Jimquisition: Piracy Episode One - Copyright

Sandytimeman

Brain Freeze...yay!
Jan 14, 2011
729
0
0
been waiting all day to see what jim had to say on the subject. I agree pretty much spot on with him. Copyright laws are pretty ridiculous now life time of author +70 years in the case of just regular copyrighted materials. And it started out at 28 years. Shit George lucas would still have been a millionare and his works would have lost copyright around 97. Harry potter doesn't lose copyright until 2117. Seriously...some things need to change, because these IP stop being about supporting the artists and supporting the long dead artists company instead.
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
I think the whole: big games are extremely expensive to produce angle is missing. Who pays for the production of big expensive games like call of duty? The publishers are the only ones with that kind of money, if it weren´t for them most studios would have to take the indie route and AAA titles would probably somewhat dissapear.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
Most publishers really are just a bunch of people who don't do anything and they get payed a lot for it. Why should they exist? The world would be a better place is all developers published their own stuff.
But what if developers don't want to publish their own stuff? If you're a video game developer, you're probably good at programming, or 3D graphics, or sound art, etc. It doesn't really make sense for a developer to divert attention away from what they do best - making games, and take on the burdens of distribution, marketing, licensing, accounting, legal issues, etc. Anybody who's run their own business in a creative field can tell you that dealing with the "business" side of things can quickly drain your passion for the creative things you got into the business for in the first place.

Also, it might work for a small developer with a fairly low-budget game, but what if a developer wants to make an epic "AAA" game that costs tens of millions of dollars to make? Where is that funding going to come from?

It's not like the internet magically makes publishing a non-trivial activity. There's a lot more to it than just throwing a file up on a server.
 

violinist1129

New member
Oct 12, 2011
101
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
Jim is 100% right about publishers being the middle man. And we need to cut the middle man out of the equation. It's a purely capitalist concept that's no longer necessary because of other ways of distributing material, thanks to technology development. Most publishers really are just a bunch of people who don't do anything and they get payed a lot for it. Why should they exist? The world would be a better place is all developers published their own stuff.
Do you really think that publishers like EA are a bunch of guys who get paid to do literally nothing? That's a bit ridiculous when you think about it.

If publishers did nothing that developers couldn't do, why would any dev ever have a publisher? Obviously, game developers value publishers to the extent that they find it worthwhile to get their help in a contract which they agreed to and signed.
 

Bostur

New member
Mar 14, 2011
1,070
0
0
Korten12 said:
... snip ...
But shouldn't there be the option to only allow some people to edit or expand on the works or none at all. For like, ever?
I don't think authors should have that power from beyond the grave. Art is for the living, not the dead. I think it's reasonable to try to make sure that the original author is credited for the original work. So for instance no one else than Tolkien can take credit for LOTR. I think it's also important to try preserve those original works of art so they can be compared to later interpretations and spinoffs.
But new artists needs to be able to renew these stories in a contemporary context. Maybe that results in a holo-deck version of LOTR where Boromir lives, thats the choice of the coming generations.
 

JMeganSnow

New member
Aug 27, 2008
1,591
0
0
If you want publishers to respect the proper rights of developers, how's about you respect them first by not pirating brand-new stuff?

I got no beef with people who obtain and play games that are essentially "out of print". You could even make a case that copyright law needs to be rewritten to take into account such "abandonware". Are anyone's interests served by making it illegal to distribute for free stuff that nobody wants to buy? If it's *no longer possible* to buy a *new* copy of a book, record, video game, then who is harmed by people photocopying their old version and distributing it free? The owner has basically declared that their expected return no longer justifies continued investment in the property. Whoever is now distributing the work has made an investment without expectation of return. Shouldn't their investment be respected and entitle them, if not to collect money, at least to proceed without being harassed?

Heck, you could even go so far as to say that the distributor of such "reclaimedware" could legitimately be entitled to collect money--for the use of their service, if not for the IP itself. Maybe make it so they'd have to pay a certain legally-mandated, non-negotiable percentage of revenue in royalties to whoever owns the IP until it would normally enter the public domain. Then, if they don't and the owner finds out about this publishing, you have a VERY simple situation that's VERY easily resolved: the amount of money owing is VERY easily calculated and won't require years of litigation and stupid waste. And then you can very easily append a provision that if someone is distributing but not paying, THEN the owner has a legitimate right to demand that it be taken down.

In essence, you'd be inserting a third phase of copyright status in between "copyrighted" and "public domain", during which everyone exercises their rights in relation to their action toward that IP. If the owner throws it in the dumpster and moves on, the bum who comes along, tidies it up a bit, and makes some use of it isn't a criminal.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
MrBaskerville said:
I think the whole: big games are extremely expensive to produce angle is missing. Who pays for the production of big expensive games like call of duty? The publishers are the only ones with that kind of money, if it weren´t for them most studios would have to take the indie route and AAA titles would probably somewhat dissapear.
If people just stopped buying from big publishers that hate them (you know the ones who punish paying customers and support anti-consumer legislation), indie games would still be made. Budgets would shrink and in my opinion, that would be a good thing. The budgets NEED to shrink. 50 Million dollar games taking 5 years to make isn't sustainable anyway.
 

ModReap

Gatekeeper
Apr 3, 2008
362
0
0
*is impressed*

I used to condemn pirates like jim did, but then I took an arrow to the knee then I watched the Jimquisition and could only think that this is very, very, sadly, true.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
JMeganSnow said:
If you want publishers to respect the proper rights of developers, how's about you respect them first by not pirating brand-new stuff?
I am going to make a few assumptions here, correct me if I get some wrong. I am going to assume that you:

- want publishers to respect the proper rights of developers
- you don't pirate games

Has your contribution made publishers more respectable to developers? I would say that the more money you give to publishers, the worse they act but that's just my opinion.
 

Aulleas123

New member
Aug 12, 2009
365
0
0
This is exactly the issue with modern intellectual property. Either one can choose to have a large audience and sacrifice financially or they can sell to a small audience for all of their profit. To people who want the world to be fair, this is bad. To realists, this is reasonable. Sorry, but I disagree with Jim's point. I hate SOPA and PIPA as much as the next guy, but defending piracy because businesses don't do what we want them to do is not the right answer either. Businesses get games out there for gamers to buy and play, it's the same thing with movies and music. If you don't like it, then invest in small franchises and indie games.

It's a matter of private principle, but using piracy to attack businesses that we don't like isn't the right answer. It's childish and, in the end, it's criminal.
 

JMeganSnow

New member
Aug 27, 2008
1,591
0
0
Bostur said:
Korten12 said:
... snip ...
But shouldn't there be the option to only allow some people to edit or expand on the works or none at all. For like, ever?
I don't think authors should have that power from beyond the grave. Art is for the living, not the dead. I think it's reasonable to try to make sure that the original author is credited for the original work. So for instance no one else than Tolkien can take credit for LOTR. I think it's also important to try preserve those original works of art so they can be compared to later interpretations and spinoffs.
But new artists needs to be able to renew these stories in a contemporary context. Maybe that results in a holo-deck version of LOTR where Boromir lives, thats the choice of the coming generations.
Authors should have some power from beyond the grave, but it should be *strictly limited in duration*. Otherwise, you'd have a problem where an author sells a novel or work of art, only to die a week later. It can't immediately go into public domain because then the person or persons who paid for the work have no chance to earn their deserved profits.

Now, I don't like the *current* time limitations. To me, they seem excessive. At *most*, it should be author's lifetime + 18 years, which is enough time for any of the author's minor children to reach adulthood. This should pertain even if the author retained no rights whatsoever to their work. Same expiration date. It doesn't necessarily even have to be that long--after all, IP creators can buy life insurance just like everybody else.

The principled thing to do, in my mind, would be to make the copyright last until the owner takes it out of production. If they want to keep printing new copies or maintaining the website where you can download it, they still own it. If the book is out of print or the video game servers are shut off, that seems like as good a time as any to have the copyright expire. It'd also make IP owners think long and hard about whether they're truly done with it before they shut down their site or whatever.

It'd also be a great thing to distinguish between copyright and trademark or brand. The copyright should expire. Maybe the trademark/brand should function differently. No, it SHOULD function differently, because it IS different.
 

danirax

New member
Jan 11, 2011
140
0
0
looks appropriate for this vid...
The king and his men stole the queen from her bed
And bound her in her bones
The seas be ours and by the powers
Where we will, we'll roam!

Yo, ho, all hands
Hoist the colors high
Heave, ho, thieves and beggars
Never shall we die

Yo, ho, haul together
Hoist the colors high
Heave, ho, thieves and beggars
Never shall we die

Some have died and some are alive
Others sail on the sea
With the keys to the cage and the Devil to pay
We lay to Fiddler's Green!

The bell has been raised from its watery grave
Do you hear its sepulchral tone?
A call to all, pay heed to the squall
And turn your sail to home!

Yo, ho, haul together
Hoist the colors high
Heave ho, thieves and beggars
Never shall we die
 

Carnagath

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,814
0
0
Robert B. Marks said:
Carnagath said:
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...
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.
Pretty hilarious article there. Disembodied statements by some devs that basically claim they'd be BILLIONAIRES if it wasn't for piracy (you're right, J. Carmack, piracy is why Rage didn't sell well). If they say so, it must be true! I also love how the writers of that article are trying to prove that the explanation for the fact that some titles (they mention COD as an example) sell better on the consoles than on the PC, even though the PC userbase is larger and console titles are more expensive, is because most PC gamers are pirates, and they mention nothing about the fact that consoles are "trendy" and, if you are a young gamer aged 15-24 and you want to buy the version of COD that will most likely allow you to play with present and future friends and classmates, Xbox Live is definitely the way to go. Nope, none of that matters, if there are more gaming PC's than consoles then COD should sell more on PC's. Because they say so. Also, your best example of "one the many" PC studios that abandoned PC gaming for consoles is a studio that... releases all its games on PC, but outsources some of the multiplatform workload. Cool story bro.

I'm not going to write a massive detailed post about this either. If you are "above" online arguments, then you are really better off not posting.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,316
1,492
118
Yes Jim, I forgot about the often used "if they're rich enough, go ahead and steal from them" clause that is placed in the law.

Ultimately, the creator owns the IP until they choose to sell it to EA so that their game can be made. Is this a system that is in dire need of fixing? Hell yeah. Is stealing from the companies the way to do it? Hell No.
 

JMeganSnow

New member
Aug 27, 2008
1,591
0
0
Crono1973 said:
JMeganSnow said:
If you want publishers to respect the proper rights of developers, how's about you respect them first by not pirating brand-new stuff?
I am going to make a few assumptions here, correct me if I get some wrong. I am going to assume that you:

- want publishers to respect the proper rights of developers
- you don't pirate games

Has your contribution made publishers more respectable to developers? I would say that the more money you give to publishers, the worse they act but that's just my opinion.
Something like that is hard to measure, but I'd say yes, because the developers I *like* and buy products from are still in existence and still making money, even though a lot of them have swapped publishers.

Has it prevented the developers from signing away too many of their rights? No. But that's on them. Now, if I bought any random dreck that came out of a publishing house, that'd be a problem. I buy only specific games by studios I like, and if I get a game I don't like, I abandon that series. That's why I didn't get Mass Effect 2 and won't be getting ME3, even though I quite like the Dragon Age series by the same studio. I support only the particular products I want.
 

Yureina

Who are you?
May 6, 2010
7,098
0
0
Interesting... you brought up some things I had never really thought about before, particularly the Copyright stuff. I'd say this was a good episode. :eek:
 

Bostur

New member
Mar 14, 2011
1,070
0
0
JMeganSnow said:
Authors should have some power from beyond the grave, but it should be *strictly limited in duration*. Otherwise, you'd have a problem where an author sells a novel or work of art, only to die a week later. It can't immediately go into public domain because then the person or persons who paid for the work have no chance to earn their deserved profits.

Now, I don't like the *current* time limitations. To me, they seem excessive. At *most*, it should be author's lifetime + 18 years, which is enough time for any of the author's minor children to reach adulthood. This should pertain even if the author retained no rights whatsoever to their work. Same expiration date. It doesn't necessarily even have to be that long--after all, IP creators can buy life insurance just like everybody else.

The principled thing to do, in my mind, would be to make the copyright last until the owner takes it out of production. If they want to keep printing new copies or maintaining the website where you can download it, they still own it. If the book is out of print or the video game servers are shut off, that seems like as good a time as any to have the copyright expire. It'd also make IP owners think long and hard about whether they're truly done with it before they shut down their site or whatever.

It'd also be a great thing to distinguish between copyright and trademark or brand. The copyright should expire. Maybe the trademark/brand should function differently. No, it SHOULD function differently, because it IS different.
Yeah good points. I think I meant to say they shouldn't have eternal influence from beyond the grave. :)

I think it's a flawed concept to base the expiration of copyright solely on time. Your idea to base it on active use could work. This would also solve the differences in longevity between media, for instance the fact that software usually doesn't have commercial viability for as long as written texts. It's a bit silly if MS-DOS and Pacman gets protection for more than a century.
There is also the issue that if a company is the original 'author', how do we measure the time of death of that company? Basing copyright expiration on active use would solve that problem as well.