I've seen a lot of talk in various threads of various forums about the difference between digital distribution and owning a disc copy of a game, and I felt the need to elucidate a couple of things (as I am one to do.)
First of all, whether you download a game (legally) or buy a copy of it on disc, your ownership of that intellectual property is at the same level: that is to say, zero.
It's not your fault you think you own a game or movie when you buy it on disc, because commercials for movies that come out on disc always have voiceovers that end with "Own it today on Blu-ray or DVD". But the problem is, the advertisement is not the contract offer. When you purchase software and media, you are not purchasing the media itself, you are purchasing a license to use it. Hence the name of the contract software developers have you sign upon purchasing said media: a EULA.
What does EULA stand for? End User License Agreement. These four words sum up your relationship to the product you have just purchased: You are not the owner of the software, you are an end user and a licensee thereof.
The notion that having the media on a disc is more akin to ownership than a download is patently false. Computer (and console) hard drives are filing systems, and so is your video game shelf. In both cases, the media physically exists, the only difference is that in disc form the media is large enough for you to handle, and contains packaging. While I can sympathize that these two factors can make the concept of ownership seem more tangible, the truth is, you don't own the media even when you own the DVD case for it and the instruction manual. Media companies are selling you licenses to use their media, they are not selling you ownership of the media. That would cost you far more money.
A mistaken conception of ownership
Legally it may be the same but there is a higher sense of ownership when you own a physical copy of a game that you know you can play in any console, at any time and that you will always have a say in ownership.
It's strange to look at shelf full of games- or in my case, a pile of them- and realize that it's just a pile of permissions to use software, but it is important to keep that in mind when discussing games, and specifically, digital rights management.
However, I think the reason people think "physical presence" implies ownership is because it is a tangible object that they have in their prsence. Legally, you're absolutely right as to what terms of ownership and usage are.
Maybe all of this says more about how strange the legalities of the usage of games are, and not so much about the people that own them.
Well, as I said, the marketers of media companies don't do their bosses any favours by the way they market their games, so it's not really users' faults. We're not all legal experts, afterall (I'm not either, I've just spent some time contemplating and investigating this stuff.)
And I understand what you guys are saying about tangibility being an object of value. I can understand that, but it's still not ownership.
And I would also argue that in some cases, it is better to possess the media digitally than it is to own it tangibly. Take Steam for example. My friend came over yesterday and he wanted to show me Trine and Plants vs. Zombies. All he needed to show me all of his games on Steam was his Steam ID and password. He was able to carry his entire video game collection (he doesn't own a console) with him in his mind because he has memorized his ID and password. That's better than having to bring the discs with you everywhere you go.
Yes the ownership level is the same. However atleast in my mind I feel that I PHYSICALLY own something You can use your hands and pick it up and move it. You can look at the box art and read the manual if you so desire. When you purchase something digitally you in your steam account have another game title, nothing more. No box, no dvd/cd, nothing to place on a shelf, just a piece of data. It really is nothing more than being older when you used to buy a Cart, Record, Cassette, etc. You fell ownership because it is tangabile and not digital.
To me thats the only real difference. On top of fhat I could sell an actual physical copy compared to my digital copy if I so desired. That's how I feel people see it, especially from a gamer from the 90s, where as younger gamers who got in during maybe the PS2 or current gen days see things differently the "I want it now" sort of mentality. Back then there was no other option, so you get used to it and the change of "hey I used to get an actual disk" to "sweet I got instantly on my hard drive" is the difference and some people prefer one medium to another. The actual ownership is not different besides the ability to sell a physical copy on ebay or to ebagames or whatever, as well as the mental state some people (myself included) acquire when actual in possession of a physical tangabile product; like an Audio CD, Book, DVD Movie or Computer/Console Game.
I disagree. I think my fair use rights give me the ability to play a hard copy game for a lifetime. With digital distribution and DRM, if a company goes out of business down the line, I will most likely never be able to play that game ever again. As a collector who enjoys playing games from all eras, I place much higher value on hard copies than digital copies. (with DRM)
I've been saying this for years, nobody listens. The closest thing I ever got to somebody fucking listening was a big argument about how EULA's are 'anti consumer' (I neither agree nor disagree with that statement before that argument starts up yet again) and not legally binding (that however I disagree with, they are i fact, provided found reasonable terms if disputed, legally binding)
I think the reason people (myself included) much much prefer a physical disc copy is incase a digital download service goes bust, dissapears, has the game removed from the service due to publishers/company arguments whatever reasons that negatively effect the consumer, and you can play them 10 or 20 years from now once those digital services may or may not still be around, your hard drives containing backup copies may or may not be corrupt/bust/lost in moves etc. You dont have to worry about disc degredation for another 15 to 50 or so years even for PS1 games.
It's a psychological thing, even though your ownership of the product is at the same level you have more control over what you do with your purchase, and you dont have the old "Service may be terminated with as little as 30 days notice" speil that comes attached to literally (I mean literally) EVERYTHING you buy or use online. Plus the obligatory "You lose al your shit if you are banned from our service" agreement. Not only that, but consumers often dont know they dont own a product (something which pisses me off, you answer them perfectly logically wit "If you dont agree with the EULA, dont buy the product" but they give you the same illogical bullshit in return "No, I paid for it, ITS MINE" Newsflash, it's not, at all.)
Most people think they own the item simply because they paid for it. They never ever ever ever read license agreements etc, they have no idea that of all those hundreds of CDs, games, dvds etc they dont 'own' a single thing about them. It's sheer ignorance plain and simple, it's not a mistaken sense of ownership it's just simple ignorance because people are too lasy to be educated consumers, it's the same reason shit like Pirates of the Caribbean gets to the top of the box office every year, because people are too stupid to go see a thought provoking, clever, or witty movie. Heck even a decent action flick.
Regardless of if they download something or purchase a physical copy, most people will simply assume they own it and can do whatever they like. People wonder why games companies who dont officially endorse modding get pissed off with hacks of their games, i'll tell you why, it's because they have every right to be, you don't own any of the stuff you're messing with and just because Valve etc are nice enough to let you mess with their creation does not mean other companies will be so nice, and even if they are/you view them as 'evil corperations' that doesnt give you the right to fiddle with code/arts/etc you do not own or have legal access to. "I paid for it, its mine" and ignorance, is no excuse in my eyes, or the eyes of the law.
All you really have is a license to use that software. No different than any other type of software.
Just to add, the worst thing that's come from this in my eyes, is the idea that (as you put forward) you 'own' everything on the discs, therefore unlock codes for DLC on the disc is somehow 'wrong' that you are paying for something you 'already bought' is flat out wrong every which way, yet people cling to it like a protection blanket. Grow the fuck up and accept that companies sometimes to shitty things like day one DLC. Also realise that you do not have to pay for that, it is not a requirement to play the game, nor do you even have to purchase the game itself, you can simply not give your money to the company, but claiming you own something which by all rights you quite simply do not, is just absurd.
Honestly with consumers as 'smart' as todays ones, it's a wonder companies stay in business, they already operate on incredibly thin margins, risky projects, etc etc. Sure, they do 'evil corperation' type things from time to time, they have to for all the money they are losing to fucktards and their misplaced moral agendas.
A lot of interesting points have been made here, on both sides of the digital divide. However, it should be noted that my original post was not defending digital distribution or disparaging tangible media, but just to help people realize that ownership when it comes to media costs far more than 50 dollars a unit.
I can see the strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the divide.
Not getting too deep on this, but when Ibuy a game, I own the disc. With that I can lend it to someone to play and I can sell it. That means I 'own'the game. By owning the game, means I own the disc, which also means that I can do anything with within the law. In Australia, that means I can make a back-up copy, regardless what the user agreement states.
That is why I want a physical copy. With a digital copy, I can't sellit if I choose, or send it to a friend.
Basically, a publisher decides they don't want to sell certain books electronically for Amazon's Kindle after sales have already been made. Amazon caves to publisher demands and remotely deletes the books, refunding the customers. EULA or not, is this the future you want for your downloadable content?
When I purchase a medium or content, I may only be purchasing the 'rights' to use it, but I am still (or should be) well within my rights to resell / give away that license when I no longer want it; and that is what defines ownership to me. If the EULA does not agree with that positioning, then maybe the EULA needs adjusting.
"http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/Basically, a publisher decides they don't want to sell certain books electronically for Amazon's Kindle after sales have already been made. Amazon caves to publisher demands and remotely deletes the books, refunding the customers. EULA or not, is this the future you want for your downloadable content?When I purchase a medium or content, I may only be purchasing the 'rights' to use it, but I am still (or should be) well within my rights to resell / give away that license when I no longer want it; and that is what defines ownership to me. If the EULA does not agree with that positioning, then maybe the EULA needs adjusting."
Or maybe it doesn't...
The problem here is there has to be a balance, it's all too easy for consumer to say "I want to do whatever I want" and equally as easy for companies to say "No, you do what I tell you" Besides, the notion that you are actually within your rights to resell is a false one, you aren't. So you're lucky you can actually resell physical media and hardly anyone cares that it's against most EULAs
Neither person can, or deserves to have it completely their own way, and imo, it will do consumers some good to have the ability to resell stripped from them, it might make them think a little better before purchases for once and help force consumers to educated themselves a little better. But at the same time, the ability for companies to simply remove service whenever they want (in most cases with as little as 30 days warning and no refunds) is utterly unacceptable. Regardless of how likely it is or isnt. That's the main reason i'm not taken on digital downloads. We've already seen stuff taken down from XBLA, fuck, it might have only been yaris but it still creates an imbalance and should a legitimate paid for product ever be removed, that's the line for me I will never purchase an XBLA game or a digital microsoft product ever again. And I represent a large portion of cashflow lol, I have something like 40 XBLA games and 10 or so pieces of paid DLC.
Edit: Also, while I agree with the sentiment. You are in fact not allowed to resell, or lend discs. Heck, it's the same for DVDs and VHS tapes, music tapes/discs/records etc. Their license agreements all state you cannot lend, resell, publicly broadcast, reverse engineer, etc etc. So while it's easy to simply give it to a friend, you actually agree not to do so. I personally think it's bullshit, i'm just pointing it out for the record here.
You can pry it out of my dead cold hands. YEEEEEEEEEEHAW!!
"I've never understood why software is allowed to get away with this and other forms of media, or other consumer goods are not. If I buy a book, that's MY book. If I buy a shovel, it's my shovel. Why is it that if I buy God of War 3, it's not really mine, and this is normal?"
The difference being that the image, materials used to construct, etc of the shovel are not Intilectual Property owned by somebody. It's simply a shovel. Also, if you go look them up, you'll find some similar things in your statutory rights.
The difference here is that implying you 'own' a game would involve owning all the source code, the art assets, the music, etc etc. You don't own those as no more than one person, or a company, can legally own those things so you have to instead be granted a license to use.
The same is true of books (even physical ones, you do not own the printed words, just the raw materials) music, any other software, television and movie dvds, heck, postcards, artwork, magazines, pretty much anything that contains an idea or image, or non-tangible thing of value (such as music for example, computer code, etc, non tangible but still represents worth)
It's the same as the image of a car, or the shovel. You couldnt produce and sell that same shovel as the original manufacturer owns the rights to it's design, logos etc, re-selling a game is the same concept, the only difference is it's easy to take a physical disc to a store and sell it, it's much harder to build a shovel factory to start selling knock off shovels.
"Silly people are silly!"
You have a one line response for everything, when are you ever going to actually participate in a debate? That doesn't have to do with Halo ;)
Oh, I am very well aware of what the EULA may say, which is why I stated that it not the consumer that needs changing it's the EULA. Gamestop, FYE, Powell's and the numerous other retailers that have made a business out of buying and reselling used merchandise would have to disagree on the 'legalities' of reselling physical media. EULA as it stands now will need to change for the future, and hopefully in a more simplistic manner. Each generation of new technologies seems to add more stipulations on what consumers can and can't do with the product. How long do you think consumers will put up with this kind of treatment?
" @Pie said:Their is nothing to debate. Everything mexican dude said is right. I own whatz i buyz with myz moneyz z."Silly people are silly!"
You have a one line response for everything, when are you ever going to actually participate in a debate? That doesn't have to do with Halo ;) "
Now we're starting to talk semantics here. It's true that you don't own the IP since you are not the creator, nor are they selling you the rights to it, but you do own the physical disc that you purchase. Like oldschool said, the consumer should be able to trade/sell/give away a purchased product. I don't think it's really consumer ignorance so much as a sense of entitlement, and of course no company is going to advertise the fact that all they are selling you is a license because that sounds incredibly unappealing.
I know you said the EULA needed to change, I disagreed I think consumers don't realise the amount of freedom they have with certain products. While i'm not suggesting taking that freedom away, I do think a lot of consumers are spoiled little fucks who should be taught a lesson at some point, and learn they cannot have everything they want at all times.
Second hand games dealers only 'disagree' with the 'legalities' (Because publishers have the time or money to chase up every single store who've ever resold a copy of their game ever, only to be told they probably don't have a case anyway, despite the agreement) because it makes them a fuckton of cash. It's not technicly illegal, I forget the exact loophole though but there is a trick to it's legality.
Besides, since when did things 'need to change' just because some parties disagree with the way they are handled? I love how nobody ever EVER stands up for the business in these discussions, it's always consumers going "Want Want Want" despite the fact business have legitimate concerns and rights as well, not to mention obligations. Did you know that if you do not actively protect your IP to the full extent of your ability (That means, writing the most complicated etc EULAs and legal mumbo jumbo you have access to, and enforcing it wherever humanly possible) you LOSE IT. Literally, if you do not protect your IP, someone can and will steal it, and be backed by a court of law because you didnt actively protect it.
Don't blame software houses, slightly blame publishers, but mostly blame international copyright law, not the people making or selling the products, they have to do most of that stuff or they stand to lose their products.
As for not letting you resell, i'd say that's their right. After all, people don't have the right to access a product for free, if you made a product and one person bought it, and 10 of his friends borrowed it, what would your view be on that? If it's anything less than "Well, that's at least 2 lost sales" you havn't got your head screwed on properly.
Like I said, consumers are 90% "Want Want Want, Regardless of the damage it does to others!!!" and these discussions do nothing to dispell that notion in my eyes.
"@Suicrat: I hope you're fully aware that EULAs are kinda bullshit. Courts have overturned them many times because the clauses they have in them sometimes are just ludicrous. Regardless I take a EULA about as seriously as any other bullshit contract. Being a big coporation doesn't mean you can just make up shitty laws. Either way, if I buy it, I own it, I really couldn't give less of a flying fuck about what a publisher says. They can suck my balls."
You need to do some research buddy.
Start here and follow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability
You'll find most of it depends entirely on the state, and the specific clauses in question.
Also, aren't you a spoiled little man, you might not care what a publisher says or does, but i'm sure they'd rather piss you off than lose the rights to their products, they certainly aren't going to waste time sucking your balls.
"@The_A_Drain: People need to stand up for big businesses? Wow, are you for real? I'm quite sure they're doing just fine on their own. I'm not sure what world you live in, but businesses aren't these giant, altruistic teddy bears that just want to give you a big, cozy hug. Besides, flimsy international copyright laws along with rampant piracy in both the industrial and developing world work as market regulators. Without them these corporations would have far too much control in the market. Your assumptions would only really work in a world where perfect competition actually exists. Too bad we're about as close to idealistic capitalism as the soviets were to idealistic communism."
Wow, how about you take some of that shit your shoveling and eat it?
I'm not for one second implying that big business doesnt do a lot of shitty things, but consumers often fail to realise that a lot of the schtick they have to put up with is because of international copyright law, it's not like business set out to shit all over people, after all what would be the fucking point in that, if they set out to piss people off they aren't going to make any money are they.
As for piracy being a market regulator, Fuck You. You clearly don't have a clue and for about the 10th time on these forums have simply ousted yourself as a spoiled brat who couldnt give a fuck about anybody elses rights or obligations. Piracy is not a form of market regulation, it's common theivery.
" @RsistncE said:Oh my, did you even BOTHER reading the article you linked me to? I'm not going to go any further because if you had you'd see how 50/50 it is over EULA rulings and how bullshit some of them are, in fact it states right in the article that many times companies over step their boundaries for copyright laws or circumvent them with EULAs. Can't get more bullshit than that."@Suicrat: I hope you're fully aware that EULAs are kinda bullshit. Courts have overturned them many times because the clauses they have in them sometimes are just ludicrous. Regardless I take a EULA about as seriously as any other bullshit contract. Being a big coporation doesn't mean you can just make up shitty laws. Either way, if I buy it, I own it, I really couldn't give less of a flying fuck about what a publisher says. They can suck my balls."
You need to do some research buddy.
Start here and follow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#EnforceabilityYou'll find most of it depends entirely on the state, and the specific clauses in question.Also, aren't you a spoiled little man, you might not care what a publisher says or does, but i'm sure they'd rather piss you off than lose the rights to their products, they certainly aren't going to waste time sucking your balls. "
And yes, they can suck my balls because there is very little they can do about me owning their software because if they won't let me have it legally, I can have it illegally also. Corporations aren't worried about your treatment, they work in self-interest, after all that is the point of a self organizing economy, isn't it? As a result I also work in my self-interest. If everyone just laid down and took it in the bum like you suggest I can only imagine how shitty the market could get for consumers.
Then it's time for publishers to put up or shut up. Shut down used business, arrest consumers for lending out media or reselling it after they are done with it. Sound realistic? Of course not, not only would that be the PR shitfest of the century, but it's just not feasible. Which is why I stand by what I said before and will say again. The EULA and copyrights will have to evolve with consumers before consumers fuck companies over too much. As you stated before it's about balance.
Here's a science fiction future question for you: What will happen when a person can replicate that shovel as easily as copying a music CD? Copyrights and the EULA are for the rights to use the content on that media. Will I need to buy 'rights' to use that shovel then?
" @RsistncE said:I suggest you'd do the same. Go have a look at financial statements for some companies off of the Dow Jones Industrial Index. Yeah those guys really have it hard don't they. Damn, those multi-million dollar profits are just too measly for them."@The_A_Drain: People need to stand up for big businesses? Wow, are you for real? I'm quite sure they're doing just fine on their own. I'm not sure what world you live in, but businesses aren't these giant, altruistic teddy bears that just want to give you a big, cozy hug. Besides, flimsy international copyright laws along with rampant piracy in both the industrial and developing world work as market regulators. Without them these corporations would have far too much control in the market. Your assumptions would only really work in a world where perfect competition actually exists. Too bad we're about as close to idealistic capitalism as the soviets were to idealistic communism."Wow, how about you take some of that shit your shoveling and eat it?I'm not for one second implying that big business doesnt do a lot of shitty things, but consumers often fail to realise that a lot of the schtick they have to put up with is because of international copyright law, it's not like business set out to shit all over people, after all what would be the fucking point in that, if they set out to piss people off they aren't going to make any money are they.As for piracy being a market regulator, Fuck You. You clearly don't have a clue and for about the 10th time on these forums have simply ousted yourself as a spoiled brat who couldnt give a fuck about anybody elses rights or obligations. Piracy is not a form of market regulation, it's common theivery. "
As for businesses treating people like shit...you're right. They don't do it intentionally. What I mean is they don't go out and shit on people just for the sake of shitting on people. The problem is they don't CARE if they're shitting on people. If the profits outrun the loss in the short-run then they made the right decision. They're not too concerned about externalities what so ever.
I clearly don't have a clue about what? You didn't finish the sentence. Clearly YOU have ousted yourself as a corporate dick sucker. Other people's rights or obligations? So what we're going to run with the "corporation is a person" ideal? I give a shit about the common man, that's why I treat corporations like shit. I know what they do, I've seen some of the stuff they do in fact. Maybe if the market worked like it was supposed to we wouldn't have to worry about them, but it doesn't. We're a long way from perfect competition and the last thing we'd want to do right now is let the corporate world run amok. Besides last I checked it was corporations that are responsible for this mess we're in right now (along with the government, but that's a whole different bag of nuts).
Ok kid crusader, you can call it 'common thievery' all you want. I disagree since piracy isn't as simple as walking into a store and stealing a product. Whether or not something is illegal, of if YOU believe it is illegal, doesn't change the effect is has on the markets and it's been pretty clear that piracy acts as market regulation. The corporations are now forced to basically compete with piracy, which believe it or not, is good for everyone since that is a pillar of this economic system.
"@The_A_Drain: Then it's time for publishers to put up or shut up. Shut down used business, arrest consumers for lending out media or reselling it after they are done with it. Sound realistic? Of course not, not only would that be the PR shitfest of the century, but it's just not feasible. Which is why I stand by what I said before and will say again. The EULA and copyrights will have to evolve with consumers before consumers fuck companies over too much. As you stated before it's about balance.Here's a science fiction future question for you: What will happen when a person can replicate that shovel as easily as copying a music CD? Copyrights and the EULA are for the rights to use the content on that media. Will I need to buy 'rights' to use that shovel then?"
Yes. Yes you will. Or rather, rights to replicate shovel for personal use.
And as you said, it's not feasable nor a pleasant scenario for ANYONE involved for publishers to do that, but they still lose a significant legal foothold by not including that stuff in their EULAs.
@RsistencE
Whatever asshole i've had enough of your bullshit. People who can actually read and comprehend can see that article highlights some of the laws, how they've been broken, and how legitimate EULAs are both legally supported and necessary in protecting the copyrights of their respective owners. Suck your own balls because nobody else is going to do it, you dont own the fucking game even if you steal it asshole, if you tried reproducing any of that content in a manner outside of simply playing the game, they'd come down on you like a ton of bricks as they fully deserve to do so, you'd get your ass legally kicked and go home crying to mommy. Just look at the guys who tried to put out a game ripping some of the content right out of Oblivion, never heard from again. That is owning the product, if they let you own the entirety of the game, there would be one and only one copy of every game in existence.
People, this is the kind of person who makes up most of the consumer world, it's no wonder then that companies are trying to protect their products. Continue to steal products you malicious little shit, all it does is make you look like an ass and invalidate anything you say. Everywhere you go topics need locking.
"@The_A_Drain: Wow, you're not here to debate, you're here to attack other people and paint them as you see fit. I think this discussion is over. "
No, that ass follows me places and makes ridiculous insinuations and generally spouts ignorant crap everywere he goes about a whole range of topics complete with all sorts of misinterpreted and misquoted rubbish. I thought bollocks to it i'd had enough of responding to him in a civil manner.
" @Eelcire said:Don't flatter yourself, I don't follow you anywhere, it just seems that we have similar interests except vastly different opinions on those topics. As for ownership, I'm quite sure a lot of people here are talking about ownership in the moral sense, not just the legal sense."@The_A_Drain: Wow, you're not here to debate, you're here to attack other people and paint them as you see fit. I think this discussion is over. "No, that ass follows me places and makes ridiculous insinuations and generally spouts ignorant crap everywere he goes about a whole range of topics complete with all sorts of misinterpreted and misquoted rubbish. I thought bollocks to it i'd had enough of responding to him in a civil manner. "
Whilst I am not about to quote and respond to every argument placed, I will make a couple of coupes on things that stood out.
Piracy does affect the market, and like it or not, it most likely does have a positive effect. I am not supporting piracy, but there is a major difference between piracy for profit and personal piracy. One is organised crime and wrong in every possible way. The other always presumes that the company makes a loss because the individual would have bought the game at full price - most don't, they are just opportunistic, to try something they had no intention of buying anyway. No real loss. Not a real crime but a petty misdemeanour that at worst would be best served with being forced to pay for the game and a little more - not a court proceeding and massive fine.
Back to how it affects the market. Piracy is a defacto competitor. It forces companies to address changes in the market and as a result, change prices, distribution methods - reasons for the conx\sumer to stick with them. This isn't a value judgement on right or wrong, just a reality of the market. It is never the end of the market as the vast majority of citizens are not only honest, but more importantly, want to be.
As for the user agreements. They are a wish list in most part, by the corporations. They figure that most people are afraid of a court proceeding, regardless of how right they may be. So they put them in to scare people and hope that no-one actually challenges them. We allknow how expensive any court case can be. If it was illegal to sell my game to a friend in any way, that case would have been fought and won a very long time ago. Second hand games, videos, records et cetera have been a feature of our lives since the 1960s (records). In 40 years to my knowledge, the only attempt at trying to stop the selling of used product has been in Japan, with games, and they failed twice (I think). It just isn't enforceable and never should be.
Don't assume the user agreement is legally rock solid. It isn't. It never should be. If you want to protect the quality of your original, by making a back-up copy and using it, why shouldn't you?
If the company you worked for could find a way to extract value from you without giving you value in return, don't you think they would, if an effective deterrent was absent? You are taking value without giving value in return, you can throw around terms like self-organizing, and self-interest, but what it comes down to is anybody extracting any value from anyone else without giving value in return is undermining market-oriented social relationships.
@oldschool: You make some very valid points, and while issues of 'right and wrong' can muddle the issues at hand in some discussions, I personally don't think it applies when it comes to economic relationships. It is right to return value in exchange for value, it is wrong to obtain value without returning the favour. Why is it necessary to hold this view (and live by it as well) with regard to economic relationships? Because without it, we sanction those who would enslave us.
It comes down to what the customer wants versus what the business wants. There's the laws, there's morals, and then there's what each of us want.
If I buy a game, but for some reason I'm locked out of playing it, I don't care what the law is, I'm going to play that game. It's morally right.
" @oldschool: You make some very valid points, and while issues of 'right and wrong' can muddle the issues at hand in some discussions, I personally don't think it applies when it comes to economic relationships. It is right to return value in exchange for value, it is wrong to obtain value without returning the favour. Why is it necessary to hold this view (and live by it as well) with regard to economic relationships? Because without it, we sanction those who would enslave us. "Value is subjective though as a consumer sees value differently to that of a corporation. Whilst you can't have a meeting of minds on this you will conflict. Piracy exists because of this conflict of the view of value. It always will.
I work for the world's largest food manufacturer, so I live in the corporate society. When a product becomes a commodity, companies have to give consumers a reason to choose the more expensive, but largely similar product. That is part of that value equation. The game companies need to work on this value aspect. I would say that they need to give consumers rewards for supporting them, not punishing them with over restrictive rules and things like DRM that make the whole experience less enjoyable. They are approaching the problem from the wrong end.
In simplistic terms, they should very actively chase and prosecute those that make a profit from piracy and leave the consumers alone, but work on a positive way to bring them in, with things that perhaps the pirate cannot offer (like attached premiums, like Atlus and others are good at).
And while value propositions may or may not be subjective, a total absence of returned value is not. Zero is an objective entity. Two people might be able to quibble over the relative value of something. But nothing has no value, that is a logical statement of fact, which no amount of sophistry can negate.
" @oldschool: Good to see someone understands economic theory here :) "I am sure that others understand economic theory as well, but there are different versions of it. I am a socialist at heart, living in a capitalist world. My perspective will always lean to the consumer over the corporation, within limits of sensible rules. Corporations and politicians should always remember that they are here to serve us, not the other way around.
Just so you know where I speak from (if you believe someone on the internet that is) is with Marketing, Psychology, Economics, Accounting and Politics at university. I don't use much of it in my business life, but rather, it shapes my views of the world.
Thanks for this enlightening and entirely necessary thread.
" @oldschool: Incentivizing is definitely a more PR-friendly way to deter piracy than attempting to punish pirates (though we all know that never works.)You are not accusing me of sophistry in this are you?
And while value propositions may or may not be subjective, a total absence of returned value is not. Zero is an objective entity. Two people might be able to quibble over the relative value of something. But nothing has no value, that is a logical statement of fact, which no amount of sophistry can negate. "
No offence Suicrat, and I mean this not as an insult, but you are coming across as a student or lecturer reading from a text book. I am not saying you are though. Your points become somewhat circular. Yes, returned of zero isn't subjective, but it presumes that there is a factual loss - that being that the consumer chooses to pirate as opposed to having no intent to purchase in the first place. That being in play, zero can be subjective.
I am not sure where this discussion is leading us though. It has become very circular.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment