews for a game unless they're all 1/10, as reviewers won't touch any real depth of the game most of the time.

Edited by Sharpnessism, 03 November 2008 - 05:10.

[CommanderJB]

If it's not capable of online play ...why then it's not fully working, is it?

[Dr. Strangelove]

TehKiller, on 2 Nov 2008, 22:44, said:

Plus the argument that you cant steal something that isnt physical still applies.

Bull. Shit. Anyone who knows the first thing about quantum mechanics and information theory knows that that isn't true. I'll be happy to expound on this with relation to wormholes and even everyday telecommunication should they request it.

[BeefJeRKy]

Dr. Strangelove, on 3 Nov 2008, 0:51, said:

TehKiller, on 2 Nov 2008, 22:44, said:

Plus the argument that you cant steal something that isnt physical still applies.

Bull. Shit. Anyone who knows the first thing about quantum mechanics and information theory knows that that isn't true. I'll be happy to expound on this with relation to wormholes and even everyday telecommunication should they request it.

Dude no need to get all scientific. Basically by pirating any software, you're robbing someone (or many more often) of their paychecks for their hard work. This is especially true with smaller companies.

[Whitey]

Intellectual Property is still Property

And

CommanderJB, on 2 Nov 2008, 23:13, said:

If it's not capable of online play ...why then it's not fully working, is it?

This is precisely why I mentioned "Fully Working". Thank you for clarifying, JB.

-Rorschach