Why action against piracy must be harsh and taken now

[Sureboss]

It's an embarrassing situation. We released our new game on Thursday night, within a couple of hours there was a version on a warez site. To put 8-9 months of development, fighting through our publisher going in to administration, costly legal battles stopping our IP being sold to some dodgy American company, to be put in the situation where we would have folded had my boss' parents not bankrolled us, and yet within 2 hours some <insert colourful word> has stolen our hard work and we are losing £18 every time someone downloads it.

I've heard people gasp at some of the figures mentioned in piracy cases (there was a recent one in the US with a woman and a music company - Sony?), but it should be like that.

We're a small company, can never compete with the big games which may sell a million a week upon release, we'll sell 150k-200k copies in a few months.

The reward from this industry is immense, the passion to work in it is incredible, yet we aren't protected from thieving scum.

I know of other companies (larger scale) which lose £4million a year due to piracy, I dread to think what the big groups must lose.

Prosecuting is tough. You need to hit the source (see TPB before their recent takeover), I believe it is easier to prosecute a warez site for aiding and abetting and then sue them for loss of damages. Those in charge should face lengthy prison sentences, 10 years for the worst offenders.

This is not how we should be in the 21st century, these working conditions are utter balls and discriminatory to our working rights.

So, before you next go on whatever site you download illegally from, think about who you are actually hurting, because YOU ARE putting people out of jobs, out of homes and breaking up families. I know not everyone does it, of course not, and we always love providing you with the games you enjoy, but helps us stop these criminals.

----

Yes, that feels like a rant, I'm just intrigued as to so many on here seem to have such a relaxed view of piracy (see TPB thread). How? Justify it?

 

[El Drifto]

It's not going to go away any time soon.
Piracy cannot be stopped.

The music, game and movie industry will have to adjust to it, or fade out slowly, and the major labels will be the first to go.
It's time to move on to new systems, and find ways to create revenue from a variety of sources, not just selling.

 

[Sureboss]

The current market could not adapt to some thing like that. Ie, in-game advertising. Cadbury's Gran Turismo anyone?

I don't believe we are trying enough to stop it. It should be a lot easier to prosecute. If someone knows that by downloading material from x site they could be liable for a lot of money, they may think otherwise.

 

[Northstar]

The only thing is though that in order to put a decent effort into stopping it you would have to violate rights(freedom of speech, privacy also comes into play). Even than there are programs that hide IP address's as well as encode your HD so even if they did track you down they couldn't do anything.

Also, game developers have adapted. I have already played several games that have "live" advertising in-game. This is basically changing the ads on billboards in the game.(So far sports games and Forza 2 have implemented it)

 

[Sureboss]

How does freedom of speech come in to it?

 

[Northstar]

They would have to censor the internet which would violate freedom of speech.(people may not be able to blog Oh NO!!!!!)

 

[Angerdx]

Rather simple really to be able to combat somthing like piracy they would need to regulate the web in such a way that they would need to log everything you do on it and that is just not going to happen, also you are wrong on the part that each download is a lost sale, you got no basis for that argument really the whole entertainment industry need to get off it´s asses and start coming up with better buisness models.

 

[Joey D]

Piracy figures are often skewed and should really be taken with a grain of salt, and here's why:

I would like you to prove to me that you are losing £18 every time someone downloads your game because I'm fairly certain you can't. How many of those people who are downloading your game would have actually purchased it anyways? I'm guess there are some, but I'm willing to bet, like most pirated material, the person wouldn't have bought it in the first place, meaning you never would have received that money to begin with. It's not really putting that many people out of jobs considering the amount spent in the gaming industry by consumers is ridiculous. I'm sure you know the figures.

Like anything that evolves the media industry either needs to move on to something else (i.e. better security), adapt to what the people are doing (i.e. offer free media), or die off (i.e. go out of business). Those are your three choices and to think that everything is going to be easy and fair is ludicrous.

Your company can do whatever it likes, you could take thousands of people to court even and you'd probably win, but in the long run there are still going to be people out there cracking codes and putting up torrents of a given digital product. In order to survive you have to adapt.

 

[Tornado]

The music, game and movie industry will have to adjust to it, or fade out slowly, and the major labels will be the first to go.
It's time to move on to new systems, and find ways to create revenue from a variety of sources, not just selling.

That's an inherently flawed argument. You are acting as if all companies making the products are corrupt and greedy, and that the people pirating are simply freedom fighters. This is largely a group of people who are too cheap to buy something that they want, and know that they can "steal" it with little to no consequences on their end. If this immoral mentality is deemed acceptable, it will always be a losing battle for software companies because no concessions they make will ever be enough. Yeah, the company slashed prices and made every attempt to try to sell me their product. But I can just download it off the internet instead. You see the problem here?

You say they will need to adapt to new forms of revenue generation? They've done that with digital distribution, which allows people more (well, apparent) freedom in their purchases. And piracy still continues because there are no consequences to simply torrent a new song and save a buck. You think that advertisements will work to help subsidizes prices and lower purchasing price for the consumer? Then people pirate to remove the advertisements. Its a sliding scale, and accepting piracy as fact in any way and forcing the companies to accept it as well makes the slope steeper and slipperier.

I have already played several games that have "live" advertising in-game. This is basically changing the ads on billboards in the game.(So far sports games and Forza 2 have implemented it)

Except games that have done are always chastised for it (and they should be), and the coding that enables the in game advertising is usually the 2nd thing cut when a game is pirated making it a moot point regardless.

 

[Sureboss]

Piracy figures are often skewed and should really be taken with a grain of salt, and here's why:

I would like you to prove to me that you are losing £18 every time someone downloads your game because I'm fairly certain you can't. How many of those people who are downloading your game would have actually purchased it anyways? I'm guess there are some, but I'm willing to bet, like most pirated material, the person wouldn't have bought it in the first place, meaning you never would have received that money to begin with. It's not really putting that many people out of jobs considering the amount spent in the gaming industry by consumers is ridiculous. I'm sure you know the figures.

Like anything that evolves the media industry either needs to move on to something else (i.e. better security), adapt to what the people are doing (i.e. offer free media), or die off (i.e. go out of business). Those are your three choices and to think that everything is going to be easy and fair is ludicrous.

Your company can do whatever it likes, you could take thousands of people to court even and you'd probably win, but in the long run there are still going to be people out there cracking codes and putting up torrents of a given digital product. In order to survive you have to adapt.

Because it's lost turnover. They've got something for nothing which others pay £18 for. If I run an offie, someone buys a bottle of plonk for £10, same bottle of plonk is stolen by someone else, I get nothing. It's stealing, whether the property is digital or physical.

 

[Joey D]

Because it's lost turnover. They've got something for nothing which others pay £18 for. If I run an offie, someone buys a bottle of plonk for £10, same bottle of plonk is stolen by someone else, I get nothing. It's stealing, whether the property is digital or physical.

If they were never going to buy it in the first place there is no loss of money, which is the point I'm trying to make about people saying piracy makes the industry lose money. I have no doubt there are people who want to buy the product that just download it for whatever reason, but I think there are more people out there who never would have bought the product in the first place.

You'd be still making a similar amount of money if piracy didn't exist because instead of downloading it, they just wouldn't have it at all. That's my point and I think it's something that gets lost when arguing piracy.

 

[Tornado]

I have no doubt there are people who want to buy the product that just download it for whatever reason, but I think there are more people out there who never would have bought the product in the first place.

Ignoring the latter group makes the former group larger. Then you are talking literal lost sales. That is why treating all piracy as lost sales, while not really accurate, is very important to do regardless.

 

[Keef]

If you can design a way to end Human Nature's habit of finding the easiest way possible to accomplish any task at hand, then you can design a way to stop piracy.

EDIT 2: Having one item bought and one item stolen could result in a net loss of money, depending on the profit margin.

Say it costs 10 pounds to make a product. You sell it for 18 pounds. Now of that 18 pounds you have to use 10 to pay off the debt from making it in the first place, and you're left with an 8 pound profit. But, if another product gets stolen, you still have to pay off that 10 pounds it cost to make it. The only money you have left is 8 pounds profit from the other item, so you have to use that, and that gets you a net loss of 2 pounds. And that's also why it's often difficult for low-volume companies to make any money, because their profit margin isn't high enough to counter all the bad stuff that could happen along the way.

But, if it only cost 5 pounds to make the product, then you profit a whole 13 pounds on the first sold. When the second is stolen you only have to use 5 of that 13 to pay it off, leaving you with an 8 pound profit. If it costs 8 pounds to make it you profit 10 on the first product and only have to pay 8 on the stolen one, which leaves you with 2.

That's probably extremely simplified, but you get the point. It depends on the profit margin.

 

[Joey D]

Ignoring the latter group makes the former group larger. Then you are talking literal lost sales. That is why treating all piracy as lost sales, while not really accurate, is very important to do regardless.

I understand that, my point is that the losses aren't nearly as high as the industry seems to say the are. It's a misleading number. I wish I could find more information on the net to see if my thinking is accurate but most of the stuff comes from the blog-o-sphere.

 

[Tornado]

I understand that, my point is that the losses aren't nearly as high as the industry seems to say the are. It's a misleading number.

You are correct, don't get me wrong, but what I'm saying is that the numbers are presented the way they are to prove a point to the masses: piracy is bad. If you start throwing exceptions and explanations and clarifications onto that point, it loses its impact and most of its meaning.

 

[GT Pro]

What should also be noted is the advertising generated by downloads. E.g., If 'A' downloads a hitherto essentially unknown song he/she can give it to 'B', who in turn may give it to 'C' and 'D', who pass it on to 'E', 'F', 'G' and 'H' who subsequently perpetuate the exponential process. This is how many current music stars have suddenly found immense fame (E.g., Rhianna). Had it not been for a small band of 'thieving scum' handing out those artist's music to other similarly music-interested peers the wider public might have never even heard of the artist's name.

 

[Keef]

You are correct, don't get me wrong, but what I'm saying is that the numbers are presented the way they are to prove a point to the masses: piracy is bad. If you start throwing exceptions and explanations and clarifications onto that point, it loses its impact and most of its meaning.

Fiddling with evidence to "prove a point" doesn't hold up well in court. The genuine "it's bad" part does, but first the judge has to throw out all the crap. For me, it just loses all it's credibility when they have to pad it, making it false, making them lying, whining little girls.

 

[Tornado]

For me, it just loses all it's credibility when they have to pad it, making it false, making them lying, whining little girls.

Except its not necessarily false. Its just vague.

 

[Sureboss]

If they were never going to buy it in the first place there is no loss of money, which is the point I'm trying to make about people saying piracy makes the industry lose money. I have no doubt there are people who want to buy the product that just download it for whatever reason, but I think there are more people out there who never would have bought the product in the first place.

You'd be still making a similar amount of money if piracy didn't exist because instead of downloading it, they just wouldn't have it at all. That's my point and I think it's something that gets lost when arguing piracy.

The piece of software is still worth £18, no matter whether they'd have bought it or not.

 

[El Drifto]

That's an inherently flawed argument. You are acting as if all companies making the products are corrupt and greedy, and that the people pirating are simply freedom fighters. This is largely a group of people who are too cheap to buy something that they want, and know that they can "steal" it with little to no consequences on their end. If this immoral mentality is deemed acceptable, it will always be a losing battle for software companies because no concessions they make will ever be enough. Yeah, the company slashed prices and made every attempt to try to sell me their product. But I can just download it off the internet instead. You see the problem here?

You say they will need to adapt to new forms of revenue generation? They've done that with digital distribution, which allows people more (well, apparent) freedom in their purchases. And piracy still continues because there are no consequences to simply torrent a new song and save a buck. You think that advertisements will work to help subsidizes prices and lower purchasing price for the consumer? Then people pirate to remove the advertisements. Its a sliding scale, and accepting piracy as fact in any way and forcing the companies to accept it as well makes the slope steeper and slipperier.

We can sit here all day and discuss piracy and morality, but at the end of the day, it's not going anywhere, and trying to stop it by force is just going to make it worse.
Why do you think EA removed their DRM after it failed with Spore?

Digital distribution is just ONE form of revenue generation among many.
I don't know much about the games industry, but it's not doing as bad as the music industry, particularly the major labels.
There are multiple platforms that can be utilised, so why put all of your eggs in one basket?

Fact: those who download music illegally are also 10 times more likely to pay for songs than those who don't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

 

[Angerdx]

The problem is that they make us pay way more for the digital download than to get it in a box instores, which is the biggest flaw in their buisness model for digital distribution and if they think most ppl will just accept that it´s their own fault, make the cost the same and more ppl would buy, there is plenty of times i´ve just ignored the games or software cause of it, thew industry need a reality check screwing over the paying customors with excessive drm and no extra value for their money is one of the biggest problems, srew ppl to many times and yes you will screw yourself in the end some companies got the message some didn´t and they suffer for it!

 

[Sureboss]

Our download is £2 cheaper than the RRP.

Why do you think EA removed their DRM after it failed with Spore?

Because the system didn't work. It authenticated the game every time you went on-line, this meant that EA would have had to maintain that system or face people saying in 2 years, "I bought this game, and now I can't use it."

I don't know much about the games industry, but it's not doing as bad as the music industry, particularly the major labels.

No? Sega are cutting back. There's a reason why the PS3 isn't having price cuts. I know of two big development centres which have shut down in the last 3 months making about 400 people redundant, both from one un-named developer. Just off the top of my head without asking anyone.

Fact: those who download music illegally are also 10 times more likely to pay for songs than those who don't.

They could do with changing the wording of that.

 

[Omnis]

If it's not worth the cost to protect your game from people copying it, it's just something you have to deal with. If you cannot make a profit with this in consideration, then perhaps you should either (a) not be making games to begin with, or (b) change your business and distribution model to make a profit (like WoW does with their monthly fee, etc).

Entrepreneurship in software security is yet another sector of business stifled by the state and people's futile reliance on it.

 

[Keef]

Thanks Omnis, I was going to say basically that earlier, the whole "do it right or don't do it" thing, but decided not to.

Also, Sureboss, as you say this piece of software "is worth 18 pounds", no, it's not. It's worth whatever the cost was to make it. It's only worth 18 pounds to anyone who may buy it for that price. Nothing is worth anything more than what was put into it, unless someone decides to offer more than that.

 

[Joey D]

The piece of software is still worth £18, no matter whether they'd have bought it or not.

You still are missing my point, if the people who download the game weren't going to purchase it in the first place your company isn't losing money. Even with those who download the game and would have purchased it otherwise you wouldn't be losing £18 since you have to factor out producing the disc, shipping, packaging, etc.

 

[Sureboss]

Of course we are, because they are still using the game that we made. Whether they would have purchased it legally or not, is irrelevant, we still made that piece of software. It's our software and we let you use it by you buying it from us.

So, if a tramp, who has no money, steals something from a shop, but wouldn't have bought it, as they have no money to do so, that shop isn't losing money?

Also, Sureboss, as you say this piece of software "is worth 18 pounds", no, it's not. It's worth whatever the cost was to make it. It's only worth 18 pounds to anyone who may buy it for that price. Nothing is worth anything more than what was put into it, unless someone decides to offer more than that.

So, if I go into a shop and steal a bottle of coke, which costs £1.50, yet cost the manufacturer £0.30 to make, I have only stolen £0.30 worth of goods?

That's not how goods value works.

 

[Joey D]

Of course we are, because they are still using the game that we made. Whether they would have purchased it legally or not, is irrelevant, we still made that piece of software. It's our software and we let you use it by you buying it from us.

Prove to me you are losing me. I never planned on buying your game, therefore I would never have given you money for it. If I download it how is it any different then me never buying it? You still don't get your money either way. Or better yet what if I buy it used?

So, if a tramp, who has no money, steals something from a shop, but wouldn't have bought it, as they have no money to do so, that shop isn't losing money?

The store already had paid money for whatever was stolen, therefore the store would lose money. If I went into a game store and physically stole your game the store would also lose money. However, you gaming company would not lose a dime since the store had already purchased the game from your company, you guys get the money no matter what.

===

Honestly if you are going to work in the gaming industry you just need to learn to deal with piracy. It's been around as long as the entertainment industry started selling various mediums. Like I keep saying you can either move on, adapt, or die off.

I'm not here to defend piracy, I'm here to say that piracy isn't nearly as large of a problem as some people might think. If you can prove to me otherwise without heavily biased data then I will believe you.

 

[Keef]

So, if I go into a shop and steal a bottle of coke, which costs £1.50, yet cost the manufacturer £0.30 to make, I have only stolen £0.30 worth of goods?

That's not how goods value works.

Technically yes, you've stolen .30 worth of research, development, materials, and manpower. The fact that you would have stolen it at all proves the point that it's not actually worth 1.50. That's just what the company is betting your gullible self will shell out for it when you're real thirsty.

 

[Northstar]

You can't compare pirating a digital file to something that physically exists. Right now I can make a copy of any song in my library, it doesn't cost me anything as all it is, is a digital file that doesn't physically exist.

Basically what I'm saying is that there is no actual loss in pirating as nothing is physical is produced, it is all a perceived loss since there is no production cost.

Don't get me wrong, I only buy games as I like to have a physical copy as well as not having to worry about viruses.

 

[Sureboss]

In which case why does anyone bother in trying to make a profit? (I may be daft, but to throw it out, isn't that communism? Again, don't quote me on that, never really researched it.)

Prove to me you are losing me. I never planned on buying your game, therefore I would never have given you money for it. If I download it how is it any different then me never buying it? You still don't get your money either way. Or better yet what if I buy it used?

1. Because we still created the game you are using.
2. Interesting, but if it's used, someone has already bought it. That money goes to them, and not us.

Basically what I'm saying is that there is no actual loss in pirating as nothing is physical is produced, it is all a perceived loss since there is no production cost.

I may be mis-reading your wording, in which case I'll pre-apologise. But there aren't production costs in something that isn't physical? (ie, downloaded software)

Don't get me wrong, I only buy games as I like to have a physical copy as well as not having to worry about viruses.

So if physical copies of games didn't exist, you would pirate and not buy a downloaded version?