From what I skimmed through, it looks like a lot of the same pirating is stealing arguments in this thread again. It's not stealing, it's copying.

I saw someone bring up the "You wouldn't steal a car" argument with a Ferrari Testarossa 1984 while ignoring the obvious argument. Here's how I would compare piracy. I bought a 3D printer or a replicator. I have material to create something with it, either from recycling other matter or buying the material. I have paid for the electricity flowing in the wires to power it. I print and assemble something that looks exactly like a Ferrari Testarossa 1984.

Or how about this, I plant a vegetable garden in my back yard. The thing is, I put the seed down and water it and then it grows full size right before my eyes. This is pretty much what copying amounts to. I'm going to start calling everyone in Poland and Ireland pirates from now on for stealing potatoes from the Americas. Dirty, filthy pirateses. They stole our precious!

People buy their computer and also pay more for higher specs like hard drive storage size and CPU speed. They pay for the electricity to power their computer. They pay their ISP for bandwidth. They don't take anything away from anybody. The only way anybody would know something was happening is if they were spying.

I also have my doubts about how prevalent downloading without paying is. I believe a lot of it is people buying a defective product and then downloading the working alternative. I just read in another thread that CDProjekt stated that the DRM-free version of The Witcher 2 (the one that would have been easiest to copy) wasn't the one being torrented. The retail version was. Could be 1 million people didn't want DRM with something they paid for and so just downloaded the version without it.

Instead of providing a better business, some in the content industry would rather try to demonize people and call them pirates. Yeah, except a lot of people think that old school pirates are cool. Oops, better call them thieves. That's still not doing the job so we better call them filthy pirates and thieves. People still aren't believing that so now it's time to call them liars and cheaters too. Give me a break.

One last thing, copying and plagiarism are two different things.

First of all DRM was removed almost right after release. Second thing, if someone would want to remove DRM from his retail copy then he could download only crack. No need for downloading over 10GB of data just for it if you already have discs. So you argument is invalid.

It may be true that they have no meaningful control over people's attitude towards piracy, but they can certainly try to influence it a bit. I know it's just business and they have no reason to hate or love their customers, but I'd still wager that it's also good for business to show your customers some love and listen to them instead of antagonizing them.

I don't know about other people, but I know that GOG's service, philosophy and community as well as all the friendly indie devs out there have had a certain impact on my personal attitude towards piracy. I never actively pirated new games from the net, but I was a lot into Abandonware and didn't care if people I knew pirated games. Since joining GOG, I have hardly any interest in Abandonware anymore, which is probably due to more than one reason, but it's also because I'm hopeful now that I will be able to buy any game in question someday on GOG for a fair price and I don't feel like getting it illegal anymore, even if it's only so called Abandonware.

And I wouldn't condone people pirating GOG games or games from WadjetEye or Size Five Games or Spiderweb Software or Swing Swing Submarine etc. It's easy to feel indifferent towards a big company with a bad reputation and without a human face, especially if you feel they don't appreciate your support and don't care about you and your wishes. It's a lot harder to be indifferent towards the fate of people with a face who have always treated you fair and whose work or service you appreciate.

Or maybe it's just me, but I think the only way to change people's attitude towards piracy is to make them emphasize with you, make them your 'friends', even if it's just business. I'm not talking about fighting piracy but about fighting gamer's sympathy for or indifference towards piracy. Obviously the wagging finger and the stick never accomplished anything meaningful in that regard, quite the opposite actually. If it's possible to fight piracy at all, chances of winning are slim if the majority of gamers don't care about your cause or are even hostile towards it becuase they feel mistreated, so I think companies would be wise to get out the carrots for a change. ;)

Oh, and I mostly agree with everything else you wrote, DarrkPhoenix.

I guess I should be more specific, as I fully agree with this. Trying to influence people's attitudes towards piracy in general is something that any individual company has very little control over. Influencing how people view a specific company, which can be a very large factor in how willing some people will be to pirate that particular company's products, is something that each company has quite a bit of control over. And I think that ultimately implementing behaviors and policies that build goodwill with one's customer base is one of the most effective methods of convincing people to pay for one's products.

I have already state in an earlier post that I don't support DRM.
I have also already stated that DVD piracy warnings piss me off.

But I still would not pirate.

News flash: you can be against DRM and against piracy.

Because I still believe it is wrong and the level of "hurt" it does to any individual or group is irrelevant.

And to the person who downloaded the album then took half his neighbourhood to the concert - woop-de-woo - well done you. But you could have done exactly the same after *buying* that first album. You simply chose to reduce your personal risk at getting an album you don't like. Again, its wrong, again, its not the level of hurt that count.

Actually, that is called consumer awareness and something very good.

So, humor me then. When is something wrong that doesn't hurt somebody?

I agree on the theory of the consumer awareness point, but my point is that only one side have made this choice - and against the wishes of the other side. Had the artist said "Here is a sampler album, if you like it come and see us and buy our other albums." or even, "here's our album, if you like it please consider paying something" then fine. But they didn't.

And I know that some artists are starting to realise that the increased "word of mouth" this model provides can be to their benefit. Truth be told its not really that different from loaning an album to a friend, or even taping it for them.

Don't get me wrong - I like the "try and buy if you like it" model. My beef is with imposing that model when the other party hasn't agreed to it.

As to the question of hurt - I didn't say "zero hurt" I said "level of hurt". Hurt is also very difficult to define: Artist comes across someone listening to their music: "Hey, glad you like it, thanks for supporting us." "Well, actually, I just downloaded it I haven't paid for it" artist is glad he is appreciated but bummed that he can't afford the bus ride home. I know, I know - downloader then goes to concert, tells all his friends, they all buy albums, artist buys limo filled with coke and hookers, artist happy. Artist gets arrested, his seedy lifestyle comes out, his fans desert him, taxmam takes all the unpaid taxes, artist ends up walking home again and tries to bum the fare from the downloader who shakes his head in disgust. Erm, I think I've taken this too far.

I get that for a system to change the change can't always come from the one side. But that doesn't make the side which makes the change is necessarily "right" at the time they do so - even if their model become the "right" one eventually. It may help accelerate a change for the better but it can still be wrong.

My points of view, as is everyone's, relate to my personal moral compass. Even if I can (start to) see the other point of view it doesn't mean I can sign up to it.

First:
Wouldn't you be ashamed to go out and drive a car which design you have actually copied without permission of the author?
Second:
Where did you get the design, specifications and technical details? I guess you stole them...
(The other option is that you somehow acquired real Ferrari Testarossa 1984 and made analyses on your own, of course assuming that you have knowledge, tools and time - but all this would cost probably more than the new Ferrari itself! )

But I would say that, instead of all this discussion, try to imagine that _you_ have created something and defined how you want people to use it, how you want to make money from it and so on. It's natural that you have right to do this. But somehow you wake up another day just to discover that you are actually surrounded by a band of smart-asses who copy your ideas, modify them and won't pay you a single penny. Moreover, they will even say that they have right to this, because "you are treating them in unfair way".

Yes, piracy is not stealing property, but it is about stealing ideas.

Actually, what you just desrcibed isn't the piracy we are discussing here. Internet piracy isn't stealing ideas. And you can steal idea even if you buy the product first (like apple). If I download a music Album, I'm not selling that music as my own. I listen to it.

I think you missed my point. That being, if they won't sell it to me, I'm not going to say "oh well I'll do with out", I see no legitimate region in this day and age, with the level of technology we now have as to why I should. Thus, I'm going to acquire the item regardless, preferably through importing, but if they shut that avenue down, then torrents it is, and tough shit to them. If they want my money, then they need to ensure I can give it to them, going out of their way to deny me access to a product, even if I purchase it from a region it's being sold in while visiting that region, isn't the right way to about things.

Thus, if publishers can continue to justify their supposed loss in profits/sales due to piracy, then people can continue to justify why they felt the need to pirate the product in question. Also considering that people have been obtaining content not sold in their regions since long before the advent of the Internet, it's about time content providers wised up and realised how futile it is to continue not providing their content to all markets, especially as there is now a world wide means to easily get their content to any device with an internet connection.

Your car example is still flawed by the way (as would any example using a physical product), as there's nothing to stop owners of that vehicle from selling it on to another user - there are no regional lock outs on vehicles. They don't magically stop working when outside of their country of origin or the market in which they were sold.
Not correct, I'm afraid. At least in the case of regional locks. Those DO hurt sales. Of course, you won't see any figures on this as they are the grey sales, those that publishers don't care for, even though they profit from them.

Art is a "social craft". It isn't like carpentry or medicine. The value of art is decided by the society, not by some "objective calculation model". Therefore an artist must adhere to changing social and economic rules. Those rules are currently changing. Artist that accept or even welcome this change are rewarded. It was never easier for a small band to achieve a breakthrough then now.

Your point, that we shouldn't impose that on an artist is moot, imo, as the artist is part of the social order and he must adhere to our rules. If he sitslike a king on his little throne and tries to decide who is deemed worthy to enjoy his art and who not he is nothing more then a douche (rememer the Lars Ulrich comments on Napster).

I'm not saying the artist should earn what is his right to earn. But that isn't being put in question. Piracy hasn't caused a single artist to live in poverty. You won't find a poor artist with millions of torrented albums (the occasinonal coke fiend aside). And the people bitching most about piracy aren't even the artists, it's the producers, the big labels. People that earn money of the artist. Because they know, once this internet thingy will be in full swing, they will become irrelevant. Even Lars Ulrich has since adjusted his views on this.

The thought that somebody who pirates an album disrispects the artist is also flawed. Respect has nothing to do with money. Again, if an artist has this mindset, it is his problem more then mine, because he will be replaced by artists who have moved beyond this and embraced the changed that is happening. I'm not doubting that we will have less "super rich" musicians, because we are no longer noud by the "big five" music publishers who decide what we can and what we cannot buy. The average income of the "top ten" musicians will certainly drop (or rather the income they generate for others), but the average income of the next 11 - 100 will most certainly rise.

Piracy is, at most, a thread for the current "high speed casting industry" that the music has become. And I'm not shedding a single tear for them.

Edit: this is relevant I think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Featured_Artists_Coalition

Well, it seems you also missed my point completely. But nevermind that, let's chill out and enjoy what we have already - doesn't matter if it was pirated or not! ;)

Simon, a few questions for you: How do you decide when your piracy "hurts" someone? What is the financial limit that a game sale must reach before you begin to pirate it (how many copies must a game sell before it is okay to pirate it)? Why is it NOT okay to pirate GoG games? You talk about piracy not hurting anyone but is that only short-term hurt or do you also consider long-term hurt such a loss of jobs, "brain drain" ie. smart people that can't make it in the gaming industry due to piracy and then moves on to other types of jobs? Is it okay to rape a women if she ends up liking it (Stokholm syndrome)? Godwin's Law: was the Holocaust good because there must have been a few murderes and rapists among the 6 mill. dead jews? And finally do you think it is okay for people to, on their own, to decide which laws they want to abide by and which they don't like and hence will not follow?

A few questions for you, where did you go to school and are your parents proud of you?

Because it is the "honest" thing to do. Anything else is just selfishness. I'm not saying it is right that they won't sell it to you, only that it is wrong to steal it when they choose not to.

I know that is easy for me to say, living in a country where there are very few such restrictions, But where they exist I try to adhere to them - its called being honest.

Ignoring: jespen.

You are making very good points worthy of much thought. But we have strayed into the music industry and corporate greed. Everyone loves to hate the music "industry" - money grabbing, talentless leeches.

Lets take it back to a generic individual producers and consumers.

Given there is a better model available and that if the producer fails to adapt he will suffer whilst one who does adapt will prosper: the producer who does not adapt should still be free to choose that route and have that choice respected by the consumer. I do not see that the consumer should be entitled to choose to ignore the producers wishes.

(I am trying to avoid words like "rights" and "entitlement" as they are somewhat loaded and I don't want to get into the whole legal side of things which is a complete mess designed to feed another bunch of money grabbing leeches).