Jim Sterling said:
Piracy Episode One - Copyright
Piracy is one of those issues that will absolutely never die, like the secrets of the Bermuda Triangle of the truth of the Zelda Timeline. Jim Sterling has always had a set view on piracy -- it's not the worst crime in the world, but it's selfish theft nonetheless. However, in the wake of corporate attempts to buy our legal system, he has reexamined the piracy issue and come away with a rather altered stance.
This is the first episode in a miniature series looking at the problem of videogame piracy.
Watch Video
Regarding copyright:
You're oversimplifying things a bit, and you're attacking this from the wrong angle.
Publishers exist because the average Joe once had a problem getting his goods to market. A composer would spend his time and energy writing the music... but then he'd need to find someone with the equipment to print, copy, and sell that music. That would take time and energy (and money) the composer didn't have.
So instead, the composer would sell the copyright to a Publisher -- basically, an investor whose entire job it was to have the print/copy/market equipment and know-how. This was mutually beneficial to the artist and publisher.
The artist wouldn't have to worry about the logistics or expense of publication. And in exchange, he would give over distribution rights (and occasionally agree to produce a certain number of other works within a given time period, to present a more long-term investment). Over time, artists could even rely on the strength of a publisher's name to give more weight to a new product -- I might not know your music, but I know your publisher is pretty good at spotting good music, so I'm more inclined to look your way...
The publisher wouldn't have to worry about the creation process. And in exchange, they would promote and distribute the composer's work. Of course, the publisher would own the rights, to ensure the long-term viability of the arrangement -- you wouldn't want a composer to use your resources to get well-known, and then yank back his entire catalog to sell on his own, leaving you with no return on investment.
FAST FORWARD:
In this age, getting your goods to market isn't as big a problem. On the internet, David can be every bit as big as Goliath in the right circumstances. So there is less need for a publisher, overall. It hasn't evaporated completely, however.
And, given the ease of digital distribution and internet marketing, publishers have had to add little caveats and addenda to the contracts to make the investment "safer." They might oblige you for a few deadline-heavy sequels, or they might require that you sell the entire IP to them. And if things go sour, they're likely not going to give it all back so that you can then go make money under some
other publisher -- It's not about you, though, but rather about not feeding
competing publishers.
IF YOU WANT TO FIX IT:
Publishers are going to do what publishers do. Until creators stop letting them. Creators are who you need to target.
1. Encourage creators to forego publishers in favor of cheap, effective distribution methods. Why pay to have a CD made when you can just sell the .mp3's on your own site?
2. Encourage creators that
want publishers to be more forward-thinking in the terms to which they agree. Don't sign contracts in desperation or naivete. "Hey, if there is a period of X months in which you do not move on this IP, we get back the name/characters/etc. You keep the rights to previous installments, but we're then allowed to go
forward with the IP in other venues."
You touch on this in the video, but really it's the
main point. Make publishers obsolete, and the problem is solved. The
law isn't the problem, as much as the contracts
under the law are. Go after the creators, get them to "kick the habit" -- no demand, no supply.