5 ms·

https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-22-eu-suppressed-study-piracy-no-sales-impact.html https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-22-eu-suppressed-study-pira... "In 2013, t

by caslon 6y ago

https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-22-eu-suppressed-study-piracy-no-sales-impact.html https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-22-eu-suppressed-study-pira... "In 2013, the European Commission ordered a €360,000 ($430,000) study on how piracy affects sales of music, books, movies and games in the EU. However, it never ended up showing it to the public except for one cherry-picked section. That's possibly because the study concluded that there was no evidence that piracy affects copyrighted sales, and in the case of video games, might actually help them."

bscphil 6y ago
Seems like I'm getting a torrent (hah) of comments saying that "piracy isn't that bad actually", when I explicitly said in the comment that I wasn't interested in advocating for or against piracy, and do in fact pirate things myself.
- caslon 6y ago
  Your argument was, literally, that piracy decreases sales. But all of the evidence points toward piracy increasing game sales. Therefore, the indie dev in your example would make more money. I'm not saying that piracy is good or bad; I really don't care. I'm simply stating that your argument was wrong.
  - bscphil 6y ago
    That was quite literally not my argument. I gave an example in which piracy decreases sales, to respond to an a priori defense of piracy. Edit: There is a world of difference between debating a point on deontological ethical grounds and consequential ethical grounds. My point is not about what the consequences are, it's about the fact that a specific a priori ethical defense of piracy like that ddevault gives can't be used to argue that piracy doesn't have bad consequences.
    - caslon 6y ago
      I gave an example in which piracy decreases sales Which isn't something that would have happened in the real world, since piracy increases sales.
      - bscphil 6y ago
        Thought experiments do not have to be things that would have happened in the real world.
        caslon 6y ago
        That's not a thought experiment! That's using a false, unlikely example that goes against all evidence to scarecrow.
        bscphil 6y ago
        Let me try to spell it out for you. ddevault: > Even with all of that said, I support piracy. Information wants to be free, and games are made of information. No one has lost anything when a game is copied. "Information wants to be free, and games are made of information" is a defense of piracy that has nothing whatsoever to do with the consequences of piracy. The argument is that copyright claims are morally invalid because they go against the nature of information as such. This is used to make the claim that "no one has lost anything when a game is copied". That claim is a bit of verbal trickery, and that's what my comment is complaining about. If a developer has a copy of a game on their hard drive, and after releasing the game, someone pirates it, the developer still has a copy of the game on their hard drive. This is one sense of "not having lost anything", and it's what ddevault understands to be the nature of information that underlies the moral argument I gave above. But what that moral argument can not tell you is that "no one has lost anything" in the fairly conventional, pragmatic sense that one can "lose a job". My comment is a theoretical example (or thought experiment) that highlights the difference in a way that makes clear how the words "no one has lost anything" are at least misleading, and potentially hurtful. That is why I begin with the words "suppose" (which is how philosophers often introduce thought experiments) and proceed to give a highly theoretical example about a indie dev studio which does not exist. The upshot is the philosophical point that people can "lose something" (a livelihood) without "losing anything" (a piece of intellectual property). I have no idea whether, on the whole, piracy is good or bad for video games. Despite your apparent certainty, I do think the jury is still out on that point. But that is most emphatically not the point that I am making in my comment.
RHSeeger 6y ago
To be fair, those studies were done in a world where software piracy is against the law in many places, considered wrong by many, and can have real consequences to those that engage in it. Those facts have direct impacts on the amount of piracy that happens. If piracy were completely legal and the average person was comfortable doing it, then the impact on the sales of software would likely be much higher. It is not unreasonable to argue that some piracy is not a big deal and may, in fact, be helping developers (and producers of other content). However, as soon as you start arguing that it should be legal, expected, and normal to do so, you change the entire landscape.

by caslon 6y ago

bscphil 6y ago

Seems like I'm getting a torrent (hah) of comments saying that "piracy isn't that bad actually", when I explicitly said in the comment that I wasn't interested in advocating for or against piracy, and do in fact pirate things myself.

caslon 6y ago
Your argument was, literally, that piracy decreases sales. But all of the evidence points toward piracy increasing game sales. Therefore, the indie dev in your example would make more money. I'm not saying that piracy is good or bad; I really don't care. I'm simply stating that your argument was wrong.
- bscphil 6y ago
  That was quite literally not my argument. I gave an example in which piracy decreases sales, to respond to an a priori defense of piracy. Edit: There is a world of difference between debating a point on deontological ethical grounds and consequential ethical grounds. My point is not about what the consequences are, it's about the fact that a specific a priori ethical defense of piracy like that ddevault gives can't be used to argue that piracy doesn't have bad consequences.
  - caslon 6y ago
    I gave an example in which piracy decreases sales Which isn't something that would have happened in the real world, since piracy increases sales.
    - bscphil 6y ago
      Thought experiments do not have to be things that would have happened in the real world.
      - caslon 6y ago
        That's not a thought experiment! That's using a false, unlikely example that goes against all evidence to scarecrow.
        bscphil 6y ago
        Let me try to spell it out for you. ddevault: > Even with all of that said, I support piracy. Information wants to be free, and games are made of information. No one has lost anything when a game is copied. "Information wants to be free, and games are made of information" is a defense of piracy that has nothing whatsoever to do with the consequences of piracy. The argument is that copyright claims are morally invalid because they go against the nature of information as such. This is used to make the claim that "no one has lost anything when a game is copied". That claim is a bit of verbal trickery, and that's what my comment is complaining about. If a developer has a copy of a game on their hard drive, and after releasing the game, someone pirates it, the developer still has a copy of the game on their hard drive. This is one sense of "not having lost anything", and it's what ddevault understands to be the nature of information that underlies the moral argument I gave above. But what that moral argument can not tell you is that "no one has lost anything" in the fairly conventional, pragmatic sense that one can "lose a job". My comment is a theoretical example (or thought experiment) that highlights the difference in a way that makes clear how the words "no one has lost anything" are at least misleading, and potentially hurtful. That is why I begin with the words "suppose" (which is how philosophers often introduce thought experiments) and proceed to give a highly theoretical example about a indie dev studio which does not exist. The upshot is the philosophical point that people can "lose something" (a livelihood) without "losing anything" (a piece of intellectual property). I have no idea whether, on the whole, piracy is good or bad for video games. Despite your apparent certainty, I do think the jury is still out on that point. But that is most emphatically not the point that I am making in my comment.

RHSeeger 6y ago

To be fair, those studies were done in a world where software piracy is against the law in many places, considered wrong by many, and can have real consequences to those that engage in it. Those facts have direct impacts on the amount of piracy that happens. If piracy were completely legal and the average person was comfortable doing it, then the impact on the sales of software would likely be much higher. It is not unreasonable to argue that some piracy is not a big deal and may, in fact, be helping developers (and producers of other content). However, as soon as you start arguing that it should be legal, expected, and normal to do so, you change the entire landscape.