Jimquisition: Piracy Episode One - Copyright

Beryl77

New member
Mar 26, 2010
1,599
0
0
All this talk about those modern "pirates". Sigh, where are the good old times, where are the old-school pirates. Sailing the seas, wearing eye patches, having a talking parrot on the shoulder. Those were real men.

Anyway, let's throw my two cents to this controversial topic.
I agree on most what he's said.
I find it hard to see this as stealing, not that it's totally alright to use others ideas but I just can't see it as stealing. As long as it doesn't really harm anyone, I don't see it as a big problem. If someone pirated some stupid blockbuster movie from Hollywood, I couldn't care less. If it's a low budget indie movie and they need the money, then really go and give them your money if you like the movie. Those are the ones who need, not Hollywood in their current form.
Also, I find it funny that Hollywood whines so much about pirates although without using others ideas and breaking laws they wouldn't even exist. They did the same thing years ago and now they cry when it's affecting them. I can't take studios like that serious.

The RIAA and MPAA and so on, are a dying breed in our times anyway. They're from the last century who can't adapt to the change that's going on.
If the pirates you're fighting just offer a better service then maybe something is wrong on your end. Do something that makes the people come to you, don't force them because then they will always struggle.
Well, not that they're really fighting piracy. They just want to control the internet. That's what PIPA and SOPA are supposed to do. Give them the power that they don't have on the internet. It's obvious that they need the power they have in other parts of our life. Just look at how they threaten politicians who aren't corrupt enough to get bought. It's just ridiculous.
They're obsolete and if they don't change soon, they'll only be history.
 

Wolcik

New member
Jul 18, 2009
321
0
0
The best episode so far I must admit - and I liked quite a few of them. I'm guessing the quality is increasing - however I'd love to see Jim get someone to draw him pictures instead of those low quality panit doodles.
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
I wouldn't discount the "middlemen" too much. Yes, there does need to be significant reform regarding copyright ownership (which probably won't happen anytime soon since the middlemen have all da moneyz). The creator of Metal Arms didn't HAVE to give his intellectual property to his publisher. They just might not have given him the resources (people, money, facilities, equipment) to make the game if he hadn't. It doesn't make them thieves, it makes them a business. Had Metal Arms been a runaway success, would it have been fair for the rights to stay with the "creator" (one man in a team of dozens, if not hundreds) who just as easily might have said "fuck it" and kept the rights to the game himself and not make any more? You wouldn't be singing this tune had Vivendi/Sierra continued to publish Metal Arms games that were teh awesomesauce without the input of the guy who had the wildly original idea of giving robots guns.

I do like the idea of copyright reverting back to people responsible, rather than sitting in on a dusty shelf useless somewhere in the nether realm. But to determine something like creative ownership, you might need something like, say a union that has rules and stipulations about who is responsible for something. And even then with cases like SAG and the Writers Guild and the Directors Guild, it's hardly fair. See for example what happened with Roseanne not getting a lucrative "created by" credit on her own show with her own name, based off of her stand up comedy.

But to say mediafire or megaupload or rapidshare, who risked nothing, put up nothing, invested nothing, and are merely copying and pasting the work (of not just one person, but many people) and then charging people for that service, that is a form of theft. And it's not like these "legitimate" middlemen didn't pay for the ownership of these properties or don't deserve the rights to them. If you inherited a painting, should it be taken from you by force for the good of everyone else? If they keep these properties to themselves, it's their own financial loss.
 

The Last Nomad

Lost in Ethiopia
Oct 28, 2009
1,426
0
0
And I thought it was bad when copyright owners went on with an IP without the original creator, its nothing compared with the thievery you describe here Jim. Although, if that guy sold the rights to Metal Arms, then really they (Activision or whoever) do own it do they not? They are still acting asshole-ishly but they didn't steal anything.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
Fuck publishers. They're the reason gaming has turned to shit. There would be less piracy if they gave a fuck about the industry, but no. They only care about money. Old men who don't have a clue about gaming are running our industry.
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
This certainly has been the year for corporate hate.

Thank you Jim, sorry, THANK GOD FOR JIM, I now feel slightly less dirty for using MU for all my schoolgirl with a sword fighting demons and stuff programmes.
 

Ewyx

New member
Dec 3, 2008
375
0
0
Honestly, I lost all sympathy towards major publishers last night, while installing an EA game, that I legitimately bought from steam, they have the NERVE to ask me to activate it again?

Fuck you, fuck your retarded DRM system. I'm never buying anything by EA again. If they treat me like I'm a criminal, I'm going to be one. Psychology 101.

Also agreeing with Jim... new one for me.
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
I used to pirate a shit ton of games back in the day and with the economy of my country, I don't blame anyone who does, but I'm trying to do the right thing, buying everything I can legally and if I can't pay for it, I just don't pirate it, period.

I learned the hard way, when I used to buy pirate DVDs of PC games, that I'm not getting this stuff at a discount, I'm paying the asshole who just burned the fucking disc and I'm helping him in making a living out of this, instead of giving my money to the developer who rightfully deserves every single penny.

I, too, am losing faith in major publishers, but that doesn't mean I'm going rampantly downloading every single game I come across, I just don't support neither the publishers (specifically EA, UbiSoft and Activision/Blizzard), nor the people who uploads their games in torrent sites, IE: The Pirates.
 

killercyclist

New member
Feb 12, 2011
112
0
0
man, when this series started i thought it would just be some sarcastic dude talking himself and his beliefs up, but over time jim has proved to me that he has a really firm grasp on the important issues of gaming today. i really think what he has to say is valuable and we should pay attention.
 

newdarkcloud

New member
Aug 2, 2010
452
0
0
Sober Thal said:
newdarkcloud said:
Sober Thal said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
Sober Thal said:
Fun fact. The artists and developers own 100% of their IP. They then decide to sell the rights away for money and more resources. Duh.
That's what happens when the rights-buyers have rigged the game in their favor before the artists create their art. Duh.
Creators have a choice to sign these contracts. Are we implying that these people who make games don't know how to read?
Publishers won't even look at a developer if the developer wants to keep the majority share of the rights to the IP. The only exception is when the developer has already become well known enough to have publishers compete for them.
What's wrong with that? Are publishers just supposed to gamble away money on possible crap product?
Isn't that the inherit risk of the medium? Games can be successes, flops, or somewhere in between. I'm not saying they don't deserve a share of the prophets and some control over the project. I'm saying they shouldn't have absolute power. It's there right to revoke their future funding if the game isn't panning out or if the developer is being lazy. It's their right to contract developers to make certain games. That's business, I've got no problem at all with that.

But instead of forcefully trying to acquire the rights with the current "sell us the IP or fuck off" style, it would be better to engender positive relationships to convince developers that they are getting the best deal possible by signing on with that publisher. It's the classic carrot or stick conundrum.
 

MetalDooley

Cwipes!!!
Feb 9, 2010
2,054
0
1
Country
Ireland
meganmeave said:
The reason I think it is still stealing to pirate a game like Metal Arms, is because the publisher that rightfully paid the creator for the rights to that game entered a contract saying, "I promise to give you money now, on the hopes that I can make a profit off of this thing in the future."
Activision own the rights to Metal Arms now despite the fact that they didn't put a cent into the development,publishing or marketing of the game.That's why Jim is saying he couldn't condemn anyone who pirated it now
 

EvilPicnic

New member
Sep 9, 2009
540
0
0
Fully in agreement with Jim on this one. And it applies to the 'music industry' too. Never before has so much new music been available to so many, and sales to gigs and concerts (as well as digital downloads) are increasing. Artists on average have more opportunities for success than they ever had before the advent of the internet, consumers are more knowledgeable, and business is booming.

So why all the doom and gloom in the media?

Because the 'music industry' (read: 'CD-manufacturers and general middle-men') is being cut out of the loop and they're kicking up a fuss. It's the raging against the dying of the light, and not because they can't profit from these new technologies, but because they won't. They're too old and fat and lazy too adapt, and in this Darwinian world if you don't adapt: you die.

New media ftw.
 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
Also, how good to see someone reconsidering their opinions on anything without being slammed as a 'hypocrite' who does 'U-turns' on issues.

Sometimes maybe it's just a case that someone has done some thought and processed new information and come to a new conclusion. If only the papers and news corps could quit it, sometimes even politicians will admit they were wrong about something, and instead of the opinion, the critics are just obsessed that he's 'gone back on his word', when it wasn't his word, it was an opinion, opinions change.

Also, the whole industry has evolved, a friend and I were discussing out school years, and the case that you could buy a game on tape for £1.99 and it'd have an actual home address on the label, showing that it'd been created by some kid holed up in a bedroom somewhere.

Now it seems you need a good $100k just to get something to pass the criteria needed for XBLA, tho at least there's still Steam, not sure how hard it is to get something listed there.

I guess all we can hope for is that in 20 years or so the big companies are actually forced into either evolving or dying out as the irrelevant dinosaurs that they are.

Also, I've been banging on about how SOPA etc are not su much about money, but about the entertainment industry and their realisation and fear of losing control, which they slowly are.

As I've said, they could easily rake in millions just placing things online for worldwide release on the release day, with no DRM, priced fairly, and then who's rushing to a torrent when buying is easier? At present I've got DVDs I own that I've got rips of, because the rips are easier to watch, and don't inflict BS on me for 5 minutes before I can watch them.

The Metal Arms debacle is one more sign of this. It does Activision no good at all to hold the license, but if it was given back, and the artist and creator got a small team together to crack out an indie sequel to the license, Activision would have 'lost' the control of that game. Yet they don't want to risk investing in it either.

Is there really a reason for anyone's copyright to last more than 10 years? I may be persuaded to extend this for inventions, but art, if you've not squeezed some sales out of it in 10 years, then it's either not gonna sell, or some creepy art dealer's going to use your death to up the price.
 

Carnagath

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,814
0
0
Robert B. Marks said:
1. Copyright IS about protecting creator's rights. However, 95% of it is not about protecting creator's rights from consumers. Most of copyright is a legal framework governing the interaction between those who create and those who distribute the creations, mainly during the contract negotiations. An example of the protection provided is to prevent a distributor from taking a creator's work, declining to publish that work, and then adding a new name to it and publishing it anyway. That goes both ways - another protection is to prevent a creator from selling exclusive rights to a work to one publisher, and then going behind that publisher's back and selling the same exclusive rights to another.
You are copypasting a definiton of the term "copyright". Is that necessary? We are well aware of it. Yes, part of it serves to govern the relationship between artist and publisher. Only part of it though.

Robert B. Marks said:
2. Copyright IS built so that the creative artist owns the copyright to his/her work upon completion of the work. In order for the creative artist to lose those rights, s/he has to sign them away. One of the reasons that there are literary agents is to protect authors from contracts that strip them of their rights to their own work. That the equivalent in the music industry often do not do the same is scandalous, to say the least.
It may be so for books, but, as you said, that's not as usual in the music industry and extremely unusual in the gaming industry, especially if we're talking about a new intellectual property that does not have a massive established fanbase, which means the artists are, in practice, stripped of most of their negotiative power.

Robert B. Marks said:
3. There are nasty companies out there with highly predatory practices interested only in their bottom line, 'tis true. The music industry is one of the worst out there in that. But that's a problem with industry practices, not copyright law. To say that it's a problem with copyright is like saying that a security company failing to call the police on time during a burglary is a problem with anti-theft laws. Requiring creative artists to sign their entire copyright to a work away in the music, film, and software industries is a nasty industry practice, but it is an INDUSTRY practice.
And this industry is seeking to shape the copyright laws to utterly fit their agenda, in a disgusting, unethical, invasive, totalitarian fashion. To further your analogy, when the burglar becomes rich and influential enough to shape anti-theft laws in a manner that allows him to work together with the police and also to be allowed to shoot innocent pedestrians on his way to the crime scene, then it's clearly time to go after the burglar and the people who are empowering him.

Robert B. Marks said:
4. If anybody wants to say that game companies are not injured by computer game piracy, I would ask them to take a moment and count the number of PC game companies that hopped ship to the smaller console market over the last 10 years. Compared to 2002, the computer game world is considerably sparser than it used to be.
Hmm... Nope, getting nothing. Do tell. Which PC game companies jumped ship? I can't think of a single one that abandoned the PC market and devoted themselves exclusively to consoles. Many of them realized the market expansion in consoles and turned their releases multiplatform, sure, some of them may even have decided to not release some of their titles on the PC due to specific logistics of those particular titles, but can't think of a single one that has written the PC off. Example of the above: Rockstar. Yes, they did not release Red Dead Redemption for the PC, but they did release LA Noire and will release Max Payne 3. I can however think of a multitude of examples of studios that were bought by behemoth publishers over the last 10 years, who agreed to fund and promote their projects, but instead cannibalized them and their intellectual property. How ironic...

Robert B. Marks said:
5. Publishers are important, and when doing their jobs properly can provide a level of quality control, distribution support, and marketing that a creative artist alone cannot. To say that in the past the need for distributors was an illusion is ludicrous, particularly considering that the internet has only been available to the general public for the last 20 years or so. It may be easier to self-publish now, but it wasn't in the past, and many of the functions of publishers and distributors are still done better by distributors than by the creative artist alone, if for no other reason than the distributor generally has more resources.

Anyway, that corrects the more grievous misconceptions. I really wish that people would do their research sometimes.
What's your point? Yes, publishers are awesome when they are doing their jobs correctly. Not so much when they devour artists and try to establish a worldwide police-state of complete censorship through corruption and lobbying. We're not taking a history lesson here, we're in the present, and we should react and criticize accordingly.
 

Ickorus

New member
Mar 9, 2009
2,887
0
0
Sober Thal said:
Louzerman102 said:
Sober Thal said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
Sober Thal said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
Sober Thal said:
Fun fact. The artists and developers own 100% of their IP. They then decide to sell the rights away for money and more resources. Duh.
That's what happens when the rights-buyers have rigged the game in their favor before the artists create their art. Duh.
Creators have a choice to sign these contracts. Are we implying that these people who make games don't know how to read?
It is a Hobson's choice. Especially before digital distribution became much more widespread. Sure, they could "choose" not to go through a publisher, but in an industry run by the publishers, what choice is that?

The deck is stacked in the favor of publishers. For the longest time, they've owned the deck, dealt the cards, owned the cards, and bought anybody holding the cards. Some of us don't think that should continue.
Hobson's choice, eh? Damn right! It's their money! You want their money, you agree to what they offer. If Valve is such an evil entity (publisher) why do people bend over backwards to praise them?

The 'artists' need to wise up if this is as bad for them as people seem to be saying.
You're confusing what steam does. Microsoft owns the halo IP. EA owns the dead space IP. Tell me how Steam owns Space Pirates and Zombies, Solar 2, Dungeons of Dredmor, or any other indie Game. Jim's statements were never against valve.
Valve is a publisher too. I realize they don't publish every game on STEAM. Jim makes it sound as if EVERY publisher is evil, and devs have no choice in the matter. Devs need to wise up. Look at Notch and Minecraft. It isn't easy to get your name out their, nor should it be. You pay these big named companies for work they do. No money? Sell the rights, or do the work yourself (if every publisher is soooo evil).
Valve self-publish their own games but that doesn't make them a publisher, I mean, Mojang did the same with Minecraft.

Technically Valve is a very very large indie developer.
 

robinkom

New member
Jan 8, 2009
655
0
0
You can see this sometimes on abandonware sites that list an old DOS game for reference (not download) and link a company's official site who still owns the copyright to the IP but is doing fuck all with it. Fucking kills me, the fact that if you tried to find a pirated version of that ancient 8-bit CGA DOS game elsewhere that you could potentially get slapped with a fine if caught.

If we the gaming community ever needed an official mouthpiece to speak for us in a serious matter to any of the powers that be, I wouldn't mind Jim Sterling being that man.
 

Radioactive Kitten

New member
Nov 16, 2009
45
0
0
If the original developers still get a cut out of the sale, I think it's wrong to pirate. However, I have no qualms with it if the game is old and the developers are long gone or are in such a position that they won't see a penny from the sale of their game.

For example, I don't think Smilebit gets hurt if someone pirates Jet Set Radio. That game has been out of print for ages, they have long since been gobbled up by Sega and are now charged with nothing but churning out Mario and Sonic at the Olympics games, and it's virtually impossible to buy the game in such a manner where any of the profit would go back to them anyway. If Jet Set Radio got a digital/HD remake, my stance would be quite different since at least purchases would tell Sega that there's interest in the series.
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
lol "Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free!" It's funny, yet at the same time wrong... but not too wrong...