Brian Fargo on DLC

[Kole]

Piracy is not stealing, and I will give you a small example to see why.
You have a watch, I steal your watch. Now I have a watch and you have nothing.
You have a game, I copy your game. Now I have a game and you also have a game.
As you can see there is a fundamental difference between those two. Stealing is a very very old word that was made when only physical goods were around. Fast forward a few milleniua and now we have digital goods, and you can't use old terms to describe new "crimes". Piracy is at worst a copyright infringement.
That being said I believe it's every games right to try before you buy, you wouldn't buy a car without a test drive, would you? For that very reason I never buy a game before pirating and finishing it first. That way I pay for the games that deserve my money and lets be honest most games today and absolute sh*t and are not worth the discs they are burned on. Except for wasteland 2, that one I had to fund before trying, because it was quite possible that it wouldn't have even been made without our funds.

[Drool]

Oh, not this nonsense again.

[ijusten]

This conversation has really gone off the rails here. None us share a common culture and very few of us even share a common first language. As we steer farther and farther away from the original topic, it might be advisable to use words with clear definitions. I couldn't really make heads or tails of the last few posts in this topic.

As a second observation, you're all arguing from the position that your view is the cultural and legal norm worldwide, which obviously isn't the case. You're also trying to strengthen your points by using definitions of words that aren't in common usage, thus making your arguments even harder to understand (or even read).

For example, theft is

1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2. an instance of this.
[accoarding to Dictionary.com]

so this quote

How is theft ever a victimless crime? Calling something "abandonware" is just another rationalization since it's not a legally recognized term.

doesn't make any sense, as you don't break into office or apartment physically to steal objects.The legal terms you're looking for are "orphan works" and "copyright infringement".

Further, "copyright infringement" is a term that have different legal meanings on different jurisdictions (for example, in Spain downloading for personal use is legal).

For all means, please continue arguing for legal and ethical points, but avoid acting like these terms have universal definitions we should all share. :)

EDIT: The term "piracy" is also not well defined. In certain areas it only relates to activities that bring direct monetary profit. On other areas it may refer to activities that can even be legal (such as selling and buying used games to/from Gamestop). You may all be interested on this article by Ars Technica.

EDIT2. And please, don't use the brain-dead allegory of "copy-gun". That argument has never won anybody over.

[ButchinMelancholy]

want your own words and arguments to explain me what in this precise case, because as I said -in a way- everything is relative .

Seems like this is turning into Ethics 101.
To begin, can we all agree that _generally speaking_ Stealing is a Bad Thing?

Given the acceptance that a Bad Thing is indeed a Bad Thing, then it follows that
1) ________ is a Bad Thing.
2) But it is okay for me to do this Bad Thing because __________.
That is a rationalization. It's an excuse for a person to do something he _wants_ to do when he already knows he should not be doing that Bad Thing.

SOMETIMES a rationalization is actually valid. For instance, "Exceeding the posted 35 mph speed limit is a Bad Thing, but I have an injured person that I have to get to a hospital before he dies." However, I'm fairly certain that all acceptable rationalizations relate a _need_ rather than a _desire_.
Okay: "Stealing is Bad, but I need to feed my family and it's the only way I can do that." Arguably an acceptable excuse.
Not okay: "I heard this is a great game and I really, really got to have it!" If that ever becomes a valid excuse, it will be total anarchy during the End Of Days. _Nothing_ would be safe from theft by EVERYONE.

Playing games in no way shape or form can be construed as a need. As such, any rationalization to justify theft just to enable the playing of games is a monumental FAIL.

I don't know if there is some language's nuances that can operate here, but I would personally call "rationalization" the way you conceive this example, which is to treat every particular case according to a general accepted principle, with pure and simple logic. To justify an exception to this general law according to a particular reason is what I would call relativization. And I think there are some potential serious flaws to each of those visions. This is where I admit that only intelligence can make the difference, and we can't control that by any mean...

That said, I am agree with you here, as it is surely better to respect a good principle if we have no need to do otherwise. But again, intelligence permits to do good beyond principles, by the "natural" (we have to work it obviously...) ability to weigh things properly, while fools will naturally do the opposite... Of course, it is a litigious point, but I think this is where you must stop pretending and just recognize things, as there will be no universal consensus on that...

Piracy is not stealing, and I will give you a small example to see why.
You have a watch, I steal your watch. Now I have a watch and you have nothing.
You have a game, I copy your game. Now I have a game and you also have a game.
As you can see there is a fundamental difference between those two. Stealing is a very very old word that was made when only physical goods were around. Fast forward a few milleniua and now we have digital goods, and you can't use old terms to describe new "crimes". Piracy is at worst a copyright infringement.

This would be true if our world wasn't actually based on an "immaterial" value, which is money, that everyone needs to live sadly...
That said, I can't bear that bad faith around assuming that piracy is strictly opposed to purchase, yes, because it is simply not true obviously. But in a world were individuals have to struggle for themselves (thanks to our archaic model), you must understand that there is no reason apart from moral choice that anyone would not pay for what he can get otherwise. So this is acceptable (and certainly needed) to prevent that.

[BentSea]

I actually really like the concept of DLC.. I mean, honestly, it's just a delivery system for expansion packs. It's not the delivery system's fault that a lot of companies see the ease of delivery as an excuse to offer sub par, over priced, uncreative expansion packs. That's mostly the fault of poor consumer judgement. THey're making money from it. I think that's sad. Also.. the longer a game is out, the less DLC for it sells, no matter how good the DLC is. DLC released in the first month sells exponentially more than after six months when the game is no longer center stage as a new release. (That's also why Microsoft can charge people 60$ to use online features on their console. Multiplayer for games they own(as long as the servers don't get turned off, forever devaluing the game), netflix accounts that they've already paid for,etc) It's really pretty sickening

It bothers me that I bought Mass Effect 2 on sale on steam for 5$, but the combined DLC on Cerberus is about 60$ than the full game.

I really like expansion packs that aren't core to the central story, or to a sequel. I don't like that Mass Effect 2 had DLC that was central to character development that you would just miss out on by going straight to ME3.

The size of the content and the speed of delivery means that DLC should be a cheap effective way for devs to explore creative and interesting things. Some of the ideas I've seen in the forums... tower based mission.. sneaking missions... other missions that don't fit the format or the vision of the core gameplay.. those types of things are perfect for the DLC format.

[void1984]

I'm saddened, suz. You've rationalized your thievery into being something okay. "It's okay to steal something that I _want_ if I think the price is too high or the manufacturer's version is more complicated than I like." So, is how you plan to acquire your next car? "I really, really want a Porsche, but the manufacturer set the price too high! But I can one get one for an affordable price from the local car thieves!" Do you keep store detectives on their toes when you go shopping? "Too expensive! Must have!"

Games are luxuries, nothing at all that you need. If you don't pay the owner when it is acquired, at worst you are a thief; at best you're a "receiver of stolen goods".

But I doubt very much if you can see yourself in such a harsh light. I could be wrong about that, but it seems you are thoroughly enmeshed with your rationalization.

You make a mistake of confusing pirating a game or car with staling it.
When you steal Mr. Jones looses his car.
When you copy it both of you have a car. Of course Mr. Jones has the official release with all the goodies associated with it.

To make it more clear for you here's a story of a guy who pirated Lamborghini
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1m7KsW/www.themysteryworld.com/2011/09/guy-built-lamborghini-in-his-basement.html
I know that Mr Lamborghini have not received any royalties from this pirated copy, but it's not a lost sale either.

[Shady314]

You make a mistake of confusing pirating a game or car with staling it.
When you steal Mr. Jones looses his car.
When you copy it both of you have a car. Of course Mr. Jones has the official release with all the goodies associated with it.

Does it matter? I'm no thief that's offensive! I'm a pirate. That's not illegal at all! You're both using different words to say the same thing.

To make it more clear for you here's a story of a guy who pirated Lamborghini
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1m7KsW/www.themysteryworld.com/2011/09/guy-built-lamborghini-in-his-basement.html
I know that Mr Lamborghini have not received any royalties from this pirated copy, but it's not a lost sale either.

For that to be anywhere close to a valid analogy to PC piracy you'd need to license the same engine and code the entire game from scratch just like the developers. If you do that then I'll grant you the difference. He didn't pirate a Lamborghini he MADE a car that looks like a Lamborghini.

[void1984]

Does it matter? I'm no thief that's offensive! I'm a pirate. That's not illegal at all! You're both using different words to say the same thing.

Well, it does. One thing is a crime, the second is just a misdemeanor. Additionally the original owner is not losing anything.

To make it more clear for you here's a story of a guy who pirated Lamborghini
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1m7KsW/www.themysteryworld.com/2011/09/guy-built-lamborghini-in-his-basement.html
I know that Mr Lamborghini have not received any royalties from this pirated copy, but it's not a lost sale either.

For that to be anywhere close to a valid analogy to PC piracy you'd need to license the same engine and code the entire game from scratch just like the developers. If you do that then I'll grant you the difference. He didn't pirate a Lamborghini he MADE a car that looks like a Lamborghini.

He didn't made it. He copied all the solutions, calculations and patterns from Lamborghini. The analogy is very strong (except the license). It was not me who invented the "car analogy", but CaptainPatch, so I shown him how coping is different from stealing.

[CaptainPatch]

Does it matter? I'm no thief that's offensive! I'm a pirate. That's not illegal at all! You're both using different words to say the same thing.

Well, it does. One thing is a crime, the second is just a misdemeanor. Additionally the original owner is not losing anything.

Uhm, a misdemeanor IS a crime. Crimes are broken into two categories: misdemeanor (minor) and felony (major).

He didn't made it. He copied all the solutions, calculations and patterns from Lamborghini. The analogy is very strong (except the license). It was not me who invented the "car analogy", but CaptainPatch, so I shown him how coping is different from stealing.

So, you seem to be suggesting that counterfeiting merchandise is nothing illegal. All those fake Gucci handbags floating around, cheap versions of Omega watches, all the way up to a duplicate of a Lamborghini.

The whole point of copyright law is that if you want to have it, you MUST get it "from the source". The source performed all of the effort associated with the creation and development of the final product. Their sweat, their investment, their time, their effort to make a unique product that until that moment didn't exist anywhere. Then someone comes along and simply duplicates the final product and thinks, "It's okay for me to do this because it's not like the creator is having anything physical taken from him.

That idea is a crock. Do you believe at all that "the workman is worthy of his hire?" _His_ effort is what gave you the opportunity to have the item you desire. Without his effort, you don't have it.

Do you think that it's okay for you to on your own, jump into someone's car, drive somewhere, later put it back, but, "that's okay because I replaced the gas I used"? You used somebody else's property to get something that you wanted, and now you rationalize that's okay because "it's not like I took anything from him." In order to have that pirated game, at some point, someone, either you or the pirate, used an original to copy from. Without that original, the copy would NOT exist. That is a service taken from the owner for which the owner is not being compensated. That is, quite obviously (to anyone with any degree of conscience) theft.

Idle question: In school, did you used to copy answers off of the person sitting next to you? After all, it's not you would be taking something of value from him or her. They _still_ had their answers, so it's not theft, right? No harm, no foul?

[TΛPETRVE]

[void1984]

Does it matter? I'm no thief that's offensive! I'm a pirate. That's not illegal at all! You're both using different words to say the same thing.

Well, it does. One thing is a crime, the second is just a misdemeanor. Additionally the original owner is not losing anything.

Uhm, a misdemeanor IS a crime. Crimes are broken into two categories: misdemeanor (minor) and felony (major).

Probably I've used a wrong word. You described your location as CA, I assume that would be Canada. I'm from Europe, Poland.
Imagine an activity that's punishable by a ticket not a court trial. Maybe a small speeding is treated that way in your area?

So, you seem to be suggesting that counterfeiting merchandise is nothing illegal. All those fake Gucci handbags floating around, cheap versions of Omega watches, all the way up to a duplicate of a Lamborghini.

Now you mix up two things. One is making a copy for oneself (1), another is mass producing them (2) and making it a source of income (3).
(1) is of course legal and the law usually guarantees you that opportunity under the name of "personal/fair usage"; (2) and (3) are crimes.
In your way of thinking if you buy a record by Bruce Springsteen and your friend one by Tom Waits, you exchange them and make copies for yourselves, that would make you a criminal?
Preparing 200 of them and selling them at the bazaar is a different story. Please cut off that demagogy, so discussion would be going to a point.

The whole point of copyright law is that if you want to have it, you MUST get it "from the source". The source performed all of the effort associated with the creation and development of the final product. Their sweat, their investment, their time, their effort to make a unique product that until that moment didn't exist anywhere. Then someone comes along and simply duplicates the final product and thinks, "It's okay for me to do this because it's not like the creator is having anything physical taken from him.

You're right here. But you're talking now about Mr Lamborghini and not my neighbor who allowed me to take measures.
Now you can thing how much damage has been done to Mr Lamborghini. A potential lost of sale... But how probable was that opportunity? That's a topic that can be discussed over very long.

That idea is a crock. Do you believe at all that "the workman is worthy of his hire?" _His_ effort is what gave you the opportunity to have the item you desire. Without his effort, you don't have it.

Yes.

Do you think that it's okay for you to on your own, jump into someone's car, drive somewhere, later put it back, but, "that's okay because I replaced the gas I used"? You used somebody else's property to get something that you wanted, and now you rationalize that's okay because "it's not like I took anything from him." In order to have that pirated game, at some point, someone, either you or the pirate, used an original to copy from. Without that original, the copy would NOT exist. That is a service taken from the owner for which the owner is not being compensated. That is, quite obviously (to anyone with any degree of conscience) theft.

Now you're wrong again in so many ways...
First of all a pattern (car shape) is an idea, not a good, so it can't be a property. That's not a coincidence that "Copyright Infringement" is totally different from "Theft".
Second the idea is not getting worn-out, depleted, or unavailable, by unauthorized usage.
Software coping is a bit different from car or music coping, as it still requires a valid license to run.

Idle question: In school, did you used to copy answers off of the person sitting next to you? After all, it's not you would be taking something of value from him or her. They _still_ had their answers, so it's not theft, right? No harm, no foul?

Right: no theft, no harm, no foul in it. If he gives me his answers I can copy them.
Claiming that I invented those answers and passing them as my results is a different topic. So let's cut off the demagogy once again.

[ButchinMelancholy]

Don't you guys come to a point where you realize that there is only one problem behind all this quite unsolvable (or at least inexorably litigious) conceptual mess, which is the monetary system? If you don't need to care about what you will personally earn in return of your work, there would be nothing of those concerns...
But well, I guess this is a much more metaphysic or a "higher" reflection here...

[CaptainPatch]

Now you mix up two things. One is making a copy for oneself (1), another is mass producing them (2) and making it a source of income (3).
(1) is of course legal and the law usually guarantees you that opportunity under the name of "personal/fair usage"; (2) and (3) are crimes.
In your way of thinking if you buy a record by Bruce Springsteen and your friend one by Tom Waits, you exchange them and make copies for yourselves, that would make you a criminal?

Technically, yes, that is a crime.

You seem to think that there has been no theft because no money has changed hands. Pointedly, in the absence of any copies being available, the ONLY way to get that product is from the source, the manufacturer or one of its designated retailers. The value of the product is = $_____. That is how much money you would have to part with in order to get that item. By copying the product, you have gained $______ value, and the money that you would have had to normally parted with you give to yourself. You have taken something that belongs to someone else, that any other honest person would have willingly paid for. The ONLY way that can be construed as a non-sale is by you not having acquired the item. But you did, and the owner of the property was NOT compensated for having something that _he_ created and is now in your possession. That is, pure and simple, theft.

But it is entirely improbable that you will EVER see it as such. Why? Because you want something for nothing. Value for which you paid nothing or considerably less than you _should_ have paid. It was something that was never intended or designed to be in YOUR possession, unless you honestly paid to acquire possession. You took it without the owner's permission = Theft.

Just because _you_ can't see or admit it, doesn't make it anything less than Theft.

[ButchinMelancholy]

To engage myself in this dialogue, do you think it is legitimate to claim the total property of anything? Basically, you didn't create the elements you make things with, nore even the brain that allows you to do so, but Nature leaves you free to dispose of it at no cost other than finding a way to do so, so you must accept that people will not do what you want with your own products.

Again, all this "product property" notion is the pure result of our egoistic nature and system, nothing else.

[TΛPETRVE]

Following your logic, you're not even entitled to your own life. In other words: If someone kills you, just deal with it.

[LostSoul]

Following your logic, you're not even entitled to your own life. In other words: If someone kills you, just deal with it.

If someone kills you, the fact that you're dead kind of supersedes all other factors and relations.

[TΛPETRVE]

No shit, Sherlock ?

[ButchinMelancholy]

Following your logic, you're not even entitled to your own life. In other words: If someone kills you, just deal with it.

No, you precisely didn't follow my logic properly. It was about rights on the product of your own, not on your self. To reformulate, as everything you have is just because of the Nature that leaves you free to dispose of its products (every elements including those you are made of), you have to accept that your own creations aren't your only responsability and so your property.
Also if someone kills you, I guess you don't have to deal with anything anymore indeed...

[void1984]

Now you mix up two things. One is making a copy for oneself (1), another is mass producing them (2) and making it a source of income (3).
(1) is of course legal and the law usually guarantees you that opportunity under the name of "personal/fair usage"; (2) and (3) are crimes.
In your way of thinking if you buy a record by Bruce Springsteen and your friend one by Tom Waits, you exchange them and make copies for yourselves, that would make you a criminal?

Technically, yes, that is a crime.

I'm beginning to think that you live in some sort of Orwell's designed place.
According to this link http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/02/us-britain-copyright-idUSTRE7715BP20110802 that would be: UK, Ireland and Malta, with UK stepping out of that list.
In the free world you can share culture with your friends without a problem.

Money has changed place. Me and my friend have bought 2 CDs, and paid for it. Then we can enjoy it. That's the law.

Just because _you_ can't see or admit it, doesn't make it anything less than Theft.

With this methodology, convincing people to behave your way is a mind rape, even if you can't see it or admit it, doesn't make it anything less than rape.

[CaptainPatch]