The circumstance where I think piracy is acceptable

[Arkadia7]

*Semi-rant about games, Ubisoft, and game launchers, and windows 7 (yea yea I know upgrade to windows 10!, I can't afford to get a new computer right now, ok)*

So I always buy my games fair and square, though admittedly I will often wait years later and then buy them on deep discount. But I do buy them regardless, and feel piracy is not ethical otherwise.

However, recently I had a couple incidents involving my steam games where I was re-thinking about this topic.

So I had bought Assassin's creed origins a few years ago but never played it. I also had bought Assassin's creed unity as well. So Ubisoft recently updated their Ubiplay game launcher, and it no longer supports windows 7. Many people on windows 7 lost access to all their ubisoft games as a result (there is a long long thread about it in the official ubisoft forms)

First, Ubisoft kept giving B.S. excuse of "we are aware of the issue and working on it, rest assured" Months then passed with the same B.S. Public relations only excuse being given. Well, then finally Ubisoft admitted that, dang, gee, we are so sorry, but the updated Ubisoft launcher will no longer support windows 7...guess you all are out of luck! (with the implication that you should update to windows 10)

Many gamers are understandably upset about this. (including me) So when I bought Assassin's creed origins it said windows 7 was perfectly fine and listed it as a proper requirement, and the game ran fine on it when I was testing it back when I had bought it. So I think this is very bad customer service on ubisoft's part and many feel the same way, saying they will never buy Ubisoft game again after this. (in the thread about this issue I was reading)

I think this is one of the rare circumstances where piracy is acceptable, because of people (such as myself) who paid for a game who can no longer play it. Ok, I will note there is a work-around -- that works for *right now* -- involving installing reshade, but who knows when Ubisoft will do a new update that might possibly make that work-around no longer work, as in the past I picked this up from reading the long thread, Ubisoft seems to want to plug any holes like this that allow for work-arounds by the way. So its a real danger this work-around will be eliminated as well.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents and I'm interested in other opinions on the topic. if this topic is too controversial I understand and have no objection to this thread being locked or deleted, by the way.

 

[Stingray]

I'd agree that piracy is fine in that case. Legally, I'm not even sure it actually is piracy - you're downloading a game you've already bought a license for.

But I also think you can't expect Ubisoft to continue supporting their launcher on a dead OS that hasn't been supported in almost 3 years. Microsoft told everyone they had to move to newer versions of Windows long ago - if you didn't, it's really your issue at this point. I guess a compromise could be that Ubi would provide you with a downloadable version of the game that you can use on Windows 7? But I wouldn't expect them to go to that kind of effort.

 

[danutz_plusplus]

Just because you already bought a license for something, doesn't necessarily mean you can download it from anywhere. There's very clear stipulations on that, usually. Plus, usually when downloading, at least using the bittorrent protocol, you're also uploading it to other people, not just downloading it yourself. Most of the time what's common sense, or what feels moral to do, doesn't necessarily match the law. Laws are man-made, and plenty of times with particular interests. They didn't come down from the heavens.

But that's as far as the law is concerned. In reality, there's also a difference between something being illegal and actually being processed for it. There's plenty of illegal stuff being done in the world that's not enforced, due to various reasons or interests. In the case of piracy, the company holding the IP would need a good reason to expend resources and go after you.

Unfortunately, piracy is getting to be the only source of software preservation, in many cases. The bullshit that the holder of the rights is the best guardian of that software is only true so far as they can make a profit off of it. Otherwise they couldn't care less. And would even prefer to sit on it, to just not have competition on it.

 

[Pladio]

I'm a new mod, so not entirely sure, but I think debating the merits (or not) of piracy is fine as long as people do not link to illegal websites.

My understanding of this type of thing is that as you explain and name it, it still is illegal to do pirate games even if you've bought them in the past... But I completely agree that ethically it makes sense for people to do so.

As Danutz says, the license you buy though is for that specific platform and I'm pretty certain that if you read the small print, it will say that is isn't guaranteed to last for life.

 

[Redglyph]

Shouldn't this be moved to P, R &C though? A controversial topic about piracy being acceptable should definitely not be in the public area IMO.

Are you sure your computer wouldn't run correctly with Windows 10? Without considering the game problem, it's getting late to run Windows 7, even if it was better than the latest versions. Can you still get any driver and software update at all?

I'd say the fault is on both parties.

I hate not owning my copy of a software and having to rely on launchers. I also have it when they install insane DRC in my system, I've had a few games that were not running correctly because of it. It's showing very little care for the customers and I can't help a smile when I see that those games have been pirated.

I don't like having to update my OS either. Windows 7 was great, but Windows 10 is a step down from an UI point of view. Overall it's fine but I didn't feel the need to change.

On the other side, the licence terms are clear about the launcher, the DRM (well, not always) and how long Windows versions are supported. Normally you had all the information to plan ahead, and you could refuse to buy the software. Arguably it's sad not to buy software because of the packaging or how long it's supported.

IMO you'd be right to complain. But objectively, justifying illegal actions because you personally feel bad about something isn't a good idea. There's the personal risk, then there's the precedent. If we accept that, why shouldn't we escalate this behaviour to other situations we consider unfair?

 

[Stingray]

When you make the decision to use MS Windows, you know that the version of the OS you're using will only be supported for a certain amount of time, and that you'll eventually need to upgrade when it's no longer supported. If you don't, Microsoft won't support you, and eventually neither will Ubisoft and every single other software developer in the world - it's only a question of how long it'll take for that to happen. Whether this happened to Arkadia now, or 3 years from now, it was going to happen. If you aren't willing to play by Microsoft's rules, then you shouldn't buy your games through a digital store that requires a launcher etc. And that'll probably mean there's lots of games you can't buy at all these days.

Plus, usually when downloading, at least using the bittorrent protocol, you're also uploading it to other people, not just downloading it yourself.

Personally, I've always turned off the uploading when using BitTorrent and never had a problem doing so, although the vast majority of my BitTorrent use is for legal stuff. If the question here is whether BitTorrenting something becomes acceptable "morally" when you already have a license for the product, then I think you do probably want uploading disabled.

 

[Pladio]

I think that @Redglyph is probably right though about the topic potentially being controversial so I'll move it to the Politics forum if I can figure out how that works.

 

[Couchpotato]

I think that @Redglyph is probably right though about the topic potentially being controversial so I'll move it to the Politics forum if I can figure out how that works.

Should be easy as I remember moderating and closing topics years back. Though that was with the older V Bulletin forum software and not with XenForo 2.2. Simply click a button.

As for discussing piracy that's a tricky topic. As the older moderators gave out yellow flags to any user that did, but recently it's seems acceptable as long as you don't share links.

Save that for private conversations.

Also I don't shame or belittle internet users who do pirate media. It's simply a person who was never going to buy your product, and no it's not a lost sale as they want you to think.

I laugh when billion dollar companies try to use that excuse to justify harsher DRM.

 

[Redglyph]

I'm cautious around bittorrents, since some servers are rumoured to be planted there just to collect IP logs of who's downloading illegal stuff. It may be false but I wouldn't put it past big publishers to do that.

But in some countries it's not illegal to download, just upload.

 

[Couchpotato]

I'm cautious around bittorrents, since some servers are rumoured to be planted there just to collect IP logs of who's downloading illegal stuff. It may be false but I wouldn't put it past big publishers to do that.

But in some countries it's not illegal to download, just upload.

That's an old tactic and actually true.The worst that happened to millions in the US was a letter gets sent and your IP doesn't really care. You might get your internet cut but in the last few years companies like Comcast stopped over bad publicity of that practice.

Though you have IP troll attorneys that sometimes go after regular users it's just not worth it nowadays. As one cop told me one time they go after sellers not the average home pirate. Some European countries do enforce the rules a lot harsher then the US.

It's safer to use private member forums and file host sites then torrents.

 

[Ripper]

I wouldn't hesitate to download a piece of software that I'd paid for, if their DRM shenanigans made it inaccessible to me. Legally it's quite complicated. Software licenses are a civil matter, and not everything people put in contracts is legally enforceable; violating the exact terms of a software license is not likely to be a crime in itself, and there would be an argument about what is reasonable, and whether it really constitutes piracy.

There may be other complications, though, as I believe in the US circumventing DRM is a crime in itself. So, if you're going to go that way, it's a good idea to make sure you know what you're doing.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yeah reverse engineering DRM has always been a crime but then again only a few very private groups do this and their work gets shared by someone else on torrents.

The NFO's basically say they don't condone sharing the files but that's it. The problem gets more attention when certain crackers go public and ask for money to crack games.

The last one that did was arrested in Hungary for bypassing Denuvo games. That wasn't a shock as the parent company of that DRM is also a security firm for governments.

Nowadays a new hacker called Empress makes $500+ a game and still isn't caught.

 

[Ripper]

Yeah reverse engineering DRM has always been a crime but then again only a few very private groups do this and their work gets shared by someone else on torrents.

The thing is, as the 'user' I think you might still be on the hook. That using someone else's tool to circumvent DRM on your own device might be a crime in itself.

 

[Couchpotato]

Again this is in the US millions pirate and nothing happens. Sure loopholes and legal jargon aside nothing happens to 99.8% of them. Sure it's illegal but the government wont do shit.

I'd love to see them arrest or fine those millions of pirates. It would be a huge PR scandal. I've known hackers and down-loaders for over thirty years and they never got arrested.

Like I said before if you make money off this then your a target. It's that simple.

 

[Ripper]

Yes, I think the criminal risk to an individual in these circumstances is very low. I'm just talking about the details of legality - I can see an argument that using a crack to access software you've paid for is defensible, but the DRM law might still technically bite you.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Well ... my view is - as usual - entirely different from most of the people's view.

I'm going back to the first attempts against copy protection I lived to see ... and that was circa 20 years ago.


I have come to the question whether hacking copy protections in the first place was ?

- considered as some kind of competition by rebellious youths ("... it's us against them !")
- Hackers wanting to get fame - also known as "The Rock Star Phenomenon"

Seeing it from that perspective, that arms race, which copy protection is now, has been started by a few people who wanted to "protest against the system".

It had nothing to do with "fair share" lke in "developers also need money to pay their rent and food, too". Instead, fighting copy protection by hackers - 20 years ago - was seen as some kind of protest form directed against "the big ones" (the publishers), which perhaps got increased by the amounts of money earned by the top people of publishers (Kitick, for example). The higher the amounts of money earned by them - with at the same time the uneasy feeling that developers got nothing of these profits, only even more crunch time, perhaps - the stronger the determination of these hackers became, if this kind of hackers actually existed, that is.

The other point is, that among young men, everything is a competition. So, "it's us against them ! Let's see if we can let that Goliath bring down !"

That comes with "the Rockstar Phenomenon", which basically means that the person seeminly - seemingly ! - carrying out the biggest "win" in that competition, gets a cartain "Rockstar status". He becomes known as "the Winner", doesn't get fan post, because nobody knows his real name, but knows to be indirectly cited everywhere by all these articles headlined "this copy protection has been breached". The "Rockstar Phenomenon" can be shared too. Which is why there exist so-called "hacker crews" in the first place.

Reading one's own deed in the headlines is especially interesting for Narcists. They absolutely LOVE to be in the headlines ! Even if they won't ever be allowed to say "that was me", because, if they did, the police would catch them.


20 years ago :

One could have seen it differently. One could have held the opinion, that tiny developer firms might actually need the money to get their rent paid.

It could have been a kind of consent over a "fair share", like "we give these developers our money because we believe in them, and want them to exist longer so that they can actually do lots of more of their creative games". With this "fair share" consent, people could have been willing to accept copy protection a little bit more.

But it never did happen.

Only nowadays a bit, in the form of Kickstarter, Patreon, etc. .


And, of course, there were always ome people undermining that.

For example those at the top of the publishers always wanting more money. Not only for the publishing firm, but also for them, pertsonally, because having wealth is omething desireable in our world of status and of material goods.

And those with big power to control parts of the market - they just don't care about individual problems of each actual worker like having to pay the rent.
They are not against marginalizing worker's actual work, worker's actual products.
Like I - personally - regard Spotify as some kind of cancer to the music industry, because it extremely marginalizeds the actual work - like playing on actual guitar strings - of the musicians ! - But those who own these "sound works" are ready to marginalize them, because they see only "files", not "actual work" in them.

I once read in an interview with a member of a music band, that he always wondered why the people were so really good at singing the band's songs/texts during their concerts, meanwhile they had real problems selling the band's music CDs on during their concerts ...

Everything becomes de-humanized.

Guitar plugging music sounds, written program lines, the push of a worker who pushes an actual piece into its place in a motorcar manufacturing plant ...

At one point, these events are de-humanized by transforming them into mere numbers on a spread sheet of paper lying on a desk.

Copy protections can be considered not only as an economical factor, but also as a social factor.
But, so far nobody does it like that.

 

[SveNitoR]

@Alrik Fassbauer
Wouldn't the end result of your view on DRM be that art should only be experienced live? Isn't a record equally "de-humanizing" as a file?

BTW: The dude who was surprised people didn't buy many records at his concert must be weird. Almost every concert I've been to (apart from a few where I just went as company to friends), I already owned most released albums, just like most other fans. Who goes to a concert without knowing the band well?

 

[SveNitoR]

On the topic of downloading a pirated copy of a game I bought, I'd never consider it unethical. I know I buy a license to play it at service X, but if it doesn't work I'd expect my money back or I'm allowed to find a way to play it however I want.

A few years ago someone else locked my bike with a thick u-lock. I called the police and asked if I was allowed to destroy the lock to use my bike. "As long as you can prove it is your bike, you can do whatever it takes, within reason, to get the lock off, even destroy it.", was his answer. So I bought the biggest bolt cutter I could find, stood in the middle of rush hour at a busy street, while cutting open a thick metal lock for 10 minutes. It was annoying and embarrassing, but I got my bike back.

 

[Redglyph]

So I bought the biggest bolt cutter I could find, stood in the middle of rush hour at a busy street

Were all the bikes in that street suddenly equipped with thicker locks the day after?

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

@Alrik Fassbauer
Wouldn't the end result of your view on DRM be that art should only be experienced live? Isn't a record equally "de-humanizing" as a file?

I'm not sure about that. When I play Action-RPGs, I fail to see that this is "art", however, there are other games out there which I do consider as "art".

The problem is rather a philosophical one, and my point was ... originally ... to point out that "hacking" has some consequences. I mean, if I do a game, why would I put a copy protection on that in the first place ?

In my "A Though" blog-like writing, I once proposed doing a Freeware game, which requires a CD of any kind being in the CD-drive of the PC the game is running on.
My goal with that was, to force hackers to hack a game which is free in the first place - so that the satisfation feeling of "I'm so 1337 ! I hacked a corporate game !" would get entirely lost.

Hacking is imho not a one-way affair. Instead, it affects people, too. Not only game producing & publishing firms.

In the example of the music band with the not sold music CDs : It
's a shame, actually. They put so much effort and money into recording this kind of music, letting CDs getting pressed at one CD manufacturing plant - and then no-one buys them ! That must be extremely frustrating.
Therefore, I go the other way . I say to my self . " find their work really good, so I consciously decide to buy this CD they made to honour their work and especially their efforts !"

Concerts, witnessing them live, that is absolutely great ! But, unless someone has a very good memory, it is a little bit like streaming as well : It's gone at one point.
So, from my point of view, it is entirely acceptable to have the wish to have a CD for a longer time, than just "streaming". It helps the own memory, too !

Which is why I'm so much against "game as a service, and do as many screenshots from within the game as I can : Only these screenshots will be there to help my memory when the servers are cut off ... Like music CDs.

In my opinion, it is a real shame that art is commercialized that much. Just take a look at how much burned down at Universal. "The Day The Music Burned"

2008 Universal Studios fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Day the Music Burned (Published 2019)

It was the biggest disaster in the history of the music business — and almost nobody knew. This is the story of the 2008 Universal fire.

www.nytimes.com

Commerce is only interested in money. In generating moey and more money and, even more money, to be exact. Like ... a hunger that can never be or get filled.

Therefore, commerce is marginalizing anything art, and that means, art becomes a "throwaway product". Fire & Forget.

Culturally important things should be preserved, imh. And, if for preserving things for countless future generations piracy is necessary, because commerce just won't do that, then I believe that piracy should be - performed by an entity which is allowed to do that, like ... just as an example ... the UNO organization, if that's going to be "the memory of humanty", for example. Or, the U.S. Congress Library.

However, preserving the past for the future might also beging as some kind of "grass root" thing. So, from that perspective, piracy should be allowed by the law after let's say 40-50 years after a game has been published, for example. We most certainly do not want a "Day The Games Burned".