Buying Used and Pirating...
 

This just occurred to me this morning... Is there really any moral difference between buying used media and just pirating it, besides of course, that one doesn't cost you anything? In both cases, the original producer of the media gets nothing. Buying a used copy of Little Big Planet from Gamestop? Media Molecule isn't gonna see a dime of that. And, obviously, they wouldn't if you pirated it either. Only you get to save $45-50 in that case. Am I thinking about this wrong or is buying used just to save 5 dollars off a new copy of something just as bad as illegally downloading/copying it would be? Hell, is it worse? After all, you were basically willing to put up money to get the item, but because you wanted to save a few bucks, the creator of the product will get nothing in return for your purchase. Hmmmmmmmm...

In the case of a used game, the creator already got compensated for that copy when it was sold the first time. Now it's getting sold on, the only person who needs to be compensated is the person who sold it the second time, and the middleman if they used a store.

We wouldn't be having this discussion about used DVD/VHS movies books or Vinyl/CD recordings, so why have it about games. The original creator was compensated for every copy that has ever been sold. Only one person gets to use it at a time, so it's not like there's a magical extra copy.

On the other hand, pirating converts one sold copy into many. Only one royalty (or other form of compensation) goes to the creator for many copies in existance. I can't really vote for any of those options, though. They just don't seem to match my position, no matter which option I look at.

You're forgetting that buying a used game is basically taking away the sale of a new game, unless we're talking about out-of-print stuff. Exhibit A walks into a store and sees Bluray A available new for $25 and then sees BluRay A available for $20 used. He buys the used copy, thus the sale of the new copy is lost.

As far as pirating goes, I'm only talking about obtaining a copy, not giving copies out.

I've always been one to think that pirating is not nearly as bad as buying used. If anything, Pirating has made me more likely to buy a new copy of something.

This is true for games/music/movies. If I truly enjoy it enough, I will purchase a new copy to see the proper people receive there dues.

If the game is already out of print, then the original owner isn't going to get anything either way, so I would rather pirate then waste my hard earned money on a used copy.

The number of used copies available is finite at any given time. If everyone who pirated a game tried to buy a used copy, you'd probably run out of used copies to spread around. If piracy truly isn't an option, someone's going to end up buying more new ones.

The used game market also encourages purchases of new copies (particularly "day one" purchases), because the buyers know they can recoup the cost by selling the game later.

If by "recouping the cost", you mean getting shafted by either Gamestop's ridiculously low trade-in values or E-bay's slicing off the top...

And while I understand the point about supply/demand, it would certainly be better for any company's (not the retailer) pockets if there were no used ____ market. Regardless, I'm not necessarily referring to the market as a whole, but simply an individual's choice between either buying something used or pirating it. Obviously pirating as a whole has a more negative impact on "X" industry than the used item market does, but I'm only talking about the morals on an individual level.

I heard a rumor that you're allowed to sell things to other people directly. Can anyone confirm this.

It makes no sense to look at it at an individual level, because as a rational, self-interested human being, you should realize that your single purchase has a negligible effect on anything. The creator's failure/success is independent of your action, so you have no reason to think you're hurting or helping anyone. Just look for the lowest price and enjoy the free ride~

The only way to make it a moral issue to say something about being "part of the problem" (i.e. contributing to the larger, collective effect of used purchases or piracy), in which case the point stands.

On a market level, private sales in used goods certainly do not occur on the scale that they do with companies like E-bay, Amazon Marketplace, and Gamestop. It's simply easier than trying to set up a sale yourself, unless you really want to be a douche and sell your best bud a used game for 80% of it's original cost, in which case, he'd be a fool to buy it (unless the item is like a week old, but I'll never understand why people BUY stuff just to sell it a week later; it's called renting/leasing).


Well that's exactly what I'm saying, but admittedly I didn't get that across quite as succinctly.



Hmm, and now that I mentioned renting, do you think the rental business is just as detrimental to the industry? It has the same concept as pirating (X buys product and distributes it to many individuals), only you pay for it.

But I assume Rental companies still have to buy a certain number of the copies themselves (albeit at discounted prices).

I guess the only problem I have with pirating games (mostly new games) is like people have been saying here it creates an infinite number of unpaid for copies off of one while used and even rentals are finite and therefore some money is getting back to the developers.

HOWEVER, the one variable I know nothing about and maybe someone here does is how distribution works in the video game industry. Since I don't know how much money is going to the developers from sales and how much is going to the distributor, I can't necessarily say that it's destroying them one way or the other. I would imagine though that it's much like the film industry. If people are pirating the films instead of seeing it in theaters...they're screwed in the long run. So maybe someone can tell me how it works in this industry?

Small games companies usually do a fixed sum deal with the distributor, meaning they get the same amount of cash whether they sell one copy or one hundred thousand. The risk is essentially passed on to the distributor but at the same time, if it sells amazingly the developers don't get so much. With XBLA and PSN, there's a fixed fee up front and then a cut of sales on top of that. At least, that's how it works with the two small developers we work with. Bigger players of course will do deals based on sales but then the sales figures of a new GTA game are rather more certain than those of an idny XBLA title.

Personally I avoid pirating games for consoles, mainly because it's often quite hard work. I normally buy second hand though and have no moral problem with it.

So if I understand correctly pirating would still hurt these small developers long term if the distributors ran out of money to give them, correct? I understand that's an extreme scenario. And obviously the bigger the development house is the more money it takes to make a game so the more money they need on their return. I find this all pretty interesting. It would be interesting to look at some statistics of pirated copies of games in relation to sales figures but how that graph would be assembled I don't know.

But essentially (to bring my Captain Obvious rant full circle) from what Shin said, pirating hurts big developers more than small ones at the end of the day. At least it's not hurting small developers like I thought it would.

And I agree, I have no problem with buying stuff used but I try not to pirate stuff unless I simply can't find it anywhere else. Plus, there's something about owning that box that's so satisfying. And for movies I'd never consider buying them used since almost always they are available in some form or another.

You can't be serious.

This is as much a fallacy as stating a 1:1 sales lost to pirated games download ratio exists.

Part of the reason someone's buying used is to save some cash they wouldn't have spent on the new copy anyway.

I'm just glad that renting isn't looked upon as horribly (yet) by moral high horse faggots. OH GOD IT KILLS SALES. Get the fuck outta here.

Exercise your rights as a consumer, and buy and sell used if you want to. Holy shit.

Also, never ending laughter regarding made up numbers and pretend scales no one knows anything about. "OF ALL THE DOCUMENTED NUMBERS ABOUT UNDOCUMENTED SECOND HAND TRADING PROVES THAT PRIVATE SALES DON'T GOT SHIT ON GAMESTOP". How the fuck does anyone know anything about scale regarding something that's inherantly NOT KEPT TRACK OF.

(I buy new myself for a variety of reasons but to demonize the used market on principle instead of poor execution is one of the best things I've seen in some time. Thanks for the laugh, Yush)

Edit: If I propped Worm any harder my head would explode. It's simply NOT POSSIBLE.

IT'S LIKE I NEVER LEFT /v/!

I buy used if the games are hard to find new. What's so hard about that.

Pirating, however, just seems retarded to me. That's just how I feel. If I want to own something, I'd rather have a physical copy of the thing -- so long as it's reasonably priced. I still hate piracy, although I generally find it deplorable when gamers 'steal' new games and then whine about their favorite developers shutting down or releasing crappy rehashes.

I dont' follow the obviousness of this comment. One of the main advantages of being large is that the sundry costs of game development, which can often be insurmountable for indie shops, are essentially absorbed into the noise of general operations. In addition, groups with enough breadth can leverage assets / titles / technology across multiple games / platforms with greater ease, allowing them to produce more for less. "That new game engine you just made? Well, we can use that in 12 other games this year alone."

Now, I do agree that the larger the house, the more money they need to make overall, but that just means they need to pump out more (see EA).

Unfortunately, while I disagree with this, I can see the rationale, as both the movie and gaming industries have fallen into this thought process where the only way to compete is to make a buster that breaks all previous blocks.

Alright, after arguing with Skills for what seems like 2 hours now in AIM, I will just say I'm retarded, the concept of this thread was lost on everyone, and did I mention I'm retarded? So have fun.

I'd like to change my vote to "YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH WHEN BILLY MAYS IS TALKING".

Additional Spam:
Fuck you, Skills. You're like the FUN KILLER or something.

What's more annoying is when gamers take a sanctimonious stance on draconian DRM because "IT'S REALLY HARD TO USE AND IT BREAKS THE GAME AND MIGHT BREAK MY COMPUTER!!!" Reddit is full of links where the guy just goes "I was all ready to play <insert popular game here> and then I saw the SecuROM logo, so I turned the game off." What he forgets to mention is that SecuROM turned the game off for him, because he'd pirated it.

Do not go around the Internet, you dumbasses, prancing around and flouting law in open view of EVERYONE and then complain when they start locking down the games really tight to keep you from stealing them. You idiots ruined it for the rest of us, don't try to act like you're not responsible. And especially don't try to flip the issue on them by claiming "DRM causes people to pirate games" because that's a load of bullshit.

Granted, SecuROM is kind of a bad example to bring up as it has had issues in the past, but still. People complaining about install limits are also kind of annoying. They give you 5 installs, you whiny bastards. If you're having to reinstall your OS more than 4 times in the short time you're playing the game du jour, you're either a hobbyist who should fucking know better and install on a partition that doesn't go anywhere or you're really pissed that you can't just install it on every friends' computer as if this were 1992. And if you actually own 5 computers that you'd like to play it on, and really need to install it on all of them, then can I borrow a few hundred thousand dollars, please?

My bad niggas.

Next time I'll make more of a show for you guys, I promise.

I pretty damn hypocritical on this topic. I am strongly opposed to piracy myself but I have at-least 12 ROM's on my HDD (what can I say? the super nintendo is a dying breed? :P). Aside from that, a large majority of the games I buy/bought were new and in plastic/sealed at one point until I opened them myself (except for when they are presents from a friend or were acquired in a trade). I do own a few used games but it's not something I'm proud of ($5.99 for MGS3 was worth it).

Edit: I just noticed how retarded my comment sounds and how it has almost to do with the topic and has to do more with myself. lol

Buying used and pirating don't even cross planes, I don't think.

For every demographic that legitimately purchases and plays a game, there will be a percentage of people playing it for free via piracy. The only thing that I think will be a variable to that percentage is the inherent difficulty of pirating said media. That and possibly the current wealth of the demographic. Nobody's buying shit if they can't afford it, especially true nowadays.

Used media is just something that's there. There are so many copies in print, and the developers understand that they will circulate. Physical media generally wears down, so if the title was popular enough, it will warrant a reprint. If not, then all circulation will eventually be 100% used. If you get lucky you might find it in a bargain bin new, but that is no better than buying used because at that rate, the developer has already made their money off the delivery, and the game is dead enough that they'll probably not reprint it anytime soon.

The five installs Mo0 that talked of directly address developer concerns about the second-hand market (since you can only pass it on four times at most) so this is a particular case when both may cross planes. Physical deterioration isn't a factor here, especially if you were talking about Spore, Mo0, since I understand the new protection measures do not require the disc to be present while playing...

I wouldn't mind copying my DVDs onto my hard drive for convenience, but I can't, because "I'm not allowed". Is it alright lending a game to a buddy to play? How about borrowing books from a library rather than buying them? Is it alright if I record a song off the radio to listen to? How about copying something off T.V. to watch later? How about buying a game at a garage sale? Or a book? Or a CD? Buying a car used privately?

There are so many arguements against DRM and the anti-consumer piracy/copyright laws that are currently in place that it's not even funny. It'd be nice if our laws weren't decided by the same people who stand to make the most money from them. DRM only hurts legitimate users, and is a drain on resources that could be otherwise spent upon making more or better games or actually enriching the hobby in some way.

It's called copyright. You're allowed to copy DVDs all you want but the second you use a program to destroy copyright protection, you're on the wrong side of the law. This has been on the books for years. Whether or not the DMCA trumps fair use is still up in the air, but until a court rules in the other direction, then you're stuck, and unless you're a lawyer no amount of bitching's going to change anything.

Yes, yes (and how is this an applicable example to what we're talking about in any way), yes (as long as it's for your own use, under the Fair Use Doctrine), yes (again, private use only), and the last four are yes because you're buying something owned by someone else. What's your point?

I'd love to hear them.

Because congresspeople are also recording artists/game developers/movie directors. :rolleyes:

Which would you rather see, a company spending time making sure people actually have to buy their game, or a company spend all of their time making the game amazing only to see 90% of the people who play it pirate it because reddit users people online would rather download it for free? It's hard to make money to pay people to make great games if no one buys the game.

Didn't we all make fun of you regarding this shit already, Mo0?

http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/jo...206&perpage=20

Oh, that's right. THE LAW etc. Where's Tritoch or Worm when you need them.

PS, here's an argument for you.

SINS OF A SOLAR EMPIRE

I could go down that route again, but Mo0's barely even trying this time.

Lobbyists, Mo0. Have you heard of them.

That article proves zip, and you know it. The creators say they've had plenty of sales through WiiWare, Steam, and their own website despite the high piracy rate. They've gotten emails confirming that people who pirated the game bought it later, and as the article writers point out it's impossible to tell how many of those pirates would've bought the game to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of piracy these days. It does disgust me a little when I talk to people who've bought maybe one DS game while pirating 150+ (gotta catch 'em all) on a flash cart. I'm seriously considering putting the Homebrew Channel on my Wii with that new Bannerbomb thing, but that's more because Nintendo has all but given up on actually releasing games to the Virtual Console. Incidentally Mo0, you did hack your Wii not long ago.

Heres the be-all, end-all with used material: Unless the material is "hole-punched" (which is when a distributor or store punches a hole through the back of the CD cover, usually on the UPC - to mark it as destroyed, promotional mailing, etc), you should never feel guilty buying used. It means that someone purchased it full price at one point and simply no longer wants it, the label already got their money for it.

As for bootlegging, well, I'm the cliche on that subject, so I won't repeat myself.

Anyone who says that is an idiot. It protects the IP for the music label. (I disagree with DRM myself.)

Rather than quotes, I'll just generally offer this mea culpa before I continue to make an ass of myself.

I realized as I used that article that it didn't prove anything aside from the fact that it was the easiest link I could find to something that said THIS GOT PIRATED LOTS. The mistake I've made in this thread consistently, and it's one I've made a lot lately, is I'm attempting to argue a general internet stereotype argument (DRM is 100% evil so I will pirate everything in protest) rather than the argument at hand, and it makes me look incredibly pro-DRM and anti-piracy.

It's not that I think DRM, especially the kinds that have been put forth, are the best thing ever and completely justified. I simply realize that, as a pirate myself, I'm part of the problem that DRM is designed to fight, and figure I (and pirates in general, hence my beef with, say, reddit) really have no place bitching about it. That's the argument I've been trying to make, sadly, which is not the argument the rest of the thread is engaged in.

I've said some dumb things in this thread already, and I hope the preceding wasn't more dumb stuff, because I really am just trying to make clear my thought process here.

I don't know about all that. IP is important because theres more people than just the musical artist being paid - you have the pressing factory and the people who design the covers and a ton of uncredited people down the line.

I do think, however, that the industry is far too stiff about how to go about protecting their IP to remain how they are. Things will change drastically in the next five years or so because they have to if they want to keep taking our money.

I think thats a fair contract though - in that if you're dumb enough to sign it, you deserve what you get - which is probably a fucking giant ass-fuck forward of cash in some cases or at least a contract for X number of albums.

Thats because the artists *I'm* backing tend to have the better part of a decade getting a higher education. I can't speak for what passes for the lowly rock band or rap artist that exists today.

If you wish to know why this is wrong instead of just sucking it up and taking it, look up someone named Michael Geist and do a little research on how copyright has changed from its original intent to what it is now (and what the RIAA and other entertainment moguls wish for it to be). Just because the law says one thing right now, doesn't mean it's right, especially considering how the world, technology and information sharing has changed with the advent of the internet. If it's true and laws can't be changed based on being outdatedness or wrongness, maybe we should go back to having slavery.
Can I lend a game by bit-torrenting it to him while I'm in Africa and he's in Brazil? How is this different from mailing him the disk, or a copy of the disk if I want to protect the original copy?

Borrowing a book from the library means that I'm preventing a copy of that book being sold over the counter and the author making hard earned coin. I'd say that's pretty applicable.

What's fair use? Would sharing calling a buddy over to listen to a song you heard be fair use? How about giving him a "mixed tape" of cool songs? Maybe playing it over the ghetto blaster while you work out in the gym? Or playing it on the street corner while you play hockey?

Would private use be calling all of the buddies over and watching the big game a day later? Or how about taping a season of Friends for the girls? And how is that any different than downloading those same shows off the web?

All of these points "prevent the legitimate maker from getting money from future sales". And all of them have the same arguments going against them as downloading do, except for the "physicalness" of the item in question. Considering companies are making it their business to sell "fake" objects (see Steam, eBooks), I'd say it's a pretty important thing to think about.

How is having a picture of the Mona Lisa any different than owning the real thing? Maybe anyone with a copy of the Mona Lisa on their computer should pay royalties to the Louvre...
Beyond reiterating everything that has been said in this thread (and elsewhere on the internet) DRM does not stop pirates in any, way, shape or form. Pirates get to play the same games as you, but without the hassle. Considering DRM and Copyright keeps me from doing to electronic information the same things that I can do to anything I own physically, it is anti-consumer.
Because no one has received money for doing what the rich people would like...
Piracy does not equal a lost sale. Everyone who pirates a game, song, T.V. show, movie, picture, et al. would not necessarily have purchased it in the first place. People get stuff because it's free, no other reason. I have lots of stuff in my house right now that I have taken because it was just going to be thrown out. Lots I haven't got around to using. And it doesn't mean that I would have gone out of my way to buy any of those items.

If you make a quality product, and continue to not only support your product, but also your fans, your product will sell. Considering this industry is geared towards day one sales however, no one is looking to the future with their games. Maybe one day World of Goo will make a bazillion dollars. Who knows, because only the money they make right now matters. Right?

Removing the trust from your audience drives more people away, towards piracy does however ruin business. Give people back their convenience and stop milking them for everything they can will instill more trust (albeit slowly) back into the industry.

Those arguments seem to be side stepping the main issue. It shouldn't be a contest to prove how much monetary loss piracy really digs out from under a company's profit, but simply the fact that if you're not willing to pay the price of admission, you don't get to see the show. Even if you'd never see a movie in a million years, the ease of sneaking in isn't a related factor to the moral dilemma of stealing a viewing. You have the price asked by the peddler and your willingness to purchase. It shouldn't be negotiable to say that you're not sold on that product for that price so you'll obtain it without cost through different channels.

And isn't it different than many of the examples provided? By the sheer volume and speed of availability, file sharing and torrents aren't comparable to most fair use examples. DVRing television and maybe having some friends over to view a program even when they don't have cable isn't quite the dent of dozens and dozens of files a day in every sort of media being available on day one to obtain without cost, both high and low profile releases, all with very limited know how of a few sites and programs and a few clicks of the mouse. And how people can't separate that from the occasional buddy who loans you his stuff, and you occasionally to him, that's beyond me.

I wouldn't say the practice should be villiainized as taking food out of the mouths of starving artist's children, but justified as valid? Same as handing over a newspaper you're finished reading? The difference is one against thousands.