Piracy is good

http://video.google.com.au/videopla...wgP7w6z9DA&q=The+Future+Of+Bit+Torrent&hl=en#

The idea is that piracy is a representative of the people's desire. Why fight it, why not harness this desire? View piracy as the largest untapped economic cash cow.
- The question should be not how to fight it, but how to take advantage of it. Distribution costs narrows down to zero, so there is an inherit benefit already.

Thinking about it, this was my thought. One thing have to ask yourself, if you used Bit-Torrent as your distribution, then you can charge $10 per game, maybe less. You don't have to advertise it. You don't have to market it (word of mouth is far better). You have no distribution costs. You only have to upload the game to each tracker once. Or for games like MMORPG, all you have to do is charge for service.

If the game is going to be pirated anyways, why not have advertisement in the game? Annoying to gamers, but we get it for free and the developers make money from advertisers. Because you so much lower costs, you don't need to fill the game with advertisement where gamers say no, just enough where gamers tolerate it but you make your massive profit.

It's more profit for company and better for gamers etc.

 

That is a great idea that you have there but I do not think that it will come to be anytime soon, the Game Industry's basis are set on stone and have been that way for a long time.

Plus, from a business standpoint-of-view, the companies would lose out on a lot of money, distributors, marketing and advertising companies alike, it would tackle down the PC Gaming to some extent, also, if they chose BitTorrent as their distribution-method, they would still have to pay the networks' operators money, thus, the price-tags could or could not get any lower than they are, or even go higher, depending on the mechanics in play.

To a lesser extent, it would mean that companies are flat-out admitting that there is nothing that Game Companies can do to stop Piracy, and thus, lose a grip on power-game and the value of their games would decrease even further, and, the respect from the customers and potential customers alike for them would demerit badly, and if anything at all, Piracy would increase.

Also, the PC Gaming Community is a small percent if compared to the number of Computers out there, thus, game companies taking such a big-risk over a "small" number of customers is indeed very unlikely, especially now.

DRM, Anti-Copy Protection and Piracy are businesses too, if there is Piracy, the former two gain money for selling their solutions to companies, and thus, allowing Piracy would kick them out of the business in-the-cold.

Note: I do not support nor endorse piracy.

 

It's already hard enough to make money with games for anyone other than the big guys. And if you want to see what a race to the bottom price war does, see what is available on XBLA or the various cellphone app stores. Hell, Braid, if memory serves, is a brilliant game, but they caught flack for pricing themselves above market, even though thier product was far above average quality.

These sort of pro-piracy arguments just don't work for me. Basically what you are saying is that we should commoditize games. The last thing I want is games that are even less imaginative. If anything, I'd rather see games take the fine art financing model, where individuals or groups of afficianados get together to commission a development group to put out a game and pay all the costs up front rather than relying on profits on the back end.

 

Oddly enough, my Grandmother ended up reading the thread about not buying the latest Assassins Creed because I left the Window open and she just sat down and started reading. She later told me it reminded her of the Alcohol Prohibition period. The thing is, people are going to do what people are going to do, and if they can't pay for it, and there's a way to get it for free... piracy is going to happen. They could spend 1.5 million bucks on anti-piracy measures, but someone is going to crack it... promise.

 

And because of Piracy, we will probably get to the point that a personal I.D and a proof-of-purchase, plus, the CD-Key and a personal, non-tradeable, unique account will be required even to install the game, dramatization of course, but at this rate, it would not be unlikely.

Piracy only creates tighter control by the Game Companies, thus, restricting the freedom of those rightful purchasers that did, indeed, pay for a game rather than just pirating it.

Piracy is also slowly killing the Game Industry, Developers are slowly becoming less creative and innovative because, why put a lot of effort on it if it is going to be pirated anyway?, why bother?

Piracy is not something like, say, a Robin Hood scheme, it is a whole business unto itself, a bad, low quality, support-less business that demerits the work of others, most of those that crack games, applications, etc... do not spend their time doing so because of a hobby, but rather, a profit.

You see, a lot of people blame it all on Game Companies and Developers alike for the not-so-original hoard of games that have come out lately, but they forget that there are also ruthless pirates that deserve more blame unto them.

My personal thoughts about this situation is, "If I do not have money or I do not want to spend money on a game, application, etc... I look for a free alternative that works in a similar way rather than blemish myself or the work of others."

Most of my software (except for my Operative System Windows 7, and TuneUp Utilities 2009) is all Freeware or Open Source, and the programs that I use, especially on the security area do not lack anything important that shareware versions have, and in most cases work even better than commercial solutions you have to pay for.

Think that Game Companies, Developers, etc... are greedy for charging $50 for a game?, Pirates and Piratee's (People that buy, endorse or use piracy) are on par with them when it comes to greed.

Do you want to buy a game, do not have money to buy it and are thinking about pirating it?, work hard and earn the money to buy it instead, it will make you feel a lot better.

 

The point that video was making that the consumers will find a way to get what they want.

Rather than try to fight them but find a way to use that desire to make a profit.

DRM isn't working and isn't having an impact on piracy. So find a way to use that force to your advantage. Why fight the current?

 

Didn't Microsoft kind of do that in China? They embraced the bootlegging and the piracy, and eventually they got much better sales in China since they got more exposure and more people started buying Microsoft products.

I don't know if it'll work for games though...

 

Congratulations. I hope you enjoy destroying your own hobby.

 

If publishers were smart they would increase adds in the games so that no matter what they can make money. Would suck for the buyers, but I doubt a few more soda machines in a game or actually have adds on the tvs in the game would stop people from actually downloading the game for free.

 

This is like the same argument I have with my friends who try to convince me Marijuana should be legalized.

Whether or not it could generate revenue, it's still illegal. Bottom line.

 

Use the people´s desire to get games? That is what many pirate sites have been doing for years now, filling with crap-like arguments that we should get what we want for free and even worse: justifying it like almost an act of justice.

The bottom line is that by pirating we are taking something from someone (liek a game) and we are not paying for it. That is stealing in my dictionary.

Back to the topic: I agree that something has to be done, but not by endorsing the activity of pirating.

 

PC gaming is going to remain a big market, and producers will find a way to get money from us. Advertisers can probably only go so far, though. If we completely lose customer purchases, games may have to be developed on smaller budgets (PC gamers are still a fairly niche market to be advertising to, as opposed to TV viewers). But if this model is profitable, it will happen.

 

It wouldn't be illegal if it gets legalized. Anyone who wants to smoke it can easily get it today as it would be if it is sold together with newspapers and cigarettes. The thing is, the machinery that "fights" trafficking and drugs is too big to be shut down just like that. There wouldn't be any Pablo Escobar or El Chapo, they would be only farmers... I'm exaggerating just to make a point.

Anyway I'm off topic. Getting the game for free and play a monthly or whatever fee to play online I believe would be great. Downside of that is how would that include offline games. I know the trend is now that more and more games are becoming for online play in many ways... Those offline games would have to stay in the "old" system.

 

The OP makes a salient point.

Capitalism is about capitalizing on opportunity. Something that has become lost where digital "rights" are concerned. Digital Rights Management has become far more a greed and control play than a protective measure. So rather than harp on the morality (or lack thereof) of piracy, seeing as morality is a transient, relative thing, the thought should be on the detriment being imposed on consumers by producers in the name of digital rights.

A known fact is that piracy can't be stopped. And the efforts employed to allegedly combat piracy only steal the rights, freedoms, and enjoyment of consumers yet have zero impact on pirates and those who foster it.

So indeed the model has to change. One that steals the will to pirate - rendering it a worthless, nonviable solution. All the while, allowing producers to profit, albeit under a different paradigm of economics which focuses on the long term instead of the current short. One where producers develop a relationship with consumers as people and not as an hourly moving average on a derivative whose worth expires after 4 to 6 weeks. One that rewards consumers for their continued and loyal patronage.

 

Yes and by doing so it actually benefits the developers/publishers. Distribution/Marketing are always the two costs that are passed on to consumers and developers/publishers just recover those costs.

Also if you read blogs, distribution is huge. Publishers are always telling us how long it takes to get distribution ready, getting games to online sources, then to all the stores etc. and making sure they have enough copies and then coordinating the release around the world.

Adapting to the new behavior of consumers would end all of the above. They could make far more money through advertisements or lowering the cost of the game by 70% or similar.

My point wasn't to foster pirating, but to take advantage of how consumers are getting what they want, when they want it. So give it to them in that same fashion, it's a benefit both ways.

Why does lowering marketing/distribution costs have any impact on lowering the quality of games?

If you watch the video you realize, when you do this, this brings publishers and developers down to the same level. Because gamers can now get what they want regardless of pricing, the only way to entice a player is to provide higher quality material. It's a benefit for everyone except those who will lose their marketing jobs, and the stores like Gamestop.

 

There was a a recent thread about Sony's patent that involves having a game "degrade" over time (features become more limited the longer you play). Using this idea, game studios could use P2P networks for distribution of games, cutting their distribution costs, and allow players to get into a game enough to decide if they like it. As the feature time-out approaches, users could either pay for a unique key to permanently unlock everything, or perhaps sit through ads in exchange for an extension.

 

Or download a hack that leaves the features in place. How does that do the slightest thing to combat piracy?

 

I love the argument "piracy can't be stopped so let's just ignore it and even make it legal". Organized crime can't be stopped yet do we turn that legal? >.> Filming in movie theaters to produce illegal DVDs hasn't managed to be stopped either yet is that legal? Illegal drug distribution is still going strong after many years and campaigns against it yet do we make it legal? Extreme examples but you get the point

I'm not saying that the idea to use P2P is bad per say, but using the argument "well it's inevitable so let's not do anything about it" isn't much of an argument in concerns to so-called illegal activities

Now, the idea that it could replace DRM is however a valid argument and something pretty interesting ^^

Still, dumping a whole segment like marketing and distribution would dump lots of jobs :/

 

In other news:

Murder is good, because it eases overpopulation.
Slavery is good because it provides an inexpensive source for labor, reducing corporation costs.
Plagarism is now acceptable at all universities, as it saves the student's valuable time.


face it folks - piracy is a crime. it's not cool, it's not good, and it's not necessary. Games are not a right - they are a commodity. Pay for them if you want them.

 

Though, you must consider the risk/reward scenario. The greater the risk, the greater the reward. Reward isn't always economic.

Point is, lowering the risk (incentive), lowers the reward (perceived gain). Doesn't mean one has to "legalize" something to reduce the incentive.

In many of the examples you listed above, they do have legalized equivalents. Why is underground gambling illegal (a mainstay of organized crime) while Lotteries are legal? What's the fundamental difference?

Why are certain narcotics and barbiturates illegal while pharmaceuticals which have the same effect and are often derived from the same source as the illegal drug, legal?

Why are libraries allowed to loan you a copy of a DVD as often as it is available, but you can't make a copy of the one you own for archival purposes?

I'm just throwing that out there to show that piracy has no equivalent arguments because it is a unique "crime" with many dynamics.

Piracy can't be stopped. A fact revealed in that all efforts have failed and will continue to do so. The logical thing to do is to produce a disincentive to piracy apart from trying to curb it at distribution and dissemination level.

The OP's argument is not to do anything, per se, but to do something else other than the failed methodologies employed thus far which only encumber actual consumers and not pirates.

That is the plight of the middle man. Nimble middle men will find a niche upon which to capitalize under the OP's paradigm.

 

Why do you post if you don't even bother to read what I wrote or watch the video I linked?

Your post is really dumb because has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

 

Everyone is different, it's the same with everything, some people abide by laws, some people don't, some people think why pay for games, when they can get gotten for free? especially in this day and age where everything, is way overpriced.

If i like the game enough and i know i'll play it some more, i'll purchase it, trouble is with games, i don't find i have the attention span to sit and play the game for a while, i play it once, and that's it, it doesn't get touched again, unless the game is really good and sucks me in, so i don't justify paying £40 for that game and not playing it again, i think that's another good reason why people pirate, "try before you buy" in some kinda way.

 

Blizzard hasn't had a problem with piracy. CD keys that only allow one person to be logged in at a time are the answer. Sure, you can pirate the game, but who really wants to play wc3 or sc2 on single player?

 

But for that we have since a few years back the rewards of patience: Steam and Direct2Drive deals which compensate nowadays "play once" games. That is not an excuse anymore.

In any case, regardless of paradigms and whatsoever "phylosophical" arguments we can bring to the table, taking something for which you didn´t pay is stealing. Are the prices too high? Well, don´t buy it, as simple as that. You don´t like DRM? Don´t buy it.

 

"get gotten?"

"phylosophical?"

i think i'm starting to understand the problem.

It has to do with regulation.

While I don't know about gambling and the lottery, drugs are inherently dangerous and can serve a positive purpose. They need to be regulated. You shouldn't be able to buy drugs from your neighbor who bought them from some dude in an alley who has a dealer who imports them from south america. Regulation of drugs is a good thing, because of their inherent danger and the risks associated with them.

digital distribution is good, piracy is not.

/thread.

*thanks for merging*

 

OK, the title of the thread is 'Piracy is good'.

I disagree. Strongly. And I guess that's pretty much it. So, while I understand you probably don't agree with me either (as I don't agree with you), it does have relevance to the stated topic.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that those who pirate are doing exactly that. Not buying it.

Yes, it's "stealing."

Do you always drive the speed limit? If not, you are breaking the law.

This is why the moral arguments don't advance the solution to a problem. Morality is relative.

So we should dwell on more pragmatic arguments which often first require philosophical thought to solve them.

 

FutureOfBittorent
1:02:02 - 4 years ago
.......

piracy never gets old does it?

 

No. Theft is depriving someone else of something by taking. If I make a copy of a game, you still have your copy. Conflating the two is sloppy thinking, and is not "philosophical" in the least.

Yes, copyright infringement is illegal. The question is whether it's right or not, and what to do about it. The problem is that classical economics don't work, as you so eloquently proved... equating it to theft completely ignores the reality that a copy is quite literally free to make. There is no appreciable incremental cost in the manufacture of a copy. That turns traditional economics on it's head, divide by zero, add infinity, etc.

People are not stupid. They understand value, and trade, and are willing to trade for value. Whether it be their time, their money, their energy, whatever. Right now, you get a better product if you spend some time pirating software... it's not locked, it doesn't install spyware and drivers that end up locking up your computers, etc. Yet the games still sell... so there's still a market for the legitimate product. The problem is that the value that the legitimate product provides for the dollar is so low that a lot of pirates don't find it worthwhile. Steam solves this because it gives you a legit, working product at a price that people feel is worthwhile for the most part.

You cannot stop piracy as long as there is no cost to replicate. To do so is tilting at windmills, Mr. Quixote. The solution is to give people a reason to choose the legitimate product over the pirated one.

Interesting reading on pricing and Steam: http://www.walloftext.info/2009/02/valves-genius-and-steam-digital.html

 

What is the point you are trying to make? All people who break the law have committed an equally severe act? And this describes moral relativism? Which is why moral arguments have no place in piracy talk?

Which part of that would you like me to debunk?

 

If of pragmatism we should talk, let´s start by paying the creators of something for their work and not just steal it. That is the key point, the praxis of the discussion: many people want everything for free and claim thoughts of justice and philosphy when it costs them.

If something, I agree a change in the model has to be done, certainly not by endorsing piracy.

 

I do volunteer work with people who have addiction to prescription drugs. Namely narcotic opiates (schedule I and II) and sleeping aides. Regulation hasn't helped these people at all. In fact, regulation made their use seem more legitimate. And they don't necessarily buy these drugs off the street or online from Canadian or Mexican pharmacies. They get them via prescription.

I'm not saying this to counter what you're saying as I agree to a degree with what you are saying. But the argument I'm endorsing is that every issue requires a balanced approach to a solution. Nothing ever seems to be as clear cut as morals or ethics would like to paint.

Piracy is as wrong as speeding. Both are infractions of the law. Yet invariably everyone does one or the other. Or even both. The key is to figure out how to alleviate the problem without disenfranchising those who don't do these things.

 

Hear, hear.

I do not endorse or condone piracy, but that's not saying I agree with draconian methods of anti-piracy software (I'm looking at you, DRM!)

So, yeah, if we want to find a different solution, I'm all ears. I just strongly oppose the 'We can't stop it and kinda like it so let's just make it legal' crowd.

 

Intellectual property my friend. Someone made the game. As long as you´re not paying for their efforts you´re stealing them. Pure praxis and no windmills.

 

If I pile a bunch of sticks together, do I deserve to get paid for it? After all, I put in the effort! Compensating a creator is a strawman argument. Economic interchange is made possible when two parties have a surplus of something, and agree on an exchange. Money lubricates this by allowing incremental values of things to exchange. The problem is that the game creators are not giving enough value for the money they wish to charge, so they prop up piracy. It's really not a hard concept... the "free" product is better, and it costs less. Morals have no place whatsoever in the equation. If game producers would stop creating products that compromised systems, injected unremovable drivers, crashed, and couldn't be refunded, and were priced more in line with what people are willing to pay ($20-$40 instead of $60), they'd sell a lot more and make a lot more profit. Just read the link from my previous post.

Intellectual "property" is imaginary property. You quoting my post in it's entirety was an infringement on my intellectual property. No matter how many times you call it stealing, it is not stealing. If I paint a copy of the Mona Lisa, I did not steal from Da Vinci. I simply made a copy. The issue with the economics is that now the cost of copying has gone to zero... the economy needs to figure out how to charge for what is now scarce because the "product" that traditionally was is not.

 

There's nothing which needs to be debunked unless you think I'm advocating piracy. I don't do it. But I'm paying a false price allegedly because of those who do. The price I pay allegedly to stop piracy has no effect on those who do engage in piracy.

So we are way beyond the moral arguments of piracy. Just as we are way beyond the moral arguments of speeding. Both are endemic the world over. Which makes moral argument purely academic.

What I advocate, I repeat; a new model for doing business that yields a disincentive to piracy, while advancing a fair and unencumbered incentive for consumer-ship. The OP's opening argument and subsequent refinements have merit and should be explored.

 

sure- the business model should change. i think we can all agree with that.

so support businesses doing things the right way, and don't support others.

don't buy Ubisoft games, because they have a draconian DRM policies.

don't pirate Ubisoft games, because it is WRONG.

and don't speed, either.

 

I agree on most counts. But don't confuse legality with morality. Sometimes speeding is safer than not. If everyone is going 65 because that's just the natural speed of the highway with newer cars, and the speed limit is 55, speeding is safer than being a traffic hazard. The speed limit is what is wrong, not people's behavior.

We can only control people's behavior to a certain extent with the stick. Eventually a carrot needs used. People are not stupid, they are not simply consumers. They are people. When they feel something is unfair, they will ignore it if possible. People are feeling unfairly treated by game producers by being unable to return a product, feeling overcharged for buggy games that don't work until 3 or 4 patches are applied, as well as having their machines taken over by various incompatible pieces of DRM software. The value provided is not matching up with the money requested, so people pirate.

 

We have to be careful when giving examples. All the paintings, such as the Mona Lisa, were paid in the painter´s time by someone. Extrapolating this to the current issue is a bit touchy since here the creators are selling their product. I do understand the economics of zero, but still it is not justified by any means to take someone´s effort by free.

 

speeding is also so left field compared to the problem at hand.

2.0 was basically trying to compare speeding to piracy, since they are both against the law... but the law covers so much- some criminal, some civil offenses...

even within speeding there are degrees of speeding which carry degrees of penalty. if you are going 200 mph in the USA, there is no excuse for that, and it is a criminal offense. it obviously is worse than going 65 in a 55. but what does that have to do with justifying piracy? it's just a distraction argument as far as i can tell.

 

Hey, I found something here we can agree on.

The morality of piracy can be debated, I guess. (I know how I feel, but there are evidently other sides...)

The legality of it can not be debated. It is illegal.

I guess I don't see why these threads pop up so often. It's illegal. We KNOW it's illegal. So, if you pirate, you know you're doing something illegal.

To borrow an earlier analogy - if I speed, I know I'm breaking the law, and I'm willing to pay the consequence for it if I am caught. If the cop stops me, I don't argue that the speed limit should be higher because it's a free road and I should be allowed to use my car on it however I see fit. I pay the ticket.

If you pirate, you're not some romantic figure striking a blow for freedom and goodness, you're breaking the law. You know you're breaking the law. I can't tell you not to - do what you want, but don't call it what it's not, and be ready to pay the consequences if you are caught. (And, yes, I realize that there isn't much chance of that - I know it's hard to crack down on these things. Much like speeding. The big difference between the two - speeding is a hundred dollar ticket or so. Know what piracy would cost you??)

It comes down to what my daddy taught me years ago, I guess... no matter how good the odds are, never bet anything you're not willing to lose.

 

Awesome! What a wonderful way to introduce yourself to these forums.

 

It's not left field. It's center. If one wishes to argue morality, ethics, or law, they have to do so based on their level of adherence to rules in general.

To throw religion in the mix, "he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

We're all hypocrites. No one escapes that. No one abides perfectly to all laws, all the time. That's a fact of the human condition. Certain circumstances dictate law breaking as the option with positive expectancy. While I strive in most respects to uphold the law, I understand why some opt otherwise.

Degrees of speeding with commensurate degrees of punishment only serves to underscore the relativity of morality and ethics.

Harping on the fact that piracy is illegal is as pointless as harping on the fact that speeding is illegal. While I don't pirate, I certainly do speed. And I do so deliberately. I even own a fast car that makes speeding all the more enjoyable.

Guess what? I'm breaking the law. Plain and simple. And I bet you do it too.

That, along with other infractions of the law, bars me from getting on a moral high horse.

See why the moral discourse is pointless? Yes, piracy is illegal. By the very definition of the word. It's a given. Why discuss that?

Why not discuss possible solutions that do not disenfranchise lawful ownership?

Besides, how is it that you come away with the idea that I'm justifying piracy? Curious on that. Understanding why people do it is not a justification. It's simply an understanding. That understanding, if explored, would likely lead to a better solution other than forcing lawful consumers to suffer through DRM and other measures for no other apparent reason than to justify lower quality product at higher prices.

There has to be a model which... well you already agree to that.

 

Software piracy has always been, and will always be, an issue for costly copyrighted material. As I see it, the changes in the future will be far more drastic than adding advertisements to copyrighted games.

The natural evolution is to go open source and cost-free:

To be competitive software developers must continually make better products at cheaper prices. As more programmers enter the market, which they will, their work becomes less valuable, decreasing the production cost of the product. This will filter down to the consumer as necessary for the company to compete. When the market is so saturated that software development is as commonplace as knowing how to use a soldering iron companies hanging onto the current business structure will fall.

The current business structure I refer to are corporations with executives earning top wages who never touch the actual programming process. The people who are completing the work earning significantly less.

Along with the rise in programmers is a rise in business majors. They will follow a similar saturation, preventing them from earning wages simply for bureaucratic work. Both programming and business education will be necessary to land a job. With such qualified candidates at the bottom of the ladder the less useful executives will be put out to pasture. With the high salaries out of the picture programmers will encompass the entire organization. Still needing to compete, the company will develop business models such as Ubuntu with Canonical (in respect to offering open source products funded by their other operations. Ex: Canonical revenues come from its commercial support contracts and engineering services. Canonical offers global, 24x7 support services to customers ranging from Fortune 500 companies to schools and research institutes to governments. ~ Ex from Ubuntu FAQ )

We're in the midst of the information age and there is no stopping it. The gaming industry will just be the last to see such changes since it's the most superfluous.

That's what I think, at least.

 

My whole point is that speeding is not really relevant to the issue of piracy, and certainly not to whether or not piracy is a good thing. They are both accounted for in law, but law is vast.

And now you are mentioning religion, just for kicks, i suppose, but again, all of that is distracting from the main topic, imo. You also brought up drug laws. Yes, they are all imperfect. Whatever. Piracy is the focus of this topic.

 

OP starts off with a philosophical point then dives into a possible solution:

Then the discussion continues with other posters, rather than contemplating or even reading beyond the thread title, diving into morality.

So the morality aspect is a part of the subject and on subject. In as much as it needs to be shown that while it is also an issue of morals and ethics, simply declaring that does almost nothing towards solving the problem. (Almost as if putting up with more and more ineffective DRM is a badge of honor.)

An analogy to point that out would be speeding. Something everyone can relate to in order to help understand the relativity of morality. Which in turn should help draw less focus on such things and more focus on solutions.

And yes, religion was for kicks. Even though the one who is accredited with saying that makes a cogent argument.

 

But that only works, because companies charge full price to businesses and use free personal versions to get people acquainted with and asking for their software. How would game companies get businesses to buy their games when they want employees to work and not play?

A business model around advertising or low subscription ($2-5/mo per person) is entirely feasible, though. That is especially, if you eliminate the distribution costs through bit torrent. You wouldn't have to pay extra to the network providers, because bit torrent is split across all downloading users. Marketing will have to stay, otherwise people won't know or care about the game. Savage is a good example of this.

 

I think that's the issue here. . .

Topic founder was discussing solutions to the piracy topic, and possibly exploiting the trend for the benefit of both publishers and consumers.

People read too much into the topic title--kind of like how newspaper readers jump the gun over a provocative heading--and divided this discussion into a morality vs. legality debate, which I do not believe was the topic creator's intentions. This isn't a morality - legality - ethical debate. Do correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Op.

 

50% of people on forums read only the thread title and skip the OP(as well as any link contained in the OP); that's how you get answers that are sometimes unrelated to the initial topic/question. The only solution so far that I've seen is to put a vague thread title to actually make people read the OP to get what you're talking about lol

Anyhow, the issue I see with using P2P or bit torrent is that the speed relies on users seeding IIRC. Unless game companies would have large seeding servers or whatnot, people would need to seed and not everyone has unlimited upload limits to seed a game constantly.

 

bittorrent is not piracy software. it IS digital distribution software. legitimate software is distributed over torrents to reduce distribution costs. this already happens.

piracy is basically intellectual property theft.

so i think we are confusing some terms here. piracy is not good.

digital distribution is already VERY cheap, basically free, regardless of whether it is being hosted by a decent server or a torrent swarm.

i guess i am still just missing the connection of all the content of this thread and how that relates to the piracy being good.