Minecraft creator says "Piracy" isn't theft

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Massive Marc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't know where to draw the line with copyrighting or pirating.

I guess this is how I feel, too. I feel like protecting people's livelihoods who make something that can be replicated so easily is a waste of time, like fighting against technology or nature.

It's true that people who use duped copies of stuff are acquiring something they would have had to pay for. But it's questionable whether any property rights are violated because someone didn't have to pay for your product and got it from someone else. Property rights only deal with negative liberties - i.e. I can't physically steal something from you, destroy your property, and a portion of that is intellectual property - I can't take your product and re-sell it and make a profit off your intellectual property.

But I just don't see where property rights themselves are violated. If doing something which does not physically steal something from someone else nor earn a monetary reward based on someone else's intellectual property is unlawful because it harms the creator of the product - is offering completely free medical services unlawful because it harms hospitals and private practices' ability to maintain employees, etc? Because offering such services for a prolonged period of time would harm that industry.

Is offering free food unlawful because it hurts farms, supermarket retailers, etc?

If something can be replicated (after creation) at no cost, I have trouble seeing why it deserves protection, as long as the first generation audience/customers had to make a purchase to acquire it.

But i'm torn. These are just my thoughts, not necessarily my hardened view...

[YendorLootmonkey]

Originally Posted by Messianic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If something can be replicated (after creation) at no cost, I have trouble seeing why it deserves protection, as long as the first generation audience/customers had to make a purchase to acquire it.

But i'm torn. These are just my thoughts, not necessarily my hardened view...

Put yourself in the shoes of the software developers...

Ever wonder why super-awesome big budget games like Mass Effect are so few and far between? Because there's a lot of cost put into making games like that, and if there's no guarantee on a return on investment because there are X number of first-generation customers that actually purchase it, and there are Y number of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc, etc generation customers getting the same enjoyment out of it without the same revenue generation...

... suddenly it becomes more difficult of a business decision to pump that much time and effort and money into producing a game.

And then you get shit games. Or buggy games that are unplayable until the 1.01 patch. And then games that cost $60 instead of $20 because the execs are figuring for every 1 game sold, 2 copies are going to be made for free, instead of 2 extra sales.

We brought this on ourselves.

If you decided to quit your job and work full time developing your own games which were distributed on some indie game site and the amount of $$$ you made was directly proportional to how many people clicked on your game and put in their credit card/pay pal info, you'd probably want some sort of protection against piracy too in order to maximize the number of people that had to click on "purchase" in order to enjoy what you just spent the last X number of months making.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this having adverse effects on the software industry. Unless you only look at it from the consumer's "i want as much shit as possible for free -- SUCK IT!!!!!!" side.

[moklianne]

Actually, I don't believe piracy is to blame for the sad state of computer gaming. Its because of compatibility.

Why is console gaming such a cash crop when the piracy levels are through the roof on them as well? More than half the people I know have modded xboxes, PSP's, DS's and PS3's. When you put a game in, it friggin works or it doesn't and you bring it back to the store.

With PC games there are tons of compatibility issues that can crop up when you don't have the specs that the game was designed on. Meaning, even having a decent video card these days isn't good enough since yours may have issues with specific games until they fix them in later driver releases. Not to mention possible chipset/cpu issues (look at the issues dual cores have with P1999 as an example).

The average non-technical computer gamer will try a game and when it becomes an issue to get it to run right or it doesn't look as good as on the box, they will give up on the game and return it if they can. Do you think they are going to try again anytime soon? They would rather get that PS3 game, because they don't want to be bothered. You don't have to install the game, no waiting, etc.

The issue with PC gaming is that there are too many different variations of hardware and the laziness of game developers to create their game to work correctly on as many as possible, instead of shooting for just the latest and greatest pieces of hardware/software.

This, in part comes from the gaming industry being governed by a select few that are massive and have strict deadlines. Remember when Vanguard came out? The release was horrendous because SOE pushed it out the door when it clearly wasn't ready. It could have been a great game with a huge population if they simply waited another 6 months. Its pretty much forgotten now.

Before PC's got really cheap, only people interested in them would buy them. They didn't mind futzing around with settings, drivers, etc for an hour to get something to work. For about a decade computers have been cheap enough that the average person could afford them. Unfortunately, they are the breed of people that want it to work the first time. Thus, the compatibility issue.

Sorry for the rant.
In short, too many people don't know enough about computers and have been burned before with a PC game. And Console games make it easy to actually 'play'. It either works or it doesn't. There's no need to worry about trying to make it work.

[Omnimorph]

Well fact is, piracy is such a widespread thing now, that the gaming industry has to adapt it's model. Being inelligible for DLC, online play etc. is incentive for people to buy it.

I mean there's a crap load of games i've paid for, played once or twice and then left them. Waste of money. Then there's a bunch of games i've initially downloaded, and liked so much i've gone and bought them (mass effect!)

I have no problem paying for games, but i'm in a position where i won't pay for a game i won't get my money's worth out of.

[jcbbjjttt]

You're stealing someones product when you pirate software / music. It is 1 thing if the software is free to torrent it. But, it should not be stolen in this way...

[Hoggen]

http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...5000-fine.html

and

http://www.startribune.com/local/82453582.html

say he's stupid. Granted these two are being fined for "distributing,"not just piracy, but there are laws. You can philosophize all you want, but if the courts say you are breaking the law, and you insist you aren't, you will likely lose.

[Massive Marc]

Originally Posted by Hoggen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...5000-fine.html

and

http://www.startribune.com/local/82453582.html

say he's stupid. Granted these two are being fined for "distributing,"not just piracy, but there are laws. You can philosophize all you want, but if the courts say you are breaking the law, and you insist you aren't, you will likely lose.

1.9m for 30 songs. LOL.

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Massive Marc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1.9m for 30 songs. LOL.

This is like people who grow their own weed being grouped with violent criminals.

[stormlord]

My opinion is if you expect software to be free then you're messed up in the head.

Software is engineering. Why would it be free unless through generosity or non-profit?

As for the 'free' games with the cash shops? I don't get the same feeling when I play a game for free that I do when I pay. When I pay I play harder and care more about the relationships I build. It's hard to explain. When you're on a p2p game you know that the others are paying. There's something about that that gives you confidence. I don't get the same feeling in f2p.

I also think the micro-transaction 'free' mmo's are gimmicky and too convenient for the accountants. Cash shops just make it all look suspicious to me. You never know how much more hte guy next to you is spending. It makes for an environment that's ripe for exploitation by the company. Without oversight or some kind of regulation going on they could easily abuse it. Think about it. It seems too many don't. There's no fixed sub fee like before. You can spend $1000 if you want in a few months. Just seems to me that if a company figures out how to hack your mind they will and there's no one to stop them. The cat is out of the bag.

If it were me I'd cap the spending per month to $50 or something. Or I'd have an arm of the government research gaming addiction and whether or not it's being abused.

[Gorgetrapper]

Originally Posted by stormlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My opinion is if you expect software to be free then you're messed up in the head.

Software is engineering. Why would it be free unless through generosity or non-profit?

As for the 'free' games with the cash shops? I don't get the same feeling when I play a game for free that I do when I pay. When I pay I play harder and care more about the relationships I build. It's hard to explain. When you're on a p2p game you know that the others are paying. There's something about that that gives you confidence. I don't get the same feeling in f2p.

I also think the micro-transaction 'free' mmo's are gimmicky and too convenient for the accountants. Cash shops just make it all look suspicious to me. You never know how much more hte guy next to you is spending. It makes for an environment that's ripe for exploitation by the company. Without oversight or some kind of regulation going on they could easily abuse it. Think about it. It seems too many don't. There's no fixed sub fee like before. You can spend $1000 if you want in a few months. Just seems to me that if a company figures out how to hack your mind they will and there's no one to stop them. The cat is out of the bag.

If it were me I'd cap the spending per month to $50 or something. Or I'd have an arm of the government research gaming addiction and whether or not it's being abused.

Aside from all this, all those precious "pay to play" games like WoW, and current EQ, are doing what the "free to play' games are doing. They are charging subscriptions AND allowing people to purchase ingame items as well so they can get an edge (or to line the pockets of those greedy thieves).