It matters who pays the freight The phenomenon of video game piracy looks very different in independent studies than in industry studies

Various entertainment industry trade and lobbyist groups, including the RIAA, MPAA, and ESA, have all spend boatloads of cash and plenty of time trying to make copyright infringement appear to be one of the biggest threats to the fabric of democracy since lying. And their campaign been largely successful, culminating in the U.S. with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which criminalized copyright infringement for the first time, and included a raft of draconian provisions which have been limiting competition, creativity, and innovation ever since.

As part of this campaign, these industry trade groups have paid for any number of "studies" over the years, all of which painted piracy as rampant, and the costs of piracy as enormous. Oddly, though, independent researchers have been studying the same phenomenon for years, and consistently reaching different conclusions. And today, we got another example of the way independence, and freedom from pressure by the lobbyists who are commissioning the study, result in profoundly different results.

As reported by Motherboard:

Study after study continues to show that the best approach to tackling internet piracy is to provide these would-be customers with high quality, low cost alternatives. For decades the entertainment industry has waged a scorched-earth assault on internet pirates. Usually this involves either filing mass lawsuits against these users, or in some instances trying to kick them off of the internet entirely. These efforts historically have not proven successful.

Throughout that time, data has consistently showcased how treating such users like irredeemable criminals may not be the smartest approach. For one, studies show that pirates are routinely among the biggest purchasers of legitimate content, and when you provide these users access to above-board options, they’ll usually take you up on the proposition.

Belgium rules loot boxes are gambling, and will seek to make them illegal. Hawaii may follow suit.

This story is, obviously, blowing up right now, but it looks like PC Gamer gets first post:

Last week, Belgium's Gaming Commission announced that it had launched an investigation into whether the loot boxes available for purchase in games like Overwatch and Star Wars Battlefront 2 constitute a form of gambling. Today, VTM News reported that the ruling is in, and the answer is yes.

The Google translation is a little sloppy, as usual, but the message is clear enough. "The mixing of money and addiction is gambling," the Gaming Commission declared. Belgium's Minister of Justice Koen Geens also weighed in, saying, "Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child."

Geens, according to the report, wants to ban in-game purchases outright (correction: if you don't know exactly what you're purchasing), and not just in Belgium: He said the process will take time, "because we have to go to Europe. We will certainly try to ban it.

GamingBolt has another great post on this development:

Folks, we won. After Belgium confirmed last week that it would be investigating charges of unregulated gambling in popular video games such as Overwatch, thanks to the Star Wars Battlefront 2 controversy, they have come out with their decision- loot boxes are indeed gambling, they say, and they will move to have them banned in the European Union.

This is fantastic news for multiple reasons- if loot boxes are illegal in Europe, then publishers will have two options- either develop two versions of their games (one with loot boxes, one without), or forego a release in Europe (therefore, half the market for most western publishers) entirely. Therefore, unless publishers literally want to spend the money on balancing and QAing two progression paths for their games, they will have no chance but to remove loot boxes from their titles- if this regulation passes.

That, "folks, we won," at the start of GamingBolt's post may turn out to be the most important part of this story. This really is a case of consumers banding together, and staying together, to generate sustained public pressure and bring about change, in a gaming community that has famously been unable to do any of those things until five minutes ago. Gamers have finally realized that they have the power in this relationship, and can force the big AAA publishers to back down on issues that really matter to them, and this is unlikely to be the last time it happens, either.