No, I'm absolutely not saying that, do not fabricate stuff and attribute to me in bad faith.

I'm not fabricating anything. You wrote "Though I guess sometimes copyright is justifiable.", which means you believe it's not justifiable in most cases.

I do not agree and I said as much.

Never mind the law at all. Is it ethical to not pay for something the creator wants to get paid for?

No, that is not ethical according to them. If you don't hand over your money you are toxic.

I mean:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/denuvo-respond-to-their-rep-for-tanking-games-im-a-gamer-myself-and-therefore-i-know-what-im-talking-about

They aren't selling enough games, why? Because of piracy of course! Yes, this remains true even though there is no pirated version of their game available, and there is no one downloading it illegally - but still, pirates are to blame for the lack of sales, of course.

No matter what pirates do or don't do, we will always be the one blamed.

Honestly, we pirates are so used to taking the blame at this point it's just another day, and frankly it pushes me further away from giving them money.

No, that is not ethical according to them. If you don't hand over your money you are toxic.

I don't know who you mean by "them", but I'm asking you.

No, that is not ethical according to them. If you don't hand over your money you are toxic.

I don't know who you mean by "them", but I'm asking you.

The game developers in general, especially Denuvo and the likes (which intentionally limit your consumer rights).

For example, from the article I posted:

Andreas Ullmann: Hard to answer. So maybe it's just… maybe it's even a personal thing. I'm with the company for such a long time. The guys here are like my family, because a lot of the others here are also here for ages. It just hurts to see what's posted out there about us, even though it has been claimed wrong for hundreds of times.

On the other hand, I can imagine that this reputation also has some kind of business impact. I can imagine that certain developers, probably more in the indie region or the smaller region, are not contacting us in the first place if they are looking for solutions.

Because currently, there is only two ways to protect a game against piracy, right? Either you don't, or use our protection. There is no competitor. And I can imagine that there are developers out there who are hesitant to contact us, only because of the reputation. They would probably love to prevent piracy for their game, but they fear the hate and the toxicity of the community if they do so. And maybe they even believe all the claims that are out there - unanswered from us until today - and for this reason don't contact us in the first place.

So, who is to blame for the lack of usage of this software? The pirates, of course:

RPS: You’ve pushed back against some of the complaints about Denuvo tanking performance. Can you show us raw data and benchmarks to demonstrate that Denuvo games don’t affect performance? And is there scope for getting an agreed third-party (for example, a tech site like Digital Foundry) to audit the effects of Denuvo?

Andreas Ullmann: Perfect timing for this question, actually. This morning, I was going through the aftermath of our Discord opening yesterday, because I did not find the time to answer all the questions that came up there. And one question there was, of course, it's always about this performance topic. And there was a very healthy discussion started there between two users and myself about what such a test could look like. I posted a long answer in there today, so I would probably mostly repeat this answer here now as well.

So basically, I think the one question was: why don't the developers do these comparisons and post them publicly? That's something we cannot force them to do. There seems to be reasons why they are not doing it. And also, on the other hand, probably considering the toxicity of - especially the pirate community - they would probably not accept that anyway, because it could be rigged.

Put bluntly, whenever a company does not get the money it expects, or the reaction it expects, it blames the pirate community even when said community is not even pirating their products.

Last edited by BlackBloodRum on 25 October 2024 at 2:52 am UTC

You didn't answer me. Do you think it is ethical to not pay for something the creator wants to get paid for?

You didn't answer me. Do you think it is ethical to not pay for something the creator wants to get paid for?

Yes, I think it is ethical for me to choose not to purchase something that someone wants to get paid for. I often choose to not to buy and use products that deploy practices which go against my consumer rights.

With that said; I have purchased over 900 Steam games and 200+ GOG games. But I will not purchase or use the ones which deploy anti-consumer tactics such as kernel level cheats or denuvo.

Never mind the law at all. Is it ethical to not pay for something the creator wants to get paid for?

Absolutely. The fact the creator wants something doesn't mean it is reasonable or legally binding or ethical.

The Unity game engine wanted to get paid for every time a game was installed, and everyone agreed that was bullshit. Borrowing a book from a public library is completely normal and ethical, despite the wishes of the big publishers that certainly want to be paid by everyone that reads that book (and their efforts to undermine public libraries). Apple wants to be paid for every iPhone repair, but I certainly believe in the right to repair your devices yourself without giving them money.

Getting things for free is not wrong. Public libraries, borrowing from friends, passing it down to your kids.

The creator not getting paid is also not wrong. When you buy a second-hand copy they aren't paid. When you get a copy from an exploitative platform like Audible, the creator gets paid an unfairly low amount they aren't able to negotiate.

I also don't accept the idea that I am responsible for a creator's livelihood. If I choose to not buy, they also get no money, and I do that all the time. When I get a free Humble key from someone, or play a game that my family has shared, or borrow a book from a friend, creators get no money. Were I to get a pirate copy, they wouldn't even know the difference.

The issue is, obviously, not as simple "as you have to pay" or "authors have to make money". The difference with a pirate copy is a violation of an implicit contract: there is an expectation that doesn't exist on other cases. It is the ethics of breaking a contract, not the ethics of the author being fairly compensated - which they often aren't, even when you get a "legal" copy.

And I strongly rebel against this implicit contract, that was forced on me and not agreed upon, and is unjust both against creators and against their audiences.

No, I'm absolutely not saying that, do not fabricate stuff and attribute to me in bad faith.

I'm not fabricating anything. You wrote "Though I guess sometimes copyright is justifiable.", which means you believe it's not justifiable in most cases.

I do not agree and I said as much.

It is called "attacking a strawman", when first you claim I said something ("so you are saying", and then your words not mine) and then you argue against what you claim I said.

Yes, it meant I believe copyright is not justifiable in most cases. No, it does not mean "I believe authors should be obliged to give free copies" and all other bullshit you claimed "I was saying".

Yeah, whatever.

Well since people still keep this thread alive, I think the first huge obstacle in this "debate" is the language. From the start, you use the language of the copyright holders/stakeholders. The word piracy is a red herring in itself. I don't think that people here disagree with that.

The onus is on the creators to create a product that will buy them future loyalty from their customers. The big money mills basically ensure that any AAA gets the max hype/advertising possible, but the way they make games now, a lot of times what they deliver is underwhelming. The only thing that is driving innovation in these games are the graphics, those are improved every iteration as it helps sell hardware, and it is more trivial to do than taking a risk and changing the game design. For me a perfect example of this is far right, if you've played 2 (1) of those games you've played them all.

Meanwhile the price of games go up, no one in the 'big' games market scales back, more bugs etc. creep in. Not to even mention the live service/gambling stuff they experimented with.

So I think the better question would be what these companies could do better to make you pay that money? I think Valve is a good example, even though I don't like their client im not too bothered to buy games there, since after they decided to support my platform of choice they've continued to do that (and better and better) in their games.

It would be much better if things were freer in the game scene too, but that sadly won't happen.

Well since people still keep this thread alive, I think the first huge obstacle in this "debate" is the language. From the start, you use the language of the copyright holders/stakeholders. The word piracy is a red herring in itself. I don't think that people here disagree with that.

On this I do agree with you, which is why I wanted to rephrase the question in a way that avoids loaded language entirely.

There are good conversations to be had about abandonware, expiration dates on copyright, whether the money is going to the right people, etc.

But I don't like reducing that conversation to just "I just don't wanna pay for anything and I don't need any further reason than that." I think that's wack, and if everyone else were to think that way, how do creators make a living?

Honestly, I'd have more respect for y'all if you'd just said "I know it's not cool, but I live in this capitalist hellscape too and my budget is limited sometimes." Do what you gotta do, but I don't like pretending it's ethical.

Well since people still keep this thread alive, I think the first huge obstacle in this "debate" is the language. From the start, you use the language of the copyright holders/stakeholders. The word piracy is a red herring in itself. I don't think that people here disagree with that.

On this I do agree with you, which is why I wanted to rephrase the question in a way that avoids loaded language entirely.

There are good conversations to be had about abandonware, expiration dates on copyright, whether the money is going to the right people, etc.

But I don't like reducing that conversation to just "I just don't wanna pay for anything and I don't need any further reason than that." I think that's wack, and if everyone else were to think that way, how do creators make a living?

Honestly, I'd have more respect for y'all if you'd just said "I know it's not cool, but I live in this capitalist hellscape too and my budget is limited sometimes." Do what you gotta do, but I don't like pretending it's ethical.

The problem is that these days the companies and normal people will attack you for not paying for a product even if you do not pirate it (As is the case I showed you with what Denuvo said, they are attacking people who are neither buying the product nor pirating it, you are simply a bad person for disagreeing with their tactics).

I mentioned that I see it as ethical to not purchase a product and not use it when I disagree with technologies used within like forced Denuvo, Kernel-Level anti-cheats and excessive third party launchers which may hinder my ability to use the product.

You will literally have the normal people telling you that you're being unreasonable for choosing not to choose to purchase a product for these reasons.

I think a key aspect that those normal people forget is that you are the customer and you have an ethical right to choose not to purchase that item. After all, the product is supposed to be made to interest you, and if it doesn't then, it doesn't. Just because someone wants to get paid for it does not oblige me to buy the game and play it.

I am a pirate and I am also a paying customer.

So, let me ask you:
If I purchase a video game and then that video game gets updated to include technologies that prevents me playing it on Linux (my only OS) before I have had time to play it, is it unethical for me to then crack the game allowing me to continue using the product I have legally purchased? Or is the company unethical for intentionally locking me out of using the product I paid for, without offering refund?

I mentioned that I see it as ethical to not purchase a product and not use it

I think you know that isn't what I meant. Do you need me to rephrase my wording to "using a product without paying for it"?

If I purchase a video game and then that video game gets updated to include technologies that prevents me playing it on Linux (my only OS) before I have had time to play it, is it unethical for me to then crack the game allowing me to continue using the product I have legally purchased?

I think this is valid. You did pay for it.

Well since people still keep this thread alive, I think the first huge obstacle in this "debate" is the language. From the start, you use the language of the copyright holders/stakeholders. The word piracy is a red herring in itself. I don't think that people here disagree with that.

On this I do agree with you, which is why I wanted to rephrase the question in a way that avoids loaded language entirely.

There are good conversations to be had about abandonware, expiration dates on copyright, whether the money is going to the right people, etc.

But I don't like reducing that conversation to just "I just don't wanna pay for anything and I don't need any further reason than that." I think that's wack, and if everyone else were to think that way, how do creators make a living?

Honestly, I'd have more respect for y'all if you'd just said "I know it's not cool, but I live in this capitalist hellscape too and my budget is limited sometimes." Do what you gotta do, but I don't like pretending it's ethical.

You are right, I should've added that I recommend not breaking the laws. I also think that creators are well within their rights to get paid for the software they make if they wish to. But my opinion is still that "piracy" is largely a trumped up red herring especially in rich western countries, and for the second/third world the strategies that most of the big companies employ (and let's face it, they are the drivers, gaming is driven like the rest of entertainment industry by marketing/hype) make gaming a prohibitively expensive hobby anyway, not that these companies care too much for the sales there. (unless you don't care about saving some money for important stuff)

Last edited by dvd on 27 October 2024 at 10:05 am UTC

Just jumping in to remind people:

- The discussion and debate on this is fine, and will remain open, as long as people stick to the rules. Please remember not to link to any piracy websites or anything dubious. Keep it to discussion only and anyone who does link to "naughty" sites will get a stern warning.

- And, as always, no name-calling on differing opinions. Keep it chill.

Thanks all!

Last edited by Liam Dawe on 28 October 2024 at 4:06 pm UTC

Please remember not to link to any piracy websites or anything dubious. Keep it to discussion only and anyone who does link to "naughty" sites will get a stern warning.

Relax, relax! I wasn't going to. Don't you worry.

Never mind the law at all. Is it ethical to not pay for something the creator wants to get paid for?

I would like you to pay me $100 to read this post. If you don't pay me is that ethical?

I have mixed feelings about this topic, in one hand I know that if you don't pay the creators then new things will not be created and they need to live of it BUT living on a third world country the only access I had to anything with computers was pirated, one original game could be a month wage. So if not because of the piracy I will not be able to play games when I was young (The four 5 1/4 disk of Monkey Island where my treasure).

But as I get older and the world has changed now you can buy an original game on Steam or GOG for a couple of bucks you can buy a good game, also the prices has gone really up and if you can afford an 1K gig to play games you should be able to pay full price of a game.

But as I said, mixed feelings about this, I know is not correct BUT I also know a lot of people that couldn't afford it.

this is an interesting topic for sure.. sometimes I question myself about this as well, but not for the reasons listed here.. my point is about Game Stores, usually having a tax address in tax havens. Its me paying for the product right? why the hell some stores decide to tax-evade my money?
As someone living in Argentina, I am not very fond of anarchy, and more precisely its capitalist variant since I am experiencing it in my own flesh grow some responsibility steam and co, ffs.

(I know that in other countries steam charges VAT but not over here... they are cheap bastards and dont want to establish a tax address)

Last edited by Koopa on 30 October 2024 at 4:03 am UTC