Jimquisition: Piracy Episode One - Copyright

[Jonny49]

I, for one, will destroy all those who prohibited the creation of the Metal Arms sequels. That game was actually awesome.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

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?

Yeah they have a massive choice don't they? "Oh you don't sign the contract? You get no funding, you don't get distribution, you don't get advertisement. Have fun making your game jackoff."

OT: Thank god for jim, at least someone can admit when they are wrong instead of acting like the publishers need little white knights to defend them from the big bad pirates

Notch is such a jackoff, isn't he...

And if the publishers had had their way, the things that made Notch's success possible (word of mouth through social media such as facebook, twitter, and this very site right here) would all be gone. One more victim in the corporate crusade to stop people on the internet from doing anything that doesn't make the publishers money.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Dammit, Jim, I thought your line about being right about everything was just blustery bullshit, but you keep proving me wrong. Thank God for you.

Your view isn't going to be popular around these parts (mainly because you get banned if you don't call pirates baby-eating scum around here), but you're completely right.

Anyone want to time how long it takes for the Escapist to shut that video town? I'm guessing less than a week.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Stealing a loaf of bread from a rich person is the same as stealing it from a hobo.

No.

I think 'no' really sums it up pretty well, but I need to add more to avoid a 'low content post', so I'll add that this logic is morally bankrupt. Stealing is never 'good', but stealing a Whopper from a starving man and stealing a Whopper from Jabba the Hutt are two completely different things ethically.

 

[drthmik]

Did you know that copyright law was not meant to create huge profits?
The original law was meant as a protection of intellectual property for a period of max 28 years, as to prevent stealing of new ideas and after that period ANYONE was permitted to change alter and publish new stories based on the works without permission. It's a pretty awesome idea at the core, smart and creative people get incentive to make new shit and after 28 year (lets face it if you haven't been working on new ip or updated your old ip it's very unlikely that a sudden bolt of creativity will hit your brain and you'll start expanding on your 28 old year book or whatever) fans can start tangents and new stories based on you work. This was so that no one person could live a whole life with just one contribution to society.
Now for sake of an example let's look at the creations of Walt Disney. Do you even remember when was the last time a good Mickey Mouse cartoon, book etc. came out? Well I don't and I fucking love Mickey Mouse. The thing is that by extending copyright ad infinitum you prevent eager and capable people bringing new life to old creations.

here's a nice video that explains it:

I don't know how this would relate to more modern problems such as piracy, but I'm sure if the 28 years rule was still in effect things would be a lot different.

Yep, furthermore the owner of said copyright had to PAY the government for the privilege but if you were still making a ton of money after 28 years you could pay to get another 28 year extension. But that was it.

 

[draythefingerless]

I managed to get about six minutes in before I had to stop watching - just too many misconceptions about copyright and the industry. My background is as an author and the owner of a small publishing company, so I deal with copyright on a regular basis. So, to correct some of the misconceptions in the first six minutes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

i was gonna post this stuff, but you nailed it before i could.

might i add that(im not americna, im european) copyright law is not ENTIRELY passable. copyright law is divided into patrimonial and moral right. the creator of IP is always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, owner, forever, even after his death, of the moral rights. these include the rights to unallowing the damaging, changing, and titularity of the IP. this means that without his consent, the IP can never be damaged, changed or taken his signature from it. patrimonial right is what is sold. this includes the rights to make money out of it basically, the right to distribute it and such.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Three pages into a discussion of copyright and corporate abuses.

Repeated insistence that content creators always have the rights to the works they make, until they sell them.

Not a single mention of the concept of a work for hire [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire].

Huh.

 

[FoolKiller]

While I disagree with some of his message, I do agree that I hate big companies hoarding licenses.

Surprise, surprise. I have an EA example of them using it to squash the competition.

Back in 2005 there were two main competitors in sports games: EA and 2K. 2K had cleverly gotten the license to use ESPN for a couple of years while making some great games. What does EA do to compete?

They purchased the ESPN license for a ludicrous sum of money, and then squashed it. They wanted the association of ESPN and 2K games to vanish while people still thought 2K and ESPN were one entity. Only in 2009 did games start showing up with the ESPN presentation.

I also don't think that Jim was correct about the rights being time limited and then reverting back to the creator.

There should be a stagnation or good will clause in there somewhere though. Basically that if there is no progress towards using the license, then it can go back to the artist (if alive)

 

[Robert B. Marks]

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...

I'm not going to reply in this thread more than once - I have found that online arguments don't tend to be worth the time. But, if you want your example, here's one: Epic. They started as a PC company called Epic Megagames, and have since moved to consoles. Their console titles do get PC releases, but by a different company.

But, if you really want a better picture, read this: http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_5.html

That link is from a website that did a proper analysis of the numbers, and talked about why the migration from a PC market measured in billions of PCs to a console market of under 100 million consoles took place.

And that's all I have to say on the subject.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

"like the secrets of the Bermuda Triangle of the truth of the Zelda Timeline."
I think you meant "or" and not "of", writer of the video blurb. Either way, you should be aware your Escapist buddies already noted an Official Zelda timeline BOOK was published by Nintendo... So that's become a moot issue...

 

[rankfx]

And this is where we see what SOPA and PIPA were really about- you couldn't be attached to any other company if you wanted to distribute your own work on the internet because then the other company would have the site taken down. This was their plan to kill online distribution.

Looks like ESA has looked at the amount of money the RIAA and MPAA have and decided they want in on that.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

I hate all these mergers. I miss Sierra a lot, The Realm was my first MMO. I also miss 3D0, and the Might and Magic franchise.

Come back T.T

Also, just wondering... coincidence?

Spoiler: And another for good measure

 

[Redd the Sock]

I think people going off on copyright law miss the point. Piracy get's the "theft" label because of the claim that any download is a lost sale. But what about when the product isn't being made available and probably won't, something us anime fans have been saying for years. I download a lot of older anime just because legal issues keep region 1 releases from happening. Held IPs are the same problem, they aren't selling to me, so what am I costing them by downloading. Why hold the IP at all if you aren't going to use it, unless we're right and it's to keep the property from going elsewhere and becoming competetion. It actually stifles IP by taking something permenently off the table for use.

Without rejecting the idea of copyright law, I do support a use it or lose it idea. It becomes fair game if not used or in active development for 5 years. Either some good ideas will be put back into the hands of someone willing to use them, or everything will be on PSN just to retain the rights.

 

[EvilPicnic]

Weirdly, I had this exact thought whilst watching the video: 'Damn, I've never noticed before that Jim Stirling looks like a slightly larger version of Garth Merenghi...'

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Interesting points Jim. I to long for the day that publishers, record labels and movie studios are no longer relevant. However the price of making a AAA means that the video game publishers will be around for awhile yet.

I really do think creators of IPs should retain their rights in some form, unless they sell it on to another party. And I'd suggest a similar thing to music rights in the UK where by the rights expire so many years after the song was released and moves into the public domain. This would games like Metal Arms sitting in a publishers attic forever never to be used again.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

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.

If I remember right, companies can actually seize any creative works you make while in their employ. So if you spend your time off making an indie title in your basement, guess who gets to claim a free IP.

Not so big a deal for people intentionally trying to sell their ideas, but a hindrance for any programmer or artist with higher aspirations.

 

[JasonBurnout16]

Thats an interesting way to look at the argument and to some extent I do agree with you.

However I still believe that Piracy is stealing - it is still the individuals choice. I would much rather they went and brought a pre-owned game than stole it. At least the money then goes towards a shop such as GAMEUK or Gamestop and keeps them going. Stealing it benefits no one but the stealer.

Slightly off topic but I do have a question on piracy. Say someone was telling an unpracticed story and without their knowledge someone was writing it down. That person then published it without the knowledge of the teller. Would that be wrong to copyright in any way?

 

[xXAsherahXx]

I agree with essentially all of his points. I don't have any sympathy for any corporations who get upset of pirates stealing games that don't hurt them at all. However, I tend to have a little disdain for people who pirate new games, ones that have been out for about a month or so.

I hope the laws change soon to give the artist the copyright instead of the developer to squeeze money out of. I wonder how Ubisoft does their business. I hope they aren't gonna screw around with Assassin's Creed. They haven't yet but there's always that possibility.

 

[neoontime]

I hate to curse but Jim brought something back up.

Spoiler

Fuck you Activision and Sierra. I loved Metal Arms but you guys have way to much shit for brains to understand that your just being assholes. You do make the point that it is justified to intentionally screw shitty companies like you, but I wish there were better ways to make you hurt. Until then, fuck you.
[h4]FUCK YOU[/h4]

 

[Nocola]

Well all I have to say is this video had about 5 too many dildos than I required it to have.