Open Letter to Steam and Firaxis Games

[Robert]

I'm not sure about American law but in Dutch law piracy doesn't equal theft. It's even so that downloading stuff is never illegal. Offering stuff for download is. Apolytons rules state that it's not allowed to post anything that's against American or Dutch law, or against the laws of your own location. American law b/c our servers are located in the USA, Dutch law b/c the site is owned by Dutch citizen. Local law b/c we will not give anybody a platform to do things that are illegal in their own country.

Even if Dutch law allows downloading software for personal use, it is not allowed to offer it. Discussing possibilities to download software is already a form of offering it.

For those reasons (American law, Dutch law) Apolyton will not allow posts that help people to pirate software. Just discussing piracy in general is allowed, but as soon as there are hints on how to download something illegally is not allowed and against the rules.

[MontyMustDie]

Take exception all you want to the term thief... but that's what you are if you steal software. It's that simple. You can talk all you want about it not being a physical good, but somebody did create it, and you OWE THEM SOMETHING FOR IT. .

Somebody created the wheel. And the concept of "thanks". And the regularly used shapes of bread. Does this mean that I should pay whenever I use these? To whom? How? Is it "theft" to make a wheel for my nephew's toy car without paying somebody for it? Or whistle "Abbey Road" in the shower?

Again, you're not invalidating my arguments, just shouting "copying games without consent of the profiteer is theft". It's not reasoning, just rhetoric.

Your word of mouth and other crap about how a THIEF adds value is just that... crap and lame excuses. You want something, go buy it like everybody else.

Brand recognition clearly is part of a label's value. It's even estimated and added to the books in most companies. It's just one example. I use them to show that this rhetoric of "thief", "theft", "piracy" and whatnot is lingustically and economically very dubious.
I'll risk the statement that a game like "Civ IV: Colonization" would never have happened if abandonware groups and the like had kept the game alive thorugh non-consented copying. They did so, and the result is value added for the profiteer later on.

Your statement is not not invalidating the argument that when ideas are transmitted in the most efficient manner, value flows both ways, pure and simple (as you'd say).

And yeah, you have no solutions that justify your theft of products. The developers rely on people buying the product so that they can PAY THE PEOPLE THAT WORK HARD TO DEVELOPE AND CREATE IT. But yeah, you aren't hurting anybody at all by simply stealing it... you know, since it's not a physical good and all. The developers don't deserve anything for their efforts.

I am not at all against people living off having ideas - for instance game designs - and have specifically stated so. True, I don't have the final solution. In the case of game designers, I have for the purpose of debate tried to suggest partial solutions. Other, brighter people surely will have better ones.

My point is that a game design is an idea. And making a living off impeding the flow of ideas will simply not work in the long run, like it or not. The most efficient way of transmitting an idea - be it legal by the letter of law at the moment (the law is a very plastic thing indeed!) or not - will always prevail. Ask Universal Music!

So there needs to be better ways of making a living from having ideas like computer game designs than impeding the flow of ideas. Simple as that.

I only wish you were a game developer or a somebody who has their IDEAS stolen so that maybe you would get it.

That's not a valid argument.

And your excuse that everybody does it is really lame. There are tons of people driving drunk, stealing from people, killing people, but I guess it's ok for them to do it since others are as well..

Drink driving and killing and the stealing of material goods are all clearly against the common morality, so your argument falls fairly flat there.

(Though in some cases the public might find theft if not acceptable, then at least mitigated by circumstances such as danger to life, extreme need, hunger or poverty. The law is a plastic thing!)

Just admit you are a thief... you don't seem to have a problem with stealing, so just label yourself for what you are.

This is not an argument, it is name-calling. For the sake of quality of debate, please improve your rhetoric.

And when those software developers who design the games YOU LOVE but steal don't get raises, or get fired because of the actions of pirates, and can't feed their families... don't worry... remember, you claim nobody is harmed.

Ah yes, you've missed the point completely. Me personally and a lot of regular Joes will happily hand over our money to keep good, intelligent and creative game designers that I "love" going. No problem. Just give us a good way of doing so.

The problem arises when the profiteer of the game (the publisher, not the designer most often) is pre-occupied with impeding the flow of ideas (e.g. Steam or other third-party software). Then hassle (in lack of a better term) increases, "love" is lost, and the willingness to hand over money to whoever collects it (why does it have to be publishers btw? Just a thought) decreases. Inversely, the willingness to seek a easier, more efficient access to the idea increases - copying in the case of games.

These are not moral arguments, purely simple descriptions of what happens. It will keep happening no matter the amount of shouting. A more creative approach is needed, like it or not.

There is a word for the average "joe" and people who steal software and ideas...THIEF.
Deal with it.

Again, this is not a valid argument, just a claim of moral superiority and a bit of name-calling. Surely, you can do better?

[fed1943]

Let's suppose:
Mr.X knows about computers and "pirate" Civ 5. That's a theft of intelectual property.
Mr.X finds a lot of bugs in his stolen copy of Civ5, correct them, and email his patch to Firaxis/2K/Steam.
Obvious, Mr.X performed for free a valuable action that benefits the devs and is worth more money than the
price of what he stoled.
Is it grey? No. The theft is "black", the intelectual work and its gift is "white".
Just Mr.X, as every individual, is not all white or all black.

[MontyMustDie]

[QUOTE=wodan11;5905623]

MMD, you put a lot of positive "spin" on it, while Ming is pretty bald (pun intended) and to the point. I do think he's closer to an honest assessment than you are.

I'd like to think that rather than "spinning" my point of view, I'm adapting a more realistic (and a good bit more principled and abstract) view of the world than Ming. But thanks for your point of view.

Here's another way to look at it. Say you are Apple. Do you think any knock-off company over in China should be able to make iphones and sell them at half price, with the iphone name and Apple logo on them to boot? Or, say you are George Lucas... should Netflix be able to stream all the Star Wars movies for free to everyone in the world, without paying you a dime?

(Well, I think Apple is crap and Steve Jobs is worse than the plague, so an unreserved yes to that! )

Seriously, though, it is an interesting problem. To stay with the Apple anology, you've got a two in one - a material object (phone) and a immaterial object (Apple's values, brand recognition and brand associations - the "idea" (I see that a better term would be helpful in this case, but in lack thereof, I'll stay with "idea")).

First, I'd like to point out that my base argument - that ideas flow in the most efficient manner - must be valid here. Apple restricts the number of phones on sale and hikes up the price, thus restricting the flow of the Apple "idea". What happens? Well, people with an (unfortunate, some would say) amount of initiative circumvent both hindrances by making their own phones that look like Apple's, thus letting the "idea" run freely again.

(Please note that there's no moral argument in there - I'm just trying to describe what I see happening. And this is obviously not a concious process. The people doing this clearly are not interested in the abstract concept of flow of ideas, they are just exploiting it for money.)

I don't think one "chinese" phone sold equals one lost Apple sale. More often than brand owners like to admit, the choice for the consumer in question is buying the copy or not buying at all. But I do think they add some positive (you can discuss back and forth the amount, and probably calculate many wildly different values of it) value to the Apple brand in terms of loyalty, desirability and future sales ("oh I so want a proper Apple but I'll settle with the copy - for now.)

Also, people make a living this way, making and selling copies of desirable products. You can say it's a bad living and that they shouldn't be copying these goods, but would you say they should rather turn to violent crime or poverty instead? Where's the morality in that?

On the other side, there's a more palpable negative than in the case of immaterial objects. The possibility of selling the copy of a material object as "real" at an outlet clearly is a way of defrauding Apple (and the consumer!) for personal profit.

Also, there are links between such copies and organized crime. That is very bad.

Apple have invested a good bit of development, advertisement and brand building in getting their "idea" to where it is. So it would be fair for them to enjoy compensation. (Which they do - they posted a $1.69bn profit for Q4 2009.)

But I think they need to reap that profit in a more intelligent way than shouting "thief! pirate! subversive!" to potential future customers and destroying functional goods. I think staying on the edge, being inventive and always representing value over the copy will be the key for companies like Apple. In my head, if your product is good, being bold and trusting consumers will beat being defensive and distrusting your future customers.

Alternatively, one novel solution would be for Apple (or Rolex, or Armani, or Adidas, or whoever) to simpy lower the price and increase the production of their phones and let the idea free again...

I don't have a clear yes or no answer. I look forward to further discussion. Basically, I think that whatever moral view I (or for that matter you, sixty French peasants, or Ban-Ki Moon) assume on this matter is pretty irrelevant. The force of this concept is so great - the pull from consumers and the push from the idea - that law will be circumvented or plainly broken to fulfill it. Again, my argument is not moral, it is practical (some may say cynical).

Or, say you are George Lucas... should Netflix be able to stream all the Star Wars movies for free to everyone in the world, without paying you a dime?

If Georgie was provided a living in a different manner, then yes.

(But coupling the free flow of movies through such services with some profit making mechanism - say, advertising or subscription at reasonable rates - would be very powerful, perhaps negating the need for other streams of revenue. Which would be bad for cinemas, but good for consumers - and film makers, ultimately.)

Intellectual property is real. Despite your claim that anything lacking "material" aspects should be free to exchange,

That's not my argument. My point is that ideas will flow in the most efficient manner, no matter the amount of impeding attempted put in the way. Thus, if you want to make money from your idea, then you will have to find a way doing so without impeding the flow of it beyond what consumers accept. If you try to do that, people will punish you by getting access to your idea without economical compensation (to yourself, at least). Therefore, impeding the free flow of ideas will in the long run always be counter-productive.

if we didn't have intellectual property rights then more than half the research in the world wouldn't ever get done.

That's a bold statement. Care to elaborate?

It's no coincidence that the past couple hundred years have seen more technological advancement in human achievement than the ten thousand before that... it happens to coincide with invention and the concept of owning an "idea".

You could also argue that the population explosion, public access to education, better public health, better access to financing of research, shifting of the labour force away from agriculture, urbanization and a general increase of wealth has a bit to do with it. Just giving intellectual property rights the full honour is a bit rich, I think.

Oh, ah, and there is something called the communication revolution the last one hundred and some years - railroads, telegraph, telephone, automobiles, planes, cheaper and more efficient printing, radio, television, computers and the Internet. All things that greatly increase the flow of ideas.

My buck would be on these being a vastly more important factor than intellectual property rights.

ps please learn to express your thoughts in less than a dissertation. Volume is a negative, not a positive.

Very true, and a very fair comment. I've always struggled to present abstract thougts in a short and sharpish manner...

[Quick]

I do not think that it is fare analogy with Direct X. You NEED some graphical system, be it Direct X or open GL, there is no way around it. You do NOT need steam. And it does not matter that some people like steam and actually prefer steam. There are customers who does not. Giving option of not having to install steam would be better.

Steam is the instalation system. You NEED and installation system. I remember the days of looking for, downloading, and installing patches. And many times the installation system for the patches had issues. The last Civ V update was near automatic. I just waited 5 minutes to play my game when starting it up. Two clicks and I know if there is an update for my graphics driver.

[wodan11]

Somebody created the wheel. And the concept of "thanks". And the regularly used shapes of bread. Does this mean that I should pay whenever I use these? To whom? How?

Don't be cute... concepts in the public domain don't even come close to brand ownership and intellectual property.

I'll risk the statement that a game like "Civ IV: Colonization" would never have happened if abandonware groups and the like had kept the game alive thorugh non-consented copying. They did so, and the result is value added for the profiteer later on.

That's an argument for the publisher, after a couple of years, releasing the game for free. That's not an argument for releasing it for free from the get go.

I'll risk the statement that any game requiring more than 1 person to develop would not exist if there was no possibility of receiving recompense for the design efforts.

My point is that a game design is an idea. And making a living off impeding the flow of ideas will simply not work in the long run.

Why not?

So there needs to be better ways of making a living from having ideas like computer game designs than impeding the flow of ideas. Simple as that.

Sure, there are plenty. "Better" is subjective, of course. But enjoy your future career mucking out stables and plowing the fields.

That's not a valid argument.

Right. It is, however, a counter point to illustrate an example: the absurdity of your claims. As such it does indeed add to the debate.

[Ming]

Somebody created the wheel. And the concept of "thanks". And the regularly used shapes of bread. Does this mean that I should pay whenever I use these? To whom? How? Is it "theft" to make a wheel for my nephew's toy car without paying somebody for it?

Not applicable in this case... nobody owns the concept of a wheel. But somebody owns the GAME of civ. If you want to create a civ like game, fine.
But it is THEFT to steal CIV V.

Again, you're not invalidating my arguments, just shouting "copying games without consent of the profiteer is theft". It's not reasoning, just rhetoric.

No, it's theft pure and simple. It's reason, not rhetoric.

Brand recognition clearly is part of a label's value. It's even estimated and added to the books in most companies. It's just one example. I use them to show that this rhetoric of "thief", "theft", "piracy" and whatnot is lingustically and economically very dubious.

Branding is important, and does add book value. A bunch of thieves don't add much brand. The people that buy the product and support it add far more brand.

I'll risk the statement that a game like "Civ IV: Colonization" would never have happened if abandonware groups and the like had kept the game alive thorugh non-consented copying. They did so, and the result is value added for the profiteer later on.

Risk all you want... but you can't prove it.

Your statement is not not invalidating the argument that when ideas are transmitted in the most efficient manner, value flows both ways, pure and simple (as you'd say).

Yeah... thieves get the value, the owners get screwed. Doesn't sound like value flowing both ways to me.

I am not at all against people living off having ideas - for instance game designs - and have specifically stated so. True, I don't have the final solution. In the case of game designers, I have for the purpose of debate tried to suggest partial solutions. Other, brighter people surely will have better ones.

Yeah, your only solution is to steal the game, and deprive the designers their fair share.

My point is that a game design is an idea.

No, it's a product. Again, go ahead and design your own game... that's ok, but ripping it off is piracy.

And making a living off impeding the flow of ideas will simply not work in the long run, like it or not.

No... they are making a living by selling a product... not impeding the flow of ideas. Software is like a car, it's a product. You want to call it an idea so you can feel ok stealing it. It's a product, pure and simple. The idea is what the software can do, not the actual software.

The most efficient way of transmitting an idea - be it legal by the letter of law at the moment (the law is a very plastic thing indeed!) or not - will always prevail. Ask Universal Music!

Keep trying to justify theft...

So there needs to be better ways of making a living from having ideas like computer game designs than impeding the flow of ideas. Simple as that.

Again, it's a product, not simply an idea.

Drink driving and killing and the stealing of material goods are all clearly against the common morality, so your argument falls fairly flat there.

No, your argument falls flat... your claim was that lots of people do it, so it's ok.
It's not. You are stealing a good... it's theft.

(Though in some cases the public might find theft if not acceptable, then at least mitigated by circumstances such as danger to life, extreme need, hunger or poverty. The law is a plastic thing!)

It's only "plastic" when you want to steal something and think it's OK.

This is not an argument, it is name-calling. For the sake of quality of debate, please improve your rhetoric.

Look up the definition of a thief... it's not name calling if it's the truth/fact.

Ah yes, you've missed the point completely. Me personally and a lot of regular Joes will happily hand over our money to keep good, intelligent and creative game designers that I "love" going. No problem. Just give us a good way of doing so.

There is a good way... simply because you personally don't like doesn't give you the right to steal it.

The problem arises when the profiteer of the game (the publisher, not the designer most often) is pre-occupied with impeding the flow of ideas (e.g. Steam or other third-party software).

Again, it's a product, not an idea. Stop trying to make this about "ideas".
The concept of the Ford Mustang is an idea. An actual car is a product. You don't steal cars do you? The concept of Civ V is an idea. The actual software is a product.

Then hassle (in lack of a better term) increases, "love" is lost, and the willingness to hand over money to whoever collects it (why does it have to be publishers btw? Just a thought)...

Maybe because they are the owners of the game... just a thought!

...decreases. Inversely, the willingness to seek a easier, more efficient access to the idea increases - copying in the case of games.

Gee... it's easier to steal the game, so that's what I will do... Great logic. Just more silly defense for thiefs.

These are not moral arguments, purely simple descriptions of what happens. It will keep happening no matter the amount of shouting. A more creative approach is needed, like it or not.

Yeah, it will happen. Those that buy the product are supporting the people who deserve the money. Those that steal it are still thieves.

Again, this is not a valid argument, just a claim of moral superiority and a bit of name-calling. Surely, you can do better?

Gee... to me, not being a thief is moral superiority. And again, it's not name calling if it's true. Somebody who steals software is a thief. Pure and simple.
You can make up tons of silly excuses, claim it's too hard to buy the product, claim it's easier to simply steal it, make believe a product is an idea so that's its fair game... at the end of the day, anybody that steals software is a thief.

And that's a fact!

[rah]

MontyMustDie,

While I'm not a big fan of large drug companies, they provide a perfect example here. It takes years to develop new drugs and take them through what can be a decade of testing and getting approvals. It costs many millions of dollars. And a high percentage of these drugs fail along the way and never make it to market. What incentive is there for them to go through this process if there is no protection that they will have exclusive rights to it for a set period of time.

Under your flow of idea concept idea, people have the right to copy these ideas. Most drug companies would cease to exist and while some people now could be saved by getting those drugs for less the flow of new drugs in the future would be considerably less and a lot of people might die. Currently the protection eventually ends and generic versions reach the public.

For those that say by pirating the game I contribute to community and actually enhance the game to increase the value of the game, fine. If you feel like you're making a contribution, go to the company and explain it to them. Let them choose if your contribution entitles you to a FREE copy of the game. Since they own the game, it should be their decision if your contribution warrants compensation in some form. I actually did this by volunteering to test the game. I was given free access to testing versions of the game for my contributions. And even you have to admit that most people that pirate the game have no intentions of contributing to the community. They're just interested in a freebie.

And I really laugh at the argument that if I try to protect my investment in my intellectual property, that entitles people to acquire it illegally. So I either give it away, or you can steal it. Even you say there should be compensation. I don't think you can have it both ways. You do say you don't have the answer, and I don't have the perfect answer either, but pirating isn't the answer IMO.

The only argument that I don't have a quick answer for is the library example, but since I grew up with it, for some reason I don't have a problem with it. I think it's because you have to go out of the way to do it and follow set rules and eventually return it. But mostly because the owners of the ideas presented there, don't scream about it being illegal. Kind of like radio. They think of it as advertising. Yes, it's a thin line and weakens some of my arguments. At least I think that it's the owners choice (even though it's not really a choice)

[wodan11]

I'd like to think that rather than "spinning" my point of view, I'm adapting a more realistic (and a good bit more principled and abstract) view of the world than Ming. But thanks for your point of view.

Well, if we must choose between an ivory tower view and a cynical view, it would be nice to take the high road and be able to feel good about myself. But I'm afraid the real world doesn't work in the abstract, and human nature is human nature.

But I do think they add some positive (you can discuss back and forth the amount, and probably calculate many wildly different values of it) value to the Apple brand in terms of loyalty, desirability and future sales ("oh I so want a proper Apple but I'll settle with the copy - for now.)

Except they don't realize it's a copy. It has the Apple logo, after all. Looks and performs exactly the same. (Which is true of pirated software.)

Also, people make a living this way, making and selling copies of desirable products. You can say it's a bad living and that they shouldn't be copying these goods, but would you say they should rather turn to violent crime or poverty instead? Where's the morality in that?

Let me get this right... your "principled" argument is that criminals will be criminals, and better they make a living pirating software than out robbing banks and killing babies?

Apple have invested a good bit of development, advertisement and brand building in getting their "idea" to where it is. So it would be fair for them to enjoy compensation. (Which they do - they posted a $1.69bn profit for Q4 2009.)

And they would not if they gave their ideas away for free.

But I think they need to reap that profit in a more intelligent way than shouting "thief! pirate! subversive!" to potential future customers and destroying functional goods. I think staying on the edge, being inventive and always representing value over the copy will be the key for companies like Apple. In my head, if your product is good, being bold and trusting consumers will beat being defensive and distrusting your future customers.

Without even touching the thought that it's not intelligent to desire to prevent theft, you are missing the fact that to protect intellectual property, legally you must both protect from theft as well as prosecute known thefts. If you don't do so, then the intellectual property becomes in the public domain. It would be like putting stuff out on the side of the road in front of your house with no supervision, and you watch people stop and take some of the stuff without doing anything.

I don't have a clear yes or no answer. I look forward to further discussion. Basically, I think that whatever moral view I (or for that matter you, sixty French peasants, or Ban-Ki Moon) assume on this matter is pretty irrelevant. The force of this concept is so great - the pull from consumers and the push from the idea - that law will be circumvented or plainly broken to fulfill it. Again, my argument is not moral, it is practical (some may say cynical).

In a nutshell: value creates theft. Yes, and the sun rises in the east.

If Georgie was provided a living in a different manner, then yes.

Like what?

(But coupling the free flow of movies through such services with some profit making mechanism - say, advertising or subscription at reasonable rates - would be very powerful, perhaps negating the need for other streams of revenue. Which would be bad for cinemas, but good for consumers - and film makers, ultimately.)

Subscription is what Netflix has, and they use part of that to recompense Lucasfilm. So you haven't offered any solution.

That's not my argument. My point is that ideas will flow in the most efficient manner, no matter the amount of impeding attempted put in the way. Thus, if you want to make money from your idea, then you will have to find a way doing so without impeding the flow of it beyond what consumers accept. If you try to do that, people will punish you by getting access to your idea without economical compensation (to yourself, at least). Therefore, impeding the free flow of ideas will in the long run always be counter-productive.

Well sure. Nobody disagrees with that. But the flip side of that coin is that giving ideas away for free will always be even more counter productive. So there has to be a happy medium and a compromise solution which optimizes the return on investment.

That's a bold statement. Care to elaborate?

Sure. You started today by asking if you had to pay the inventor of bread. Say bread did not exist (maybe yeast had not been discovered yet). Further, consider that a whole team of biochemists would be necessary to research and discover the proper bacteria to cultivate into bread yeast. Perhaps this research effort took a full year from 100 people to accomplish. How are those people going to stop their normal jobs hunting and gathering in order to do this? Answer: by investors giving them money. But the investors want to be paid back, or else they aren't going to give the money in the first place. How to pay them back? Well, we have to control the secret of yeast, and we have to sell bread.

So, without investors, the research simply does not happen. And without control and protection of the intellectual property, we can't convince the investors they'll be paid back.

Intellectual property is a fairly recent idea, in terms of our history. So is rapid technological advancement. You do the math.

My buck would be on these being a vastly more important factor than intellectual property rights.

No problem. Send your money to me for my contribution to the free flow of ideas in this debate.

[Adagio]

I have now used Steam since the release of Civ V and so far Steam annoyances just gets worse
Currently I'm also playing Test Drive Unlimited 2, which doesn't really work well together with Steam at all... kinda bad since this game can be acquired through steam. I cannot play the game unless I start Steam as Administrator... but if I start Steam as Administrator I cannot play the other games, where the save is saved in the user folders. So when I'm switching between two games, I have to close Steam down and start it up again... and here the problem with the password that I have mentioned before shows itself from the bad side. The password can no longer be remembered anymore... Sorry, but I'm the lazy type, I don't like to have to write the password to stupid stuff like Steam all the time
After Steam has been out in... 10 years? Or for how long..? They still haven't been able to make a simple "Remember my password" thing to work... Even people who's just starting to learn programming could easily make simple stuff like that work... it's not like it's rocket science


Sorry for bumping this old thread... I just wanted to let off some steam

[Nikolai]

I have my password set to autologin and autoremember...

[Adagio]

So do I... but it doesn't work... Steam is just as good at remembering as a goldfish

[Nikolai]

Well, I haven't logged in manually since some time in september/october I think. That was when I last reinstalled Windows...

[MikeH]

I really like Steam.

Just got a new machine. Installed Steam, logged in, and it knew what Steam games I have, and I can just download them again and play them, even if I've lost the original physical disks. And I don't need to have the disks in the drive to play either.

[Boracks]

I must admit I like the fact that I originally purchased from Steam on the Win XP side, and when they came out with the Mac version I just had to log in on that side and download. Great!