games  anime  |  toys
Destructoid is gaming news, community, videos, and sometimes love. Take the tour or jump in with Facebook:

 


Brainy person: Piracy is a 'great equalizer' photo

Dr. Henry Jenkins of M.I.T is probably a very clever man and he has a great beard. I consider this enough of a qualification for me to take everything he says as gospel, and his message on this day is that piracy is an "equalizer" between consumers and videogame publishers.

Jenkins... noted that piracy is a contentious issue but defends it as a necessity for consumers who have no access to many materials that would have been otherwise made available to them...

He sees piracy in two ways: that it is the only way for developing markets to get access to materials and another is that it is a rebellious method for consumers against high prices of original material. To balance, this, Jenkins said that both producers and consumers would have to reach a "moral economy" where the system of belief is that transactions are fair... Jenkins believed that users, if given the proper access point for content they want, will buy original instead of resorting to piracy...

"The younger generation of executives understands the digital age more than their older counterparts. The question now is: how much influence do these younger guys have over the older guys so they could change their strategy? Once they solve that, the rest will be easier."

Piracy is an incredibly thorny issue, especially lately with all the lawsuits and DRM controversies flying around. It's certainly not as black-and-white as either side of the argument would have you believe, and while I am not a professor with a really nice beard, I might be able to offer my own educated opinion on the matter ...

Both sides are full of c*nts.


Continue: More Piracy stories





prev next

24 comments | showing # 1 to 24

Josh Tolentino's Avatar
Josh Tolentino at 09/24/2008 10:02
Truth! Valve knows it, I'm only a gamer because of it: Piracy = Access, and the second that publishers and developers alike can make turn that formula into "Original = Access", everyone wins.

Publishers don't make any money stopping games pirated in Asia or Russia, because they don't sell those same games in Asia or Russia anyway. So even if they stopped piracy, they wouldn't see their cashflow suddenly jump.

Valve sees that, and wants to use digital distro and Steam to break into those markets, and for one, I'm proof. I got into Steam with HL2, and even as pirated copies of same showed up in local stores (you had to copy the entire game, file for file, off the disc and into your Steam folder, then launch the exe manually), I still bought from Steam because the price was usually lower and I didn't have to travel to a stinky mall to get a dirty disc with the CD key hidden in a text file.
Darth Kupi's Avatar
Darth Kupi at 09/24/2008 10:26
While the "moral economy" bit is debatable, the part about developing markets pirating to get access to these thing which they can't get due to availability/price is spot-on, I can tell you first hand.

Developing markets don't do it purely out of spite, but due to necessity.
Josh Tolentino's Avatar
Josh Tolentino at 09/24/2008 10:35
@Darth Kupi

The absolute worst side effect of the misconceptions about piracy in developing markets is the kind of arrogance it brings out in some folks. I mentioned once on a forum that for some developing countries piracy is the only way to access games at realistic prices. Some idiots went and said "maybe your people should quit playing games and develop themselves enough to afford games properly."

God, if only you could kill someone through the internets.
MechaMonkey's Avatar
MechaMonkey at 09/24/2008 10:43
The beard is infallible. It could never steer us wrong.
Blind assassin's Avatar
Blind assassin at 09/24/2008 13:15
I don't understand how people can see piracy as anything but stealing. You can justify it left and right but unless you're illegally downloading food to feed your starving family you are stealing. And however awesome something like Civ IV is there isn't a possible point of contention anyone could invent that could convince me it's an essential part of being alive.
Professor Pew's Avatar
Professor Pew at 09/24/2008 13:19
He forgets number 3: $10 is still more than $0.

Also, many Africans would totally download food if they could.
Malkhuth's Avatar
Malkhuth at 09/24/2008 14:06
@Blind assassin
The very definition of theft requires someone to be deprived of property that they currently own and possess. You can believe that making a copy of something is morally wrong, but you would be factually incorrect to describe it as stealing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft
"the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

Even the US Supreme Court has realized this in their Dowling v. United States ruling where they said that copyright infringement, while illegal, can't be equated to theft.
Aex's Avatar
Aex at 09/24/2008 14:11
@Blind Assassin

Malkhuth hits a big thing right on the head. Copyright infringement is not theft.

Disregarding that, you just said that theft is sometimes justified. If you make exceptions for certain cases then you open up your argument to criticism wider than a cheerleader's legs on prom night.
Sharpless's Avatar
Sharpless at 09/24/2008 14:47
He's a smart man. The primary reason I pirate, if at all, is because I'm too poor to be able to spare the money for something. (The other reason is to try something out before I choose to purchase it.) If I can afford something, and it's worth the money, then I'll definitely buy it. Unless there's DRM, that is.
Syn's Avatar
Syn at 09/24/2008 15:46
@Malkuth:
Finally! You hit it on the head. I got in this massive (pages long) argument about the difference between theft and piracy. And I have a beard!

It's nice to see that someone was paying attention, or even better managed to figure it out themselves. Woohoo!
akathatoneguy's Avatar
akathatoneguy at 09/24/2008 17:01
Whether or not it is actually theft has little to do with the moral ramifications of the issue, which is that it is still just as wrong AS stealing. You are getting a product that you did not pay for, and you are doing so in an illegal manner, whether it is illegal because it is "theft" or not.

I mean, whether it qualifies as "theft" is unimportant, since most of the discussions have to do with whether it is right or wrong, or morally justifiable due to nutty DRM.
Syn's Avatar
Syn at 09/24/2008 17:21
But then you're only looking at one side of the issue. Or are game developers incapable of doing anything immoral? And yeah two wrongs don't make a right, but morals are basically useless anymore. Everyone downloads music, movies, and games (mayhap not all three) and I'd like to see the person that has never downloaded anything. And since I'm 99% sure that you do then you're being a hypocrite by judging people.
Blind assassin's Avatar
Blind assassin at 09/24/2008 19:42
@ Aex

Actually, I said it wasn't possible to claim that stealing could be claimed as essential unless it was to avoid death. It's not acceptable but for someone to be saying that people steal games out of "necessity" and not because of lack of access is total bullshit.

@ Malkuth

The act of uploading is not theft in itself but downloading is. You're taking the property of a game company unlawfully. You don't have to be depriving someone of a finite item to be stealing from them. If you took $15 from someone's bank account every day for a year they probably wouldn't notice and their total bank balance would likely be higher than when you started taking money from them but you've still committed theft. As another example, if you steal schematics off a disc from another company but leave the original you've still committed theft despite not taking anything physical.

Not to mention that copyright infringement is just a legal distinction for a form of theft. Overtly aping ideas that someone owns is theft of a concept.

The inability of most people to get off the crutch of using convenient dictionary definitions makes me sad. Throwing out dictionary definitions on something that is pretty much a value judgment is a logical fallacy (it's called "appeal to authority" if you're wondering). Just to preempt complaints, define life in such a way that doesn't allow me to say that fire is alive. Or define crime in such a way that doesn't fall into moral traps or place the state above the law.
RWarrior1CO's Avatar
RWarrior1CO at 09/24/2008 21:01
But then you're only looking at one side of the issue. Or are game developers incapable of doing anything immoral? And yeah two wrongs don't make a right, but morals are basically useless anymore.

Uh. Ok. What's your point? We live in a moral vacuum now? Awesome, I always wanted to go on a random killing spree. Now I can do it without any fear of feeling guilt.

Everyone downloads music, movies, and games (mayhap not all three) and I'd like to see the person that has never downloaded anything. And since I'm 99% sure that you do then you're being a hypocrite by judging people.

Ah, that's the best defense pirates have, I suppose. "You do it, too!" you say. Really? How the hell do you know? You don't. And even if I did, how exactly does it disprove these two points: 1) Piracy is about greed, not "getting back" at corporations. 2) Piracy hurts the PC gaming industry.

And for the record, judging people is fun.
Malkhuth's Avatar
Malkhuth at 09/24/2008 21:14
@Blind assassin

"You're taking the property of a game company unlawfully."

No, when someone does that they are downloading a copy of it. Nothing is being taken at all (a requirement for how theft has ALWAYS been defined). Unlawfully? Yes. Theft? Nope.



"If you took $15 from someone's bank account every day for a year they probably wouldn't notice and their total bank balance would likely be higher than when you started taking money from them but you've still committed theft. '

Keyword: "if you TOOK". It doesn't matter that $15 isn't a lot because you're are still depriving them of their property. A case of theft yes, but not an example of how piracy is theft.


"Not to mention that copyright infringement is just a legal distinction for a form of theft."

Wrong again. Theft refers exclusively to property rights. Copyrights exist for a completely different reason and infringing upon them isn't even remotely similar to theft.


"Overtly aping ideas that someone owns is theft of a concept."

No, it's how innovation in the market takes place or in bad cases plagiarism, but not a form of theft. You're straying from copyrights here though, as they offer no legal protections for "ideas" and instead only for creative works (a product of ideas).


"Just to preempt complaints, define life in such a way that doesn't allow me to say that fire is alive. Or define crime in such a way that doesn't fall into moral traps or place the state above the law."

Except you are making up completely new definitions for words out of thin air. Yeah, if you want you can say that fire is wet too, but don't demand people to take you seriously.
It's also funny how you demand everyone to use your definition and yours alone for the word theft. Saying that people should trust you, a total stranger, to a dictionary is a funny twist on "appeal to authority", eh?
Blind assassin's Avatar
Blind assassin at 09/24/2008 23:02
Your points are all pretty much either knit picking or just plain wrong.

By saying that nothing is being taken when someone downloads a game is saying that the game exists everywhere independently of the data. You're taking data unlawfully. It's stealing.

My point about taking money had nothing to do with the amount. It was to illustrate that even something material can be taken in such a way that it is relatively infinite and the victim is not being completely deprived of what is being taken. Also, in the case of electronic banking theft it would not be theft as you're trying to define it since nothing physical was stolen.

Not that it really requires a distinct background of knowledge on law to understand the basic concepts of what certain crimes are, copyright infringement is either a stupid oversight or the stealing of someone's idea for the purpose of profiting from it. It's in the general realm of theft but not an exclusive form of it.

How would copying other people be considered innovative? I'm talking exclusively about cases of intentional plagiarism which involves a conscious knowledge of an existing product and then making something incredibly similar with the intent of usurping the same target market. And you're entire point there was just knit-picking. Once an idea has the patent on it as far as I and the law would be concerned anything similar that is produced would be stealing that concept. Whether it has been turned into a "creative work" is irrelevant, primarily if there was intent to turn it into an actual product.

Actually, I didn`t define anything at all. I was pointing out the general inability of people to form cogent definitions of words they think they can define. The point I was getting at was that if someone were to say something like `Something is alive if it is capable of moving on its own, has to eat, and can reproduce` then fire would fit into that. Obviously invalidating the definition. Crime faces the same problem.

And I never said that the definition I never gave was correct (I mean seriously, I never gave a single specific definition of anything in my entire comment) and that anyone should follow it. I stated that relying solely on a book was logically fallacious and that people should learn to think for themselves in how to define things that aren`t static definitions. If we were debating on what constituted an apricot then the dictionary would shut down the debate fast but since theft is partially a value judgment a dictionary can`t be seen as a reliable method of defining it.

In short, no, it isn`t a funny twist in the least and you`re avoiding my point entirely by focusing on points I never made in the first place. And you`re committing the appeal to authority again by throwing the status of dictionary out there again. If you went a little further in how you dismissed me I`d say you were also going ad hominem against me as well.
Malkhuth's Avatar
Malkhuth at 09/25/2008 00:03
"By saying that nothing is being taken when someone downloads a game is saying that the game exists everywhere independently of the data. You're taking data unlawfully. It's stealing."

Copying is different than taking. If you were to take the game then whoever previously had the game would lose it. Keep on failin'


"My point about taking money had nothing to do with the amount. It was to illustrate that even something material can be taken in such a way that it is relatively infinite and the victim is not being completely deprived of what is being taken. Also, in the case of electronic banking theft it would not be theft as you're trying to define it since nothing physical was stolen."

Yeah, something physical is stolen. While many money transfers take place electronically there is still the actual paper bills that back it up. Even then, the person is losing access to THEIR money. You continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what theft is. It isn't about someone gaining something when they shouldn't, it's about the victim losing something that they have.


"How would copying other people be considered innovative? I'm talking exclusively about cases of intentional plagiarism which involves a conscious knowledge of an existing product and then making something incredibly similar with the intent of usurping the same target market. And you're entire point there was just knit-picking. Once an idea has the patent on it as far as I and the law would be concerned anything similar that is produced would be stealing that concept. Whether it has been turned into a "creative work" is irrelevant, primarily if there was intent to turn it into an actual product."

The entire economy of the planet comes from basing works off previous ones. Your flawed logic comes from thinking that invention is the most important step while in reality it is taking that invention and going on to innovate that's the important step. What's really incredible is that you demonstrate that you don't even know what competition is. Competition is about doing something that someone has already done but doing is better. Exactly what you described.


"And I never said that the definition I never gave was correct (I mean seriously, I never gave a single specific definition of anything in my entire comment)"

You defined piracy as a form of theft. If you didn't you wouldn't of argued against me. While I have presented actual arguments to defend my position all you've done is present half-baked (and sometimes absurd) analogies while complaining about how I'm not playing fair.


"And I never said that the definition I never gave was correct (I mean seriously, I never gave a single specific definition of anything in my entire comment) and that anyone should follow it. I stated that relying solely on a book was logically fallacious and that people should learn to think for themselves in how to define things that aren`t static definitions. If we were debating on what constituted an apricot then the dictionary would shut down the debate fast but since theft is partially a value judgment a dictionary can`t be seen as a reliable method of defining it."

So you're entire argument this whole time was you crying over how I used the dictionary to back up my argument? Did you even have an argument in the first place? Because every excuse for an argument you've presented show far doesn't even hold up to common sense. Hey though, just so you can sleep better at night let's just not take the dictionary as an authoritative source but as just some guy's opinion. Would you like to actually try and argue against it or will you just keep on complaining about how it doesn't count because it violates your rules?


"In short, no, it isn`t a funny twist in the least and you`re avoiding my point entirely by focusing on points I never made in the first place. And you`re committing the appeal to authority again by throwing the status of dictionary out there again. If you went a little further in how you dismissed me I`d say you were also going ad hominem against me as well."

I guess I was right then. You never had much of an argument in the first place. You've pretty much entirely stopped arguing over whether or not piracy is theft and now you're just grasping at straws.



Would you like to return to your very first statement? You said "I don't understand how people can see piracy as anything but stealing."
Well to answer your question it's very simple: People see piracy as not being a form of theft by actually understanding what the word means and how it has always been used. Oh wait, would you like to pull another made up definition out of your hat now?
Blind assassin's Avatar
Blind assassin at 09/25/2008 00:39
I figured you'd just degenerate into ad hominem attacks and blathering pointlessly about semantics you obviously don't really even know anything about (most "money" doesn't actually exist since banks can loan out 10 times the money they have and can create loans on money they are owed, 95% of money doesn't exist) so I'm just walking away. I knew arguing with someone incapable of performing any independent thought on an issue would be a waste of time but I guess the flu got to me.
Syn's Avatar
Syn at 09/25/2008 01:53
@RWarrior1CO: Yes, we do live in a moral vacuum. The reason you don't go out on a killing spree is because you don't want to deal with the legal ramifications, not because you feel it is wrong. Because as you say "you always wanted to do it."

greed? seriously? greed means that you have a "excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions." of which piracy does not. Your common pirate does not take money for what s/he shares, s/he does it for free and I'm willing to bet that they don't hang on to anything long after they're done with it.

Yes, I do think you download music, seemingly because you have narrowed your scope of piracy to "PC gaming."

So if you think judging people is fun don't even bother coming to me talking about morals.

and @ Blind assassin: No, piracy is not theft. Theft requires that something be lost. Your example about the bank and money does not hold up because you are actually physically decreasing a numerical amount. Whereas with piracy no one loses anything except an opportunity to make money and depriving someone of an opportunity technically isn't even illegal otherwise (insert generic store chain) would technically be (illegally) stealing customers from (insert competing generic store chain).

Lastly, trying to fault someone for using the definition of a word to ensure that you properly speak our language? Come on now. He wasn't even justifying piracy, he was saying use the right word.
Syn's Avatar
Syn at 09/25/2008 02:01
Just for clarification: it may have seemed like I was saying Piracy shouldn't be illegal, it totally should. Lets just call it what it is, and not call it what it isn't.
Syn's Avatar
Syn at 09/25/2008 02:04
sorry for triple post, but I think this last part needs to be said:

piracy wouldn't even be a big deal if our pathetic society didn't put so much weight into money, it is kind of the source of every problem we have YA KNO?
LarkOhiya's Avatar
LarkOhiya at 09/25/2008 06:54
everyone likes DRM! its great for you!....guys?
Jetsetlemming's Avatar
Jetsetlemming at 09/25/2008 07:28
While I'd superficially agree with his assessment of pirates as people who download what they cannot buy due to price or availability, as in my experience most pirates are either teenagers or foreigners, but wtf "users, if given the proper access point for content they want, will buy original instead of resorting to piracy" is absolutely, 100% wrong. It flies in the face of the first point. You cannot get blood from the pirate stone.
Malkhuth's Avatar
Malkhuth at 09/25/2008 14:14
@ Blind assassin

Your hypocrisy is starting to reek something horrible.
prev next

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

Comments policy

Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?

Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!

 
New on Destructoid.TV play all videos

Loading
Loading Destructoid Videos




    Win this!
    Reminder: We're giving away six copies of Magnacarta 2!



    Dtoid Twitter    Got news?   tips@destructoid.com

    Reviews & Previews
    Mahjongg Artifacts 2 review
    Dragon Age: Origins review
    Lost Winds: The Winter of the Melodias review
    Osmos review
    Space Invaders Extreme 2 review
    Half-Minute Hero review
    JU-ON: The Grudge review
    Kenka Bancho: Badass Rumble review
    Thexder Neo review
    Domino Rally review
    more reviews
    PS3's 256-player MAG
    Rooms The Main Building
    Skate 3
    Hudson's bringing back the Bonk
    James Cameron's Avatar
    Bomberman Battlefest
    Calling
    Bad Company 2's multiplayer
    Partying like it's 1959 in BioShock 2's multiplayer
    BioShock 2 through the eyes of Big Daddy
    more previews


    - The Dtoid Army is 49514 strong -

    Showing Cblogs with 3+ faps   show all

    Call for entries: do the wrong thing

    New to Dtoid? Read the survival guide




     Originals
    Jim Sterling: Ten 'classic' games that did not age well





















    More Destructoid Originals




     Popular now more
























    Destructoid's editorial lovefest is:
    Nick Chester
    Editor-in-Chief
    Jim Sterling
    Reviews Editor
    Dale North
    News Editor
    Hamza Aziz
    Community Manager
    Anthony Burch
    Features Editor
    Rey Gutierrez
    Video editor & director
    Niero
    Founder, publisher
    Letters to the editors
    tips@destructoid.com
    Associate Editors
    Ashley Davis Jonathan Holmes
    Brad Nicholson Jonathan Ross
    Brad Rice Jordan Devore
    Chad Concelmo Matthew Razak
    Colette Bennett Tom Fronczak
    Conrad Zimmerman Topher Cantler
    Dyson Samit Sarkar
    Contributors
    Adam Dork
    Ben Perlee
    Daniel Lingen
    Joseph Leray
    Joe Burling
    Mikey
    Will Maddock
    Stella Wong





     

     
      get involved

    register or login
    post a blog
    post a forum
    enter a contest
    contribute a news tip
    suggest a feature
    be a guest editor
    support

    new member's guide
    login assistance
    tech support
    report abuse
    email our editors
    read our dev blog
    nuclear crisis?
    keep in touch

    RSS feed
    Twitter
    Facebook
    Myspace
    Flickr
    Game nights
    Meetup+play online
    seriously

    about Destructoid
    advertising
    terms of use
    privacy policy
    jobs at MM
    buy our crap
    our network

    Tomopop
    Japanator
    Despingation?




    Destructoid is an independently-run publication forged by our love of video games and the gaming community's need of accountable enthusiast press
    living the dream since March 16, 2006