Indie Game Developers Would Rather You Pirate their Games Than Buy From Key Resellers

[dalekphalm]

People arguing that your friend can lend you their hammer, etc, are so far off the mark that it's absurd.

 

Your friend already bought and paid for the hammer. There exists only one hammer and you cannot just "right click -> copy" the hammer. When you borrow the hammer that was already bought and paid for, your friend doesn't have access to it anymore.

 

Same goes for used DVD's, CD's, books, even used console games. The original owner already bought and paid for the item. When they lend (or sell) it to you, they no longer have access to that product. Furthermore, beyond the physical limitations described, in all of these cases, no fee was asked for. Same goes for when we help people for free on the LTT forums. We voluntarily give up that information with the explicit expectation that we will not get paid.

 

On digital goods, because it's easy to just copy a game, people lose that connection. And that is the difference. If I copy the Minecraft Java installer onto a USB drive and give it to my friend, I'm not losing access to it. We now both have access to it.

 

Now, is all piracy lost sales? Hell no. Half the people (random figure not associated with any statistics - but "a lot of people" is probably more accurate) that pirate simply wouldn't buy or play the game if piracy wasn't an option.

 

But, 100% without doubt, some people would have otherwise bought the game they pirated. Is that figure larger than the so called people who pirate a game then buy it? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows.

 

Lastly, Steam, Origin, and GoG all have refund policies to one degree or another. Origin's being the best (lol), Steam being the next best, and GoG being the worst (because they'll typically only refund if the game won't run on your PC - exception, if it's an in-development game, you can refund within 12 days of purchase).

 

The fact that you can buy a game on Steam, try it out, and get a refund if it doesn't suit your tastes? Basically negates the need to pirate a game. Should steam give you more time to play before refunds expire? Yes. But that's a different issue.

[TechyBen]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

You are trying to compare voluntarily offered help to work done in expectation of payment.  Those two are not comparable.  One is not an excuse to use a product freely when you know you are expected to pay for it.

You have missed a major part, game developers (for the most part) do not lend you their games to play, they expect you to pay for them

 

Not saying it is an excuse. I know I'm socially expected to pay for reading/watching/playing something under copyright protection, or when arranged to with the creator.

I never said I should not pay. Did you miss that point? Yes, they expect me to pay. I do.

 

The other 99% of the group? What about them? Can we change their minds?

 

Quote

If I write a program, and I expect payment from anyone who uses it, then you have no right to use it without paying me for it.

I write this post now, and I expect payment from anyone who reads it, then you have no right to read it without paying me for it.

 

Nope, don't work that way... does it? So, yes, my point stands. It's more than just having a right out of thin air. These things are constructed with joint agreements. If only one side agrees, then it's a problem. I'm not saying it's right to break that, I'm saying I see no way to "fix" the situation, or prevent piracy... just as there is no way I can insist people pay me for all my creations (media/content etc)... there is a balance too, right?

 

Quote

  If you buy that program from someone else second hand, then you have a legal copy of that program to use (assuming the seller no longer has any access to it) and that is my loss.

Nope. Some countries/laws agree this is ok, others say it is not. It's an undecided and unsolved problem. This is my point.

 

Quote

EDIT: I am really struggling to understand what you mean,  even if you could legally lend your neighbor a copy of a game you purchased, then the same logic still applies, the developer has only been paid for it once, but 3 people have used it, so if they aren't earning enough money from that one sale to cover the cost of developing the game then the price will either go up or the game will be locked to an online service you have to pay for.    Or the last option is no one will develop games because they are not a viable business proposition.

You can. Steam "family" exists. Some companies/services allow trading/borrowing (not many mind, but back in the day some systems did, and some still do).

"developer has only been paid for it once" Yep. The old "plumbers are only paid once" thing. I agree, it's different sometimes. But where and how seems really complicated, and not at all logically/totally agreed where to draw the line between a service/product/thing/right etc. Do I automatically get the right to ask for money and automatically get the right to decide what is "my" creation? Or is it a group agreement, on if I created it, someone else did, or it's public domain?

 

"or the last option is no one will develop games because they are not a viable business proposition." Not everything is done for business propositions. That is irrespective of the value of the product. Kids can make paper planes in the playground, yet people still sell paper plane books/manuals/toys. One does not destroy the other. One does not hold a right against the other (there is no patent on paper planes AFAIK, and the economy for selling them is small, but it is still there, and people still make them ).

 

While I do not see a post scarcity world existing, we are on the boarder of it with a lot of media now, and that is the problem. We have reached the point, where no one is a blacksmith anymore, because they all have home nanofabricators... except its not, it's the information that is now post scarcity. Solving the problems that causes (how to now remunerate content creators, or change social behaviours on both creation and consumption), might never happen.

 

Stopping G2A might be somewhat easier. By changing how key distribution/purchasing works. Or by changing how card charges/banking/etc work for G2A (cancelling it for them, or changing their business laws). As in, the banks and game clients are hopefully on the same side as the Indie Devs... so will work with them for a solution.

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

Completely pointless analogy.  Unless you can make a duplicate of the hammer that you keep for yourself - while your friend kept their copy as well - then your comparison is worthless.  You can't buy one copy of a physical product and duplicate it unlimited times, like you can with a digital product.

I can. The same problem is happening with 3D printers as with data copying in the past (or present now). People are worried about losing the ownership of things.

 

See things like patents and copyright on products. These are granted. But only because we socially agree to. Then someone patents a farmers income and putting food on peoples tables, so we see it's not always correct to. I'm asking how we understand when to, and how others seem to not understand (mass piracy).

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

I can. The same problem is happening with 3D printers as with data copying in the past (or present now). People are worried about losing the ownership of things.

No you can't - at least, not in the sense that @Jito463 means. You can forge an identical hammer (especially if you have the mould for it) - but that costs materials and labour and skill.

 

Even with 3D printers, you still need a 3D model of that hammer, or you need to create your own 3D model, or you need to buy a 3D scanner and then use that. And then, you still need the raw materials needed to create a duplicate of the hammer. And if we're talking standard 3D printing, PLA or ABS is going to be a pretty damn shit copy of a hammer, so you'd need a 3D printer that can print using metal filament (and that's assuming the filament would even be of the same quality and have the same metallurgic properties of the original hammer).

 

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

But, 100% without doubt, some people would have otherwise bought the game they pirated. Is that figure larger than the so called people who pirate a game then buy it? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows.

Not that it changes anything in this discussion, but imo another group worth mentioning is the group that bought the content because a friend, who pirated it, recommended it.

 

59 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

No you can't - at least, not in the sense that @Jito463 means. You can forge an identical hammer (especially if you have the mould for it) - but that costs materials and labour and skill.

In theory, clicking copy also costs materials, labor, and skill (just much less so).

 

But there is some nuance to the 3D printing argument. A company owns intellectual property rights on the hammer design (assuming it's novel enough for that to be a possibility), otherwise they just own the name on the hammer and have no authority over the design. In the former case, 3D printing a copy of the hammer is likely akin to piracy. In latter case, assuming you don't forge the logo/any copyrightable information, you're creating your own product that also happens to be a hammer.

[dalekphalm]

10 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

Not that it changes anything in this discussion, but imo another group worth mentioning is the group that bought the content because a friend, who pirated it, recommended it.

Agreed - that's a good point. That group does indeed exist. But again, the numbers for it likely aren't large, nor does anyone even have those stats.

10 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

In theory, clicking copy also costs materials, labor, and skill (just much less so).

Kind of. If you have to go out and buy a HDD or a USB drive? Sure. But the HDD and USB drive can be reused and re-purposed afterwards (or even during). Forging or 3D printing a hammer cannot do this, since the material involved becomes the hammer. Whereas the data involved is just data.

10 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

But there is some nuance to the 3D printing argument. A company owns intellectual property rights on the hammer design (assuming it's novel enough for that to be a possibility), otherwise they just own the name on the hammer and have no authority over the design. In the former case, 3D printing a copy of the hammer is likely akin to piracy. In latter case, assuming you don't forge the logo/any copyrightable information, you're creating your own product that also happens to be a hammer.

Forging your own hammer isn't the problem - as you said, as long as you don't forge the logo, a hammer is for the most part, public domain.

 

But we're not talking about "forging" your own game here. We're not talking about going through the trouble to code your own game from scratch (or even using public domain free resources) that is "similar" to another game. We're talking about straight up pirating it - making an exact literal duplicate of the data, containing many copyrighted and patented aspects.

 

Now with all of that in mind, I don't want to get too far off topic, which is that G2A is scum, and that some Indie Devs would prefer you to pirate their game rather than buy it from G2A.

 

Personally if I wanted a game, and I didn't want to pay full price, I'd just wait for a sale. I would never shop at G2A. Never have, never will. But for those people who absolutely will not buy the game at full price (and cannot wait for a sale), I respect the Dev's opinion that they should just pirate the game instead of giving money to G2A.

 

Now, I don't believe that Key Resellers should be banned in entirety. Because people who - for example - get a game key from a GPU purchase (or get gifted a game key) that they already own? They should be able to sell that key and make a few bucks.

 

But in those cases, the key has already been bought and paid for. The Devs already got their money for it.

 

But on G2A, a lot of the keys are acquired illegitimately, and G2A doesn't get money for it. And not only that, it can cost them a lot of money dealing with chargebacks and fraudulent purchases.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Kind of. If you have to go out and buy a HDD or a USB drive? Sure. But the HDD and USB drive can be reused and re-purposed afterwards (or even during). Forging or 3D printing a hammer cannot do this, since the material involved becomes the hammer. Whereas the data involved is just data.

Focusing solely on the case where the hammer is novel -- because otherwise, as we both agree, there is no discussion to be had.

 

The bits used to store the content can't be used for anything else so long as the content exists using those bits the same way that the material used to forge the hammer can't be used for anything else as long as the hammer exists. But the material used to forge the hammer can be re-purposed (again, albeit much more costly) the same as the bits used to store the content can be.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, 79wjd said:

Focusing solely on the case where the hammer is novel -- because otherwise, as we both agree, there is no discussion to be had.

 

The bits used to store the content can't be used for anything else so long as the content exists using those bits the same way that the material used to forge the hammer can't be used for anything else as long as the hammer exists. But the material used to forge the hammer can be re-purposed (again, albeit much more costly) the same as the bits used to store the content can be.

On a technical level, you're correct. Practically speaking, though, it's a non-issue. Especially since if one were to buy the game vs copy it, the same amount of storage would be consumed.

[TechyBen]

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

No you can't - at least, not in the sense that @Jito463 means. You can forge an identical hammer (especially if you have the mould for it) - but that costs materials and labour and skill.

 

Even with 3D printers, you still need a 3D model of that hammer, or you need to create your own 3D model, or you need to buy a 3D scanner and then use that. And then, you still need the raw materials needed to create a duplicate of the hammer. And if we're talking standard 3D printing, PLA or ABS is going to be a pretty damn shit copy of a hammer, so you'd need a 3D printer that can print using metal filament (and that's assuming the filament would even be of the same quality and have the same metallurgic properties of the original hammer).

 

And? It's my labour. It costs electricity and storage space to copy something. But it's near zero. It's post scarcity. But anyone self sufficient has little need to pay someone else. Why is the value of the materials anything to do with it? We do know patents and copyright exist for physical goods too? Distribution rights? I can physically copy a vinyl record... or store a game in a glued closed games console. It would cost materials (wax or microchips) to "copy" those. But it's still "piracy". Not defending it. Just trying to state water is wet, and making it illegal to be wet kind of makes things strange. If a game (or other media/entertainment) is secret, or used only in a circle of trust, then perhaps it could be safeguarded.

 

I used Factorio as an example for a reason too. AFAIK it's trivial to pirate. Yet the developer makes money. How? It's not because they force people to pay. It's because they offer something people want to pay for. Those who don't want to pay? Why spend time on them?

 

But G2A would actually harm the Factorio dev. The difference between a customer going elsewhere, and instead a customer actually doing a fraudulent chargeback/using a stolen credit card.

Quote

But we're not talking about "forging" your own game here. We're not talking about going through the trouble to code your own game from scratch (or even using public domain free resources) that is "similar" to another game. We're talking about straight up pirating it - making an exact literal duplicate of the data, containing many copyrighted and patented aspects.

As far as I know, even coding a replica is infringing. But that's besides the point.

 

The point I'm trying to make is, how do we decide what we can demand of others? Can I demand others pay me for reading my posts? However, streaming "shared" viewings of Netflix on Twitch is against terms/conditions and social acceptance to some. I agree it should be, kinda... but Netflix can insist every "customer" pay, and no one else distribute for free... but I cannot. And even if I did... I'd be crazy to.

 

So does the amount of time and money invested change that? I doubt if I spent a million on making the best forum post in the world, I'd get better payment rates.  So value of work alone can't be it, can it?

 

It's down to who and what is granted the permission to impose fees. Not authus ability to work or be remunerated. But societies decision on who or what gets paid. See for example the Artists/bands who get nothing, go broke, while a "producer/record label" takes everything for when it fails, even on those not on the side of the fence the consumers are on!

 

 

Quote

But in those cases, the key has already been bought and paid for. The Devs already got their money for it.

Some would include that with piracy. IMO wrongly so. But some do. They consider 1 sale, 1 user (see transferring Apple accounts, or Steam Accounts... and how it cannot be).

[dalekphalm]

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

And? It's my labour. It costs electricity and storage space to copy something. But it's near zero. It's post scarcity. But anyone self sufficient has little need to pay someone else. Why is the value of the materials anything to do with it? We do know patents and copyright exist for physical goods too? Distribution rights? I can physically copy a vinyl record... or store a game in a glued closed games console. It would cost materials (wax or microchips) to "copy" those. But it's still "piracy". Not defending it. Just trying to state water is wet, and making it illegal to be wet kind of makes things strange. If a game (or other media/entertainment) is secret, or used only in a circle of trust, then perhaps it could be safeguarded.

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. Yes, it's still piracy.

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

I used Factorio as an example for a reason too. AFAIK it's trivial to pirate. Yet the developer makes money. How? It's not because they force people to pay. It's because they offer something people want to pay for. Those who don't want to pay? Why spend time on them?

A dev still making money doesn't mean no attention should be paid to piracy - though there's definitely a point where too much attention is paid to it. Ideally, the solution is a social one: Get people to have the mindset that they shouldn't want to pirate a game, even when they are able to. As we know, DRM often doesn't work, and can cause issues for legitimate buyers.

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

But G2A would actually harm the Factorio dev. The difference between a customer going elsewhere, and instead a customer actually doing a fraudulent chargeback/using a stolen credit card.

This is not in contention. G2A is worse than piracy. Piracy might be a "lost sale" but at least in and of itself, it doesn't cost the devs money. G2A often does cost the devs money.

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

As far as I know, even coding a replica is infringing. But that's besides the point.

Indeed, quite besides the point, but it would depend on whether you're coding a replica (an exact or extremely similar copy), or just a game that's similar in ways.

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

The point I'm trying to make is, how do we decide what we can demand of others?

We decide that as a social collective.

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Can I demand others pay me for reading my posts?

No, because you don't own the platform the posts are on. By joining the platform, you agree to the explicit and implicit rules of said platform - which includes not getting paid to post. If, however, you decided to create your own website or forum? Yes, you could indeed charge for your comments.

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

However, streaming "shared" viewings of Netflix on Twitch is against terms/conditions and social acceptance to some.

That's against the terms because you're no longer just sharing a screen among a few friends, you're literally broadcasting it on a public service accessible by many. It's directly and in a large way interfering with the Netflix business model. They don't care if you and your buddies crowd onto a couch to watch Stranger Things 3, but they don't want you streaming out to thousands of people while only collecting one subscription fee for it.

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

I agree it should be, kinda... but Netflix can insist every "customer" pay, and no one else distribute for free... but I cannot. And even if I did... I'd be crazy to.

That hypothetical should definitely be against the terms and conditions.

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

So does the amount of time and money invested change that? I doubt if I spent a million on making the best forum post in the world, I'd get better payment rates.  So value of work alone can't be it, can it?

It's a combination of what you value, vs what the market will pay. You cannot force someone to pay for your million dollar forum post, but if you decided to charge for it, and reasonably locked it away under a paywall (Let's say behind a paywall website), that doesn't mean people should just be able to circumvent your paywall because they think you're an idiot for charging for it.

 

The market will adapt on it's own - either you will decide your post is too valuable, and if no one pays, no one sees it - or you will decide you want some money (or even no money) instead, so you lower the price (or make it free). Ultimately, you the creator, still decide the outcome.

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

It's down to who and what is granted the permission to impose fees. Not authus ability to work or be remunerated. But societies decision on who or what gets paid. See for example the Artists/bands who get nothing, go broke, while a "producer/record label" takes everything for when it fails, even on those not on the side of the fence the consumers are on!

That's a different discussion entirely, but even with artists, plenty of indie artists can make a living (though it's incredibly hard work) without dealing with the record industry. And ultimately, even with the record industry, the artist decides to sign the agreement, decides what they think themselves worth (or what they think they can get, if nothing else).

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Some would include that with piracy. IMO wrongly so. But some do. They consider 1 sale, 1 user (see transferring Apple accounts, or Steam Accounts... and how it cannot be).

Now you're talking about different issues, piracy and selling accounts aren't inherently the same thing.

 

I have no inherent problem with someone being able to sell his digital library, so long as the original owner loses access to it when he sells it to the new owner. That's no different from, say, selling a used console game. Of course Steam, etc, don't want you to do that. They'd rather the new person buy all the games new so that Steam makes more money out of it.

 

But that's off topic, and a discussion for another time.

 

I'm not sure what you think my stance is on here or not.

 

G2A is scum and piracy is a better alternative than G2A (assuming the person will do one or the other). My main point for you in particular is that simply copying a hammer is not the same as copying a digital file.

[mr moose]

@TechyBen  None of your examples actually demonstrate anything tangible we can apply to this issue to understand what ever it is you are trying to explain.

 

It's a pretty simple condition:

Being able to do something doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean there are no consequences.    Being able to copy something without taking money away from the creator does not mean that people doing so instead of paying doesn't cause other issues.

 

It's basic business, the more you sell the cheaper you can sell it for, especially with software as it has a very low reproduction overhead.  So if you have less sales then the price will naturally rise for those of us who pay our way.   

 

 

[IWannaBeUniqueMom]

I thought it was common knowledge to NEVER use G2A after their scandal a few years back

 

 

[Kenpachi1985]

4 hours ago, IWannaBeUniqueMom said:

I thought it was common knowledge to NEVER use G2A after their scandal a few years back

 

 

Most people don't care, they see lower prices and thats it or have never heard of it like so often. Just look around, especially on facebook, and see how many people bought rtx cards just a month before release with super leaks all around the internet and are now whining how Nvidia "scammed" them.

[TechyBen]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

@TechyBen  None of your examples actually demonstrate anything tangible we can apply to this issue to understand what ever it is you are trying to explain.

 

It's a pretty simple condition:

Being able to do something doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean there are no consequences.    Being able to copy something without taking money away from the creator does not mean that people doing so instead of paying doesn't cause other issues.

 

It's basic business, the more you sell the cheaper you can sell it for, especially with software as it has a very low reproduction overhead.  So if you have less sales then the price will naturally rise for those of us who pay our way.   

 

 

"Being able to do something doesn't mean it's right". Never said it was right. I said it's as pointless complaining as it is complaining it rains, and trying to legislate against rain.

 

 

"It's basic business". Yes. But it seems the only way to mitigate it (piracy or G2A fraud), will be to change the business model. Fortnight/Minecraft/Factorio... are examples of making money, having working business models, and having little to no direct mitigation of piracy or key resellers (though Factorio and Minecraft would suffer from chargebacks).

 

Minecraft and Factorio aim for either a strong community, who want to pay, irregardless of availability, and where those who do "pirate" are just future sales in the waiting (though I agree, not 100%) or market saturation, where it does not matter if a few pirate, because you got billions already.

 

With Fortnight (and similar games) putting their business plan elsewhere, than the physical/copy sale. But in the service provided.

[Thaldor]

21 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Minecraft and Factorio aim for either a strong community, who want to pay, irregardless of availability, and where those who do "pirate" are just future sales in the waiting (though I agree, not 100%) or market saturation, where it does not matter if a few pirate, because you got billions already.

Just want to point out, originally Minecraft wasn't sold "because community", it was sold as updates. Markus Persson actually kept quite long speech about "Piracy is not a crime - games as service" at GDC 2010 (or around that time). Point was that the Minecraft was easy to pirate, but by paying you don't need to pirate it after every update and every update was more or less feature update meaning if you wanted to keep playing the current version but don't want to pay for it, you would have needed to pirate Minecraft at least once a month.

 

I think piracy is okay, in some cases. And those who say piracy isn't okay in any case are dumb.

For example scientific papers and fake news: How can we notice fake science news from the real ones when basicly both of them have just as good sources? "Fake news" having almost non-existant source paper while real news having source that is in best case behind paywall and in worst case not only behind paywall but behind academical paywall that not only requires you (or someone else) to pay for the access but also requires that you are in academic position where you need that access. By trusting the news site? It's not once or twice even the most strict and fact based news sites have been fooled.  By trusting that Dr. Blablabla is a real person and has actualyl writen the paper (that you cannot access)? You know, you can actually buy a paper that says you are a "doctor"? Not to mention it's not even that hard to pose as a "doctor" for years without being noticed that your real profession is janitor.

So in this case isn't piracy actually helping the society? Because Sci-hub in it's base is piracy even when quite often the uploader is the actual author of that paper, that paper usually isn't owned by the author but by the one who paid for it. Publishing scientific papers is mandatory so piracy of them doesn't change a thing? Nahh... You only need to publicly publish the summary of the paper and those are starting to be more marketing texts than actually summaries or then they are just few lines like "Blablabla and Balbalbal researched a thing, the result was not good" (excellent summary, full 10 points, did answer every question and doubt we had) and then the rest of it are behind a paywall. You just need to trust? Trust someone I have never met, someone I have never seen, someone that isn't my friend and who I don't know, someone I have never heard of? Not gonna happen, give me that paper so I can see the actual data and the testing methodology so I can build my own conclusion whether or not I trust you.

 

Just as if I want to play some game but the developer (or usually the publisher) is asshat named EA, Ubisoft or tries to bring console exclusivity to PC in form of Epic Games Store, I'm going to press my "do what you want 'cause the pirate is free"-button. Just because those developers/publishers don't do any favors for the gaming community, more or less they make the whole gaming community rot even faster. Also in case of EA, it's not piracy - it's just surprise demo access.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

Just want to point out, originally Minecraft wasn't sold "because community", it was sold as updates. Markus Persson actually kept quite long speech about "Piracy is not a crime - games as service" at GDC 2010 (or around that time). Point was that the Minecraft was easy to pirate, but by paying you don't need to pirate it after every update and every update was more or less feature update meaning if you wanted to keep playing the current version but don't want to pay for it, you would have needed to pirate Minecraft at least once a month.

 

I think piracy is okay, in some cases. And those who say piracy isn't okay in any case are dumb.

For example scientific papers and fake news: How can we notice fake science news from the real ones when basicly both of them have just as good sources? "Fake news" having almost non-existant source paper while real news having source that is in best case behind paywall and in worst case not only behind paywall but behind academical paywall that not only requires you (or someone else) to pay for the access but also requires that you are in academic position where you need that access. By trusting the news site? It's not once or twice even the most strict and fact based news sites have been fooled.  By trusting that Dr. Blablabla is a real person and has actualyl writen the paper (that you cannot access)? You know, you can actually buy a paper that says you are a "doctor"? Not to mention it's not even that hard to pose as a "doctor" for years without being noticed that your real profession is janitor.

So in this case isn't piracy actually helping the society? Because Sci-hub in it's base is piracy even when quite often the uploader is the actual author of that paper, that paper usually isn't owned by the author but by the one who paid for it. Publishing scientific papers is mandatory so piracy of them doesn't change a thing? Nahh... You only need to publicly publish the summary of the paper and those are starting to be more marketing texts than actually summaries or then they are just few lines like "Blablabla and Balbalbal researched a thing, the result was not good" (excellent summary, full 10 points, did answer every question and doubt we had) and then the rest of it are behind a paywall. You just need to trust? Trust someone I have never met, someone I have never seen, someone that isn't my friend and who I don't know, someone I have never heard of? Not gonna happen, give me that paper so I can see the actual data and the testing methodology so I can build my own conclusion whether or not I trust you.

 

Just as if I want to play some game but the developer (or usually the publisher) is asshat named EA, Ubisoft or tries to bring console exclusivity to PC in form of Epic Games Store, I'm going to press my "do what you want 'cause the pirate is free"-button. Just because those developers/publishers don't do any favors for the gaming community, more or less they make the whole gaming community rot even faster. Also in case of EA, it's not piracy - it's just surprise demo access.

 

By having scientific papers behind a firewall the user pays for the service not the person writing the article.  Otherwise you just have a journal anyone who wants to write for it can (edit: or worse, a journal that needs advertising revenue).  This is what separates proper peer review journals from "anyone can submit" journals.  If you want to have your research published in the journal nature, it has to meet the stringent requirements that those who pay to read it's contents expect.  Not just pay for it to be published as written.

 

Good science is transparent and well criticized, not having free access to the publication does not mean these things are not happening.  Anyone can pay for a sub and read the papers themselves (but it does help if you have a decent education in that field, else you are just reading a bunch of stuff with a subpar understanding of what it means let alone how it relates to reality).

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1084042/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/

https://journals.lww.com/ijsoncology/Fulltext/2018/02000/Peer_review_in_scholarly_publishing_part_A___why.1.aspx

 

Not too say there aren't valid arguments,  but I would argue there aren't better systems on that score.  

[Sauron]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

By having scientific papers behind a firewall the user pays for the service not the person writing the article.  Otherwise you just have a journal anyone who wants to write for it can (edit: or worse, a journal that needs advertising revenue).  This is what separates proper peer review journals from "anyone can submit" journals.  If you want to have your research published in the journal nature, it has to meet the stringent requirements that those who pay to read it's contents expect.  Not just pay for it to be published as written.

 

Good science is transparent and well criticized, not having free access to the publication does not mean these things are not happening.  Anyone can pay for a sub and read the papers themselves (but it does help if you have a decent education in that field, else you are just reading a bunch of stuff with a subpar understanding of what it means let alone how it relates to reality).

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1084042/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/

https://journals.lww.com/ijsoncology/Fulltext/2018/02000/Peer_review_in_scholarly_publishing_part_A___why.1.aspx

 

Not too say there aren't valid arguments,  but I would argue there aren't better systems on that score.  

You could just have both so if you don't have time to sift through the trash you can subscribe to a journal and if you know exactly what you're looking for you can read it for free.

[Thaldor]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

By having scientific papers behind a firewall the user pays for the service not the person writing the article.  Otherwise you just have a journal anyone who wants to write for it can (edit: or worse, a journal that needs advertising revenue).  This is what separates proper peer review journals from "anyone can submit" journals.  If you want to have your research published in the journal nature, it has to meet the stringent requirements that those who pay to read it's contents expect.  Not just pay for it to be published as written.

 

Good science is transparent and well criticized, not having free access to the publication does not mean these things are not happening.  Anyone can pay for a sub and read the papers themselves (but it does help if you have a decent education in that field, else you are just reading a bunch of stuff with a subpar understanding of what it means let alone how it relates to reality).

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1084042/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/

https://journals.lww.com/ijsoncology/Fulltext/2018/02000/Peer_review_in_scholarly_publishing_part_A___why.1.aspx

 

Not too say there aren't valid arguments,  but I would argue there aren't better systems on that score.  

"At the same time releasing information to the public and educating masses through it has never, in human history, been as easy and as cheap as it is today. But there has also never been so much monetary greed involved in information as it is today" (I remember reading that from some place)

 

I am the kind of guy who reads interesting article or watches interesting documentary and can sink for hours to the world of Wikipedia reading about the matter. Without that kind of free access to the information I would probably be a far less "educated" (I didn't even finish my engineering degree because fuck school and it's need to brown tongue its partners). Without watching Chernobyl (and even far earlier being interested about the incident) I would have probably said "oh my god, Iran is starting to make weapon grade nuclear material" but because "education" I just went "WTF? How fucking stupid the media is. Iran is going to produce 5% pure uranium instead of the global agreements 3.65% pure (which actually is just above the low end of usable purity), that is not even near weapon grade uranium which is over 80% pure. It's just provocation that hardly has even marginal effects".  I use this to provide context how free access to information, may it be as specific as possible, can change how person can read the news. I don't know how to enrich uranium, but I don't need to know it, but probably after this or couple of days I find myself reading articles about how to enrich uranium just because I can and it sounds quite interesting and what kind of effects that 5% pure uranium would have in generating electricity because if the whole world is using just pure enough to generate power I would guess purer could be more efficient in it, but that kind of information is probably behind paywalls because peer-review...

 

You probably remember when Wikipedia was just starting and it was doubted as "the place to spread mis- and false information that isn't curated enough"? Well how the things are now when Wikipedia has been proven to be more correct than most of the old encyclopedias and far more up to date and mainly because it can be peer-reviewed by everyone instead of some journals or encyclopedias couple to tens of selected professionals (this does mean even those who has lesser knowledge can edit it but almost always it's quite soon edited by someone with far more knowledge and understanding). That something costs isn't any kind of quarantee that it is by any mean better or more correct than something that is basicly free. In modern light that subscription (paywall) to a scientific journal needed to read more about some matter in hands can be also seen as filtering information from the public or straight out banning public to see the information. What stops scientific world from building Wikipedia like system for their papers? Hell, someone from Kazakhstan already did all the ground work for them and the site is running just fine without any paywalls or ads.

[The King of the Undead]

My stance is! That I will buy from reputable keysellers (humble bundle and such) or steam. And usually steam and maybe gog eventually. 

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

This is what separates proper peer review journals from "anyone can submit" journals.

Yes, because no one has ever submitted a fake paper to a peer reviewed journal before...

 

https://www.cfact.org/2017/05/20/peer-reviewed-journal-publishes-hoax-attributing-climate-change-to-penises/

[Tristerin]

Me: Morals change at the whim of societies feelings.  Right and wrong are subjective to the masses (See also, Legal Slavery).

Also Me: G2A, the few times I have used it, has not failed me once and has saved me sums of money.  Will absolutely use G2A in the future if I feel it necessary.

Also also Me: Waiting to get "beat up" by the 2 or 3 people in this thread who attack morals, but I wont care. 

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, Tristerin said:

Me: Morals change at the whim of societies feelings.  Right and wrong are subjective to the masses (See also, Legal Slavery).

Also Me: G2A, the few times I have used it, has not failed me once and has saved me sums of money.  Will absolutely use G2A in the future if I feel it necessary.

Also also Me: Waiting to get "beat up" by the 2 or 3 people in this thread who attack morals, but I wont care. 

This isn't just about morals, it's about ethics.  By supporting sites like G2A, you are - directly or indirectly - supporting CC fraud and even outright theft.

 

Good to know that you're willing to support criminal behavior just to save a few bucks, though.

[Tristerin]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

This isn't just about morals, it's about ethics.  By supporting sites like G2A, you are - directly or indirectly - supporting CC fraud and even outright theft.

 

Good to know that you're willing to support criminal behavior just to save a few bucks, though.

Here it comes.

 

My rebuttal - Prove it.  You wear clothes made in China?  You support Slave Labor.  See how this works?

 

Your morality vs my morality is laughable if we want to play this game.

[ARikozuM]

I feel like Steam should make a reselling platform. Give half of the sale to the developer and the seller keeps the other. 

[Jito463]

23 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Your morality vs my morality is laughable if we want to play this game.

I didn't argue morals, I argued ethics.

23 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

My rebuttal - Prove it. 

Prove what?  The Op literally has game devs making the case.  I don't need to prove something already proven.

*edit*

I'll add a video once I get home for additional proof, though.

23 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

You wear clothes made in China?  You support Slave Labor.  See how this works?

Potentially, which is why I try to avoid anything made in China if I can help it.  Nice strawman, though.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Jito463