It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Computer games industry threat to downloaders: 'pay up or we'll sue'

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:30 PM
Its obvious the music, gaming and movie industries are still in total denial about filesharing.
So let me just reiterate, filesharing cannot be stopped, ever!!

They better find a way to embrace it, cause their present efforts are futile
(on the grand scale of things)

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:37 PM
It's strange that people balk at paying for something that brings fun or inspiration, but are always totally OK paying for things they hate or are otherwise indifferent to.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Orion Crystal Ice]

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:38 PM
The Catholic Church fought the printing press. " Illegal " downloads and the prosecution of those who download them is a similar story, IMO.

For me the problem is that, while game developers continue to charge 40-70 dollars for a game, they have failed to adapt to changing mediums. If the games were distributed online, it should cut out quite a percentage of the traditional cost (packaging and transportation of the goods).

On top of that, if they stopped gouging customers with ridiculous and truly unfounded prices beside the packing and transportation costs, maybe things would go better for them.

[edit on 8/20/2008 by iceofspades]

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:45 PM
I have always found it amusing that the least piracy protected games tend to be pirated the least. I never bought Bioshock because of the draconian anti-piracy authentication methods and shady way SecuROM infects the computer, I rented it for the Xbox, and found it enjoyable, it's too bad.

And yet, ES4:Oblivion had no piracy protection, and flew off the shelves. There are factors like the mod community and replay factor that of course helped but when you look at the basic fact that Anti-Piracy software only obstructs the legit customer, and pirates always hack the safe-guards, then you must accept that the AP software doesn't work. It stops armchair pirates who are simply lazy, but presents nothing more than an opportunity for a challenge for any coder or cracker.

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by iceofspades

I have some friends in the gaming business. The programmers get most of the pay, and in my opinion, they deserve it.

Basically, I believe the price for games on disc are legit. I think that direct to drive games should be charged half price, at least, though.

I am paying the game devs for their hard work.

[edit on 20/8/2008 by xxpigxx]

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Orion Crystal Ice
... I'm tired of people stealing music, games, movies. ...

Know what I am tired of?

Ignorant people who call it theft!

Whatever else it may be, criminal or not, it is NOT THEFT. You ignorant people who continue to call it theft need to look up the legal definition of theft.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by sir_chancealot]

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:11 PM
Show me where it says in any EULA and/or copyrighted piece of software, music and/or movie that says I can not download said software, music or game. For that matter, what if I own a real copy of a movie and I don't feel like spending hours encoding the movie and then I download said movie. Does downloading mean I'm not in compliance because I didn't make the CD into an .mp3, a movie from VOB files into a nice handy .avi? Does downloading the movie constitute stealing....when my government or ISP can read my mind and figure out my intentions of downloading...then by all means...come after me for stealing...but downloading is not evidence of theft...

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by sir_chancealot

not to argue with you

but if its not theft

what would you call it?

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:54 PM
I have to agree that I dont see File Sharing necessarily as theft of property. At most, some have engaged in copywrite infringement, but that is not theft.
It is no more illegal to share the property that you already own than it is to invite someone to live with you in a house that you own and not charge them rent. If I buy a CD, the physical property is mine to do with as I please. As long as I do not try to use the copywritten images or words for personal financial gain, then making a copy for a friend is not stealing. P2P networks that freely and openly share the audio and video and game installation files that have been initially paid for have not committed theft. It is about as illegal as listening to the song in public for others to hear, which is not illegal.

These gaming companies just have not figured out what a few gaming companies have figured out. There is no reason at all to charge for a game that plays on an internet connected machine. The best way to do it is to take part in the billions of dollars of advertising revenue that is growing every single year. Online Ad companies are looking forward to a 20-22% jump in revenues worldwide in 2009. So, rather than sueing for what amounts to a few dollars in the long run, they should be reinvesting their time and money into a new marketting strategy that will bring more people into their folds.
This leads me back on topic, which is that the 5 companies that are part of this scandal should have been more cautious with their security built into the software. As well, if they themselves did put the files on a download site, then they are the ones at fault. They should have thought to code a unique activation requirement into the startup procedure.

(edit: to get back on topic)

[edit on 20-8-2008 by wheresthetruth]

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:04 PM
In all technicality this is theft. I know if I made a game I wouldn't want people sharing my files that I worked hard for. Try putting out a CD and when your sales flop due to people downloading your music it really hurts your credentials.
Some mentioned that the big music companies get most of the money. That may be true to some artists, but what about ones who own the rights to their own music?

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:49 PM
It is actually just copyright infringement. Any legal action is a civil one, not a criminal one.

I can see why people do pirate stuff (especially music).

1) The legit sources are often lower quality than the copies (opposite to old bootleg versions in the old days) thanks to it being digital media

2) Music particularly, isn't widely available digitally. Yes, you can buy CDs, but want it in electronic format legitimately? It might not be available. When it is, it's a low-quality version, and is riddled with DRM so you can't put it on your iPod or generic MP3 player.

A CD however can be ripped in original quality and put on any number of iPods, copied to other CDs, etc..

The industry is actually creating the problem by not offering what people want - original, high-quality, DRM-free digital music!!

A normal CD has a bit rate of 320 kbps. The average song on iTunes is just 128 kbps. iTunes Plus is 256 kbps, but still not there yet. My SACDs are 3.6 Mbps and are 5.1-channel. Nothing like that is available digitally yet.

I've got high-end audio equipment, and I can hear the difference not only in bit rates/compression methods, but even the differences in original source material used to create the (legitimate) copy I'm listening to (whether that's something I got on iTunes or a CD I'm playing in my rather expensive multi-channel CD player).

CDs are unbeaten in quality so far in the legit digital music world, and are DRM free. Until record labels release digital music with equal bit rates (320 kbps) using *lossless* compression techniques, piracy will continue.

It doesn't pay for me to pirate music as I've got rather expensive audio equipment I'd like to use to its potential, but if the digital copies match CDs for quality and are DRM-free, then I'll be willing to move.

I haven't bought any music in a while. I buy the odd track now and again on iTunes, but the last CD I bought was 2 years ago.

I want digital format music now, DRM-free and CD quality, but until it happens, I'll be sticking to my present collection (unless something really good comes out).

I feel sorry for the artists because they're stuck in the middle of this war, but the labels are dinosaurs, and are trying to hold onto the cash cow I think.

Once artists finally realize that publishing direct to the consumer is the best way, they'll jump ship. Why can the label make £20 a disc and pay the artist £2 when the artist can make £15 directly?

They shouldn't fear digital music - they should embrace it. I'd re-buy my entire CD collection if the artists sold me what I wanted (see above).


People will always find ways of gaining things for free - that has been going on for as long as time itself. These people however are in a small minority.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Equinox99
Try putting out a CD and when your sales flop due to people downloading your music it really hurts your credentials.

And putting out your music on an obsolete format does not?

Its simple fact really: the music industry is WAAAAY behind modern technology. I struggle to put a music CD into my small Sansa Clip MP3 player. It just wont fit

Yet I have to pay premium for it, without even owning a real stereo that can play it. OR get a lossy, lousy, low bitrate option that's just as expensive.

And the games... Ah yes. I pay $70-80 for them (its expensive here) in a store. For that I get a DVD and a 5 page manual (maybe 6 if they're feeling generous). Hop on to Steam, and what do I have to pay? Well its still $70+ just because I dont happen to live in America. Change your country, and the price magically go down 20+ bucks! And I get NOTHING physical for it, just some data that stop to function if I dont want the crap-factory that is Steam.

Either way, the consumer is getting shafted. When something isnt effective, you dont do it. When something is effective... Well there's a reason we're having this conversation in the first place.

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 11:41 PM

Now bands can easily do their own professional thing without the label. yet many bands get pulled into the rhetoric spewed by the labels to lure then in . . .

Sure, have I mentioned I'm directly involved within this business? What exactly makes you think I don't know what I'm talking about? I'm seeing you place views, but they look a whole lot like copy 'n paste kinda views. Secondhand sort of views. I can tell you right now, I CANNOT afford a PROFESSIONAL recording, with PROFESSIONAL pressing, AND PROFESSIONAL artwork, with PROFESSIONAL marketing, AND THE MONEY IT TAKES TO TOUR, ALL OUT OF MY OWN POCKET. If you knew how that stacked up FIRSTHAND the way I and others do, you wouldn't be repeating things like this. I have things called *bills* to pay. I cannot funnel all my cash out of my own pocket to make a masterpiece. You see, at this point we're not even getting into the recouping but the paying for it at all. I do not understand why people think so much bizarre stuff about a record company when essentially it's just a BANK, just like whoever may finance your car is a BANK (by the way, that is where the correlation is). Now if you go to a car lot deciding you need a vehicle, I severely doubt you can pull $10,000 right out of your pocket and own that vehicle up front, much less $30,000 which is the more common average, THEREFORE, you go through the bank and you make good on payments. I think that's fair and even though we don't have a super perfect ideal money system I think it's good that people get a chance to do things like own a car IF THEY WANT TO. Why should I not have a chance to make a top-class record and tour the world if I am willing to work (make good on my payments) for it, with a 'bank'? Your mindset is basically supporting musical communism. Everybody gets to have an average-to-ok sounding album, with average-to-ok looking art (if there's art at all), with an average-to-ok fanbase. It ain't GREAT, but hey, EVERYBODY gets to have this same thing. And no touring because as I gets. in. the. way. How does that sound like a productive and exciting music world?

With Myspace . . . more like more trash to go through to find the diamond.

As for prioritizing . . . what in the Hades does that have to do with anything?

It's UP TO YOU to find WITH PRECISION music you enjoy and want to listen to and support. You're so against 'the man' yet here you seem to express how tiring it is doing the work yourself and not having what you should listen to force-fed to you by a corporation, which is a benefit of the Internet. What do you want and why should artists have to pay for your ineptitude here?

Prioritizing has to do with your $$$ and how you think $20 is too much for a CD. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I guarantee if you want it enough there is something pretty useless in your routine otherwise that you can drop for a week or two so you can buy it. How hard is it? It's like anything else that doesn't cost a dollar.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Orion Crystal Ice]

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 11:46 PM
I also think albums are different than games in that with games, 99.9% of the VISION and the ARTISTRY and the WORK are in the game itself. I agree that the physical copy of the game may be starting to be outdated. However, an album format is completely different. The artist often wishes to put artwork fitting to the music, along with the lyrics, in one convenient package. A game box is just some artist's rendition of a scene in the video game. Big difference. Now some musicians MAY NOT want to have anything like art and will be OK just releasing digital music... That's OK... BUT...I reject the idea of everybody suddenly deciding for me what is great to accept for them, what I can and cannot do, if they will support me or give me the bird based on if I go all-digital or not. Since the camps that care about artwork and having the physical thing, and the camps that don't give a hoot about anything except mp3's are PRETTY SEPERATE, why should I be smothered with the other team's rules?

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:09 AM
Heavens forbid the music, movie, and gaming industry should actually have to put out DECENT material to make a profit.

I'm tired of this garbage as well.

Movie producers... if your movie is good, we'll go see it in theaters, maybe even buy the DVD to have on our collection... if it's crap, we're going to pirate it so we can easily delete it when we're done with it.

Music producers... (I can relate to you)... I make music myself. Do I charge people for it? Pffft, no. Everything I write, perform, and record is online free of charge. Do I know how many people have my music? No. Do I care? No. I continuously run into people who have my music... do I care if my picture is with it? No. So long as they enjoy it, that's the extent of my care, there are better ways to make money.
To all of you who whine and complain that they're "stealing" your music; They can't steal it unless they try to claim they wrote it. So shut up, do as I do, and just write music because you ENJOY writing music.
If you want to REALLY make money from your music, then do what the rest of us COMPETENT musicians and composers do, and PERFORM.

To the game makers, you're making your games playable on the net... meaning everyone playing your games has a net connection... and you're acting SURPRISED that they're using the net to download your game?
Wake up.
Maybe you should be looking into how to make a profit regardless of piracy, rather than treating your games like vinyl albums... they're not a physical object, they can't be stolen, but they can be copied... so do what the rest of them did, and throw in a few hidden advertisements.
Either keep up with the times, or get left behind. That simple.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:19 AM
I should mention here that I would think you would know that 99% of places for a band to play in the USA will not pay you unless you have a. reputable management to set up a professional exchange, b. you bring in a stupid amount of people (marketing comes into this). I should also mention it takes a pretty big load of $$$ to tour and to make good merchandise to bring with you for a recoup. I don't know why you feel the need to be condescending there, and I hope it isn't towards me since I've said nothing to you, but you cannot simply waltz into any old club somewhere, play it, and make money. Live is a well oiled machine that you need to know the ins and outs of. Besides all of that, I want to point out I've only talked about just having the privilege to make an EXCELLENT product. I haven't even begun talking about making money for myself. I'm not even interested in that. I just want to still have the choice to make something 100% professional, that's IT. What I see from the digital only people is not "this is our choice, you can have your choice, and we can live in harmony," no, it's "this is our choice, and EVERYBODY will bow!". I disagree.

Additionally, the 'make good music, make money' argument is a red herring. Again, we are on the INTERNET. There is nothing technically wrong with "the system". What was wrong with it is the MAJOR players were DOMINATING everything. Because of that and before the WWW, people DIDN'T EVEN KNOW there were alternatives. But now that they do, the irony is those alternatives don't get that $ support. What is 'good' is RELATIVE in a lot of aspects to the listener. With the huge market expansion that is the WWW, you can no longer whine about radio pushing on you all this terrible music. You have a disgusting amount of choices, there is no excuse to be ignorant about the music that is out there - deny ignorance, remember? You're no longer limited to what MTV and the radio tells you, as if people ever totally were anyway. Do you somehow get revenge on big-dollar record companies by pulling the carpet out from under the little record companies that put out that alternative brand of music that most people seem to agree is the better product? It doesn't make any sense.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Orion Crystal Ice]

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by xxpigxx

I agree with the direct to drive games. Good god, try downloadable content on any console at this point, costs the exact same in store. Now would I be willing to pay half or even 75% of full price for a downloaded copy? You betcha!

However if I have to pay full price either way, i'll get the hard copy so I at least have a neat box to look at on my shelf. I would absolutely love to see places like gamestop put out of business by downloadable content on consoles as well as systems. Why should I have to pay for the stores advertising?

This is why I generally purchase my games used from private resellers on ebay. The developer got the money for their product, and I don't have to support some god awful chain store.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:44 AM
Well, not that I am saying either way, right or wrong, but I can remember when I was a kid, and recording everything off the radio onto cassette tapes. I didn't have a huge record collection, but I did have a huge tape collection. Of course, this was the only technology we had at the time was to record it.

So I guess my question is what is the difference of downloading music on the internet, or recording it from the radio? Did I steal all that music when I was a kid and didn't know it?

Now, about the movies and games....personally, I buy my stuff. I don't like it because of the price, but I do buy it.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:52 AM
I think your example with recording off the radio is something of a gray area that just needs to be tempered with (dirty words coming up) common sense.
Right? Like I can go on MySpace and hear a song as many times as I want to. Nothing wrong with that. Somebody somewhere, a holder of some rights, usually the artist, decided to make it available to hear, to promote interest. That gained attention should lead to either further support or halted interest. Because the way things work is usually if someone likes something enough, they vote it with their pocketbook, nothing is seen wrong with someone streaming a little music or sharing a little files, who has the RIGHT to do it. I see nothing wrong with it. It's different then looking up your band on the internet to see if anyone has reviewed your stuff and finding a bazillion torrent sites with your album up on it, which is a complete slap in the face and a rip off and an infringement. You made art, they wanted fast food. They didn't respect you, so they brought you down to that level and their kind will force the entire world of music to be there with them whether they like it or not. SO...Big difference.
I don't think you were much in the wrong for taping the stuff then, but unfortunately it seems we can't really count on people's common sense or not these days.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:09 AM
reply to post by Orion Crystal Ice

No no, I wasn't intentionally being condescending to you, I don't know you at all, let alone enough to talk down to you.

I disagree with the 99%, in regards to places allowing you to perform.

Sure, you can't waltz into a stadium and expect to play, but there are many alternatives. You won't make anything livable at the start, but if you're good enough, you get noticed.

Take the most recent performance for example, a wedding. We made more than we ought to have, considering the sound equipment the hall demanded we use was absolute garbage and continuously crapped out on us. (The mics were these awful wannabe stage microphones with a wireless receiver... problem was, if they had trouble sending the signal to the receiver, it gave off an awful squawking noise to warn you it was having trouble. I'd like to find the guy who thought that was a good idea and throttle him.)

There are also smaller clubs, bars, even resorts who will pay you to play. Based on how the audience responds determines how long you get to stay in most places. Not sure how it works where you are, but whenever I get together with guys and perform, we always manage to find somewhere to go.

The number one rule is : don't go into music expecting to live off it. It's supposed to be a hobby, if you can make money off it as well, so be it... but first and foremost, it's about doing something you love.

If you get irked by people listening to your music without paying you, you're in the wrong profession.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in