Video Game Piracy: A Victimless Crime?

So...piracy.  The games industry loves to blame all their problems on piracy and used video games.  But...is it really as big a deal as they say?  Is piracy the crippling blow to the industry that publishers decry it as or is it, as many pirates claim, a victimless crime?  Taking money from the already bloated, over stuffed, often dishonest publishers for products that are not worth said money to begin with.  I'm not, nor will I ever be, a pirate.  I disagree with it on a moralistic level.  However I do understand the ideas behind piracy in the modern age.  So...I'd like to discuss for a bit about piracy in the video games industry and how it both hurts, and is actually beneficial, to said industry, despite claims to the contrary.

Everyone loves pirates, right?  Err...right?

            First, let's look at the definition of piracy.  Before copyright came to be, it was robbery or illegal violence at sea.  Robbery seems to be what stuck with people, as these days piracy has been morphed into a catchall term for unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted material in its original form, I.E. copyright theft.  These restrictions have been relaxed in recent years to allow these materials to be used so long as they are altered, such as with commentary from a let's play, or through a review.  However, the idea that piracy equates robbery has always stuck with any industry that thrives off copyrighted material.  And to some extent, I sympathize.  Artists need to make money in order to keep producing art.  Even if they love it, if they can't afford to eat off their art, they probably won't have time to make it because they'll be too busy doing something that puts food on the table.  However, with the rise of corporations who use and abuse the artists for their personal profit and the advent of independent releases on the internet as opposed to something that HAD to have a publisher to ever see the light of day, I think that piracy has become sort of a buzzword that many people use to frighten others and imply that they are a victim.

In this day and age, piracy has become like the word communist or socialist.  It's just a buzzword to scare people and justify things that should not be justified.

             First, let me say this.  Piracy should only be used as a term if a product is on the market, being sold for profit, by either the original creator or a duly appointed seller, I.E. a publisher, and if this said product is being taken and either being used or redistributed without providing proper remuneration for those who created it.  What does this mean?  Well, essentially, this is my way of saying I do not believe that video game emulation should be considered piracy.  For the most part, at least.  When emulation was first on the rise, many video game companies feared they would be out millions as people could simply download the game code on the internet for free and use their computers to mimic console hardware so they could essentially play any console video game they wanted for free.  At the time of emulation's creation, I could understand these concerns.  However, they have gotten far stupider as time has gone on.  Emulation, for those not in the know, is where a video games code is downloaded from the internet in the form of a ROM, then a player, which emulates a video game console such as the SNES or the Sega Genesis, reads these ROMs and plays them as if they were the actual game.  Largely, it is excused if you delete the ROMs in a 24 hour period, as a trial run, or if you already own a physical copy of the game.

Emulation of current games shouldn't be allowed, but emulation in and of itself?  Not really piracy.  It's people getting a chance to enjoy games that are no longer for sale, and thus do not hurt the developer in the least.  Unless they've re-released it, of course.

            I want to ask people to take a moment and think about emulation and its potential to hurt and its potential to preserve.  It has been seen as a tool for piracy by many, but is it really?  Well, in some cases, yes.  If an emulator for a modern console, like an Xbox 360 or a Playstation 3 were released along with ROMs for games that you could still buy in stores it would be piracy without a doubt.  The developers and publishers are still making sales off these products and they are still in production, so there are costs to consider.  However, what so many people overlook is that emulators are almost ubiquitously used to play older games on the Atari 2600, the NES, the SNES, the Genesis, etc.  These games are no longer sold in most stores and even if they are, their sale does not profit the publishers or the developers any longer.  Many publishers or developers of older games have ceased to be, actually, so sales of these games are strictly between private owners, not a retail outlet which pays for the games to be stocked.  In this case, emulators are not really a form of piracy.  They do not steal money from a publisher or developer, as the product is no longer in use.  In many ways, it is like the copyright has become invalid as soon as production and sales of these games have ceased, making them seem like fair use products.  They are not, I assure you, but...I do not see the harm, either.  Emulation has the potential to hurt consoles currently still on the market, however, it is also a tool for preserving and re-experiencing video games from a bygone era that you may not have had a chance to play or buy during your youth.  Emulation under these circumstances should not, I believe, constitute piracy.  However, if these games are ever re-released, I believe that playing them on an emulator, even if their ROM is from a cartridge no longer being sold, then it WOULD constitute piracy.  The Wii and Wii U, for example, frequently re-release older games that they have the rights to.  In this case, downloading Super Metroid for free, online, to play on an emulator, when a legitimate copy is being sold, for very little might I add, is piracy.  Simple as that.  Emulation is used by many as a way of expressing love for video games and as such, I believe that a bit of good faith is in order.  If the games you love are available in such a way that benefits their creators then buy them.  Support the creators.  However, if games are not for sale, then feel free to emulate them.  You may even stir interest for sequels or re-releases by keeping their memories alive.

Guys, I defend emulation for how it preserves bygone games, but if those bygone games can be bought legitimately...just do it.  If we do, we support good developers and show interest, which may lead to sequels or improvement.s

            Now for the prickly subject that no one wants to talk about.  Emulation is widely regarded as okay, by gamers and even by some publishers when it meets the circumstances I outlined above.  However, there are some forms of piracy that many try to legitimize, which have no bearing in reality.  Yes, if the game is no longer being made for profit and the sales are no longer going to the creator, there should not be a concern as to who plays it for free.  Many gamers, however, feel justified in piracy just because they cannot pay for games.  I understand this dilemma.  Games are growing more and more expensive to buy and with the economy in its present state there is less and less money to go around.  So, you feel justified in pirating a game since all your money is going to supporting yourself.  I get it.  But if you ever want the industry and the world at large to actually accept this as kosher, then you need to act in good faith.  What does that mean?  Well, essentially it means supporting the games even if you do commit acts of piracy.  The host of a radio show I listen to, for example, once openly admitted to buying a copy of Skyrim on Steam, then getting a cracked copy for free online.  Why?  Because he does not like how Steam interferes with his experience, through its pop in menus and glitches.  However, he already paid for his game, so the developers have already profited.  This is what one might consider an act of good faith.  Pirates who buy the game, disagree with some of its design choices, like the recent always online DRM of Sim City, and decide to get a pirated version regardless.  This is not a problem, provided you DO act in good faith. 

If piracy is to be allowed/overlooked, it needs to be done in good faith.  So you bought SimCity and it's servers are so broken you can't play it?  Feel free to get a cracked or pirated version.  You already bought a legitimate version, so the developers already have your money...now that you've done the right thing as a person, do what's fun for you.

            Pirates who try a game and play it all the way through, then buy it to support the developers show good faith.  I would even argue that pirates who try a game for a little bit, dislike it, stop playing it, and don't pay for it act in good faith, as this is akin to buying a game, trying it, disliking it, then taking it back to the store for a full refund.  However, I have to call out the pirates who do not act in good faith.  Pirating a game that is available for retail, playing it all the way through, keeping the pirated copy on your computer, and then never paying for a retail copy is stealing.  This may sound accusatory, but it is.  And I know that in this day and age publishers are over bloated, toxic to their own customers, far too controlling, and often downright dishonest with us.  I know this.  But you cannot simply pick who to like in the games industry when it comes to piracy.  What do I mean by that?  Well, what I mean is if I said to hell with the publishers I hate, I would also have to accept that indie developers bending over backwards to make their games easy to play, download, pay for, and DRM free shouldn't get any consideration either.  Or that people giving away games in bundles like on Steam or the Humble Bundle also are beneath consideration.  If you were to pick and choose like that, it would be akin to a police officer having the option to pick and choose who to arrest.  Or a bank picking and choosing who to foreclose on, leaving their favored customers alone while bullying new customers.  These acts are dishonest and they spit in the face of the idea that we are all equal under the law.  The same principle applies with game piracy.  You can hate a company and its games and not buy them, that's fine, that's capitalism.  However, you cannot pirate the games of one company you don't like, then turn around and say people should buy games from another studio.  That's simply dishonest and hypocritical.

Piracy in good faith.  Either you support the developers for work you've enjoyed or you have stolen from them.  No one should begrudge you a free look or playthrough, but if you take it without paying for it, that is a crime.

            In a subject like this, if you won't act in good faith, then you are not allowed to pick and choose who you decide to screw over.  If you don't buy a game because you don't like it, fine, you've chosen with your wallet.  If you pirate a game, like it, but never pay for it...you are stealing.  You cannot argue otherwise.  I sympathize with not having money to pay for a game at this moment, but that is why good faith is in order.  If you pay for it down the line...great.  If not...thief.  Remember, this is only games being sold for profit, so emulators or gamers who want to pirate games that are no longer sold but which are still not freeware?  I have no issue with you and neither should the game industry.  But I do have issue with the people who hurt developers who genuinely need support.

            Like all things, the video games industry is a business.  Not everyone, however, plays by the rules of the over bloated AAA industry and smaller indie developers put their heart, souls, savings, and life into making great games that they enjoy and want to share.  I think it's fair that these people get remuneration for their efforts.  When Derek Yu and Alec Holowka made Aquaria, it was a labor of love by two talented game designers and for their efforts, their game enchanted tens of thousands.  But how many sales were lost due to piracy?  How many people profess love for a game, then offer the creators nothing for their efforts?  This is not acceptable.  In fact, sometimes, it is heartbreaking.  Recettear is an indie game about a girl running an item shop and in the demo, it talks about why she runs it.  She's in debt.  And the developers threw in a tiny gag at the end of the demo, where the girl pleads with the audience to not pirate the game, otherwise she will never get out of debt.  And this isn't just meant as humor.  Indie developers can live or die off a few thousand sales, since they have very little overhead and sometimes don't have to give publishers a cut.  The fact that this game, which does everything it can to be as open and available as possible, has to plead with its audience to not steal it is heartbreaking.  You might ask, "What's the worst that could happen?"  Well...how about no more games from indie developers.  No more Fez.  No more Aquaria.  No more Dust.  No more Minecraft.  If everyone pirated these games, the developers would die.  There would be little to no point in making the games.  No sequels would be made.  No new projects.  It would end them.  The pirates I take the most issue with are those that do not act in good faith and willfully steal from these developers who need all the help they can get.  But, as Jim Sterling pointed out, there is one breed of pirate who is the worst of all.

Like it or not, we live in a capitalist world.  If you're good at something, you should get paid for it.  And that goes for game developers too.  Piracy in bad faith is criminal because it takes money from people who've worked hard to create something beautiful and fun.

            Pirates who steal from charity.  My jaw literally dropped over a year ago when I saw Jim Sterling's article on just how many people had pirated the Humble Indie Bundle.  For those unaware, the Humble Indie Bundle is an organization that, with the creator's permission, periodically releases indie games at far below their normal price in a large bundle and gives a portion of their profit to the charity Child's Play.  You can pay a fair amount, like 10-15 dollars and get extra games or content.  Or you can pay a single penny and get the basic bundle.  A single penny for anywhere from 4-6 games.  And yet some people still felt that that was beneath them.  I understand piracy.  I understand wanting to try before you buy.  I understand wanting to recapture the past.  I understand not having money to pay for a game.  But this is willful, malicious greed and should never, ever be excused.  I will agree that game companies do treat their customers too harshly in the battle against pirates.  But those who not only act in bad faith but who will turn their nose up at honest, noble attempts to deliver great games at a low cost which benefits charity?  I have no pity for them.  In the least.

The Humble Bundle is an effort by game developers to give games out to the fans for very cheap and at the same time, support a worthwhile charity.  To pirate this is to be absolutely morally bankrupt.

            So, is piracy a victimless crime?  No.  No its not.  Not everything should be considered piracy, I admit.  Emulation can prove to be a great way for those who are broke to experience older games without hurting anyone by getting a chance to play games that are no longer sold for profit.  However, piracy on the whole does take away money from those who desperately need it.  Piracy in bad faith, that is.  I would actually argue that piracy in good faith does more for the industry than any amount of advertising could.  Piracy in good faith spreads the word about a game to people who may want to buy it, without acting as if they are justified in their theft, since the pirates also want to support the game and will eventually buy it.  This kind of press cannot be bought with any amount of money and will be beneficial to any game that was made with passion and not created as just another assembly line piece of shovelware.  Many indie developers have been gracious in the face of piracy because it does spark interest.  I say, good for you for being so gracious, but you still deserve to be paid.  Piracy is not a victimless crime.  But it does not always have to hurt people either.  I imagine in the olden days, pirates could not only steal gold and silver from ships, but also medicine for sick families who could not afford it.  Piracy is not evil in and of itself.  However, when performed in bad faith, it deserves no sympathy.

Piracy is freedom, to a degree.  It is the ability to choose whether to purchase a game blindly or try it out, then decide what to do.  Piracy is no more evil than freedom.  It is only evil if you choose to use it as such.

            I should end this discussion with that, however I just want to bring up something Daniel Floyd and James Portnow have said in the Extra Credits Series.  You want to stamp out piracy?  Then offer a better service.  This is simplicity itself.  Why do people pirate?  Because of DRM.  Because games are too expensive.  Because there are no other options.  Give them other options, and the pirates will beat a path to your door and fling their money at you whole heartedly.  Most of them will, at least.  There will always be those who think it beneath them to pay, who believe the internet and anonymity entitles them to do as they please...but for most pirates, offer them what they can only get through piracy, and then one up that offer, and you will win over hundreds of thousands if not millions of customers.  Steam uses DRM.  However it is not intrusive, games connect directly to the Steam forums and community through it for troubleshooting and support, it can be deactivated to play offline, and Steam offers trading and great sales to bring the cost of games down.  GOG does one better, allowing players to, after paying for them once, re-download their games as much as possible, potentially allowing limitless sharing.  The games themselves are also completely DRM free with sales that happen just as frequently as Steam sales.  These are things that piracy cannot always do.  If a torrent disappears, your source to a game is gone.  But so long as you have a GOG account, it will always be there for you to re-download.  So, how do you stop piracy?  Make it seem like more of a hassle than buying the games legitimately.

Want to stamp out piracy?  Offer a better service.

            Just in case anyone is wondering, yes, I saw E3, I know about the PS4, the Xbone, and the Wii U.  No, I'm not going to discuss them.  While I do believe the issues of ownership that the Xbone and some other companies have been screwing around with are important, and a core reason as to why people pirate, they have already been thoroughly explained by people more entertaining than me.  If you want to see why they are going to cause an issue, check out Angry Joe's rant on the Xbone or Video Games Awesome's coverage of E3.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.  I know Microsoft flip flopped on their DRM policy recently, but it's sad that the Xbone ever got this far without someone raising a hand and going "Ummm...are we sure this is a good idea?"  This is the kind of attitude that breeds piracy.  Restriction.