Jimquisition: Piracy Episode One - Copyright

Osaka117

New member
Feb 20, 2011
321
0
0
Man, I always thought that Kojima was just a madman, but Metal Gear Solid 2 and 4 are actually fucking happening! It's good to realize this now, so that when EA and Activision start handing out shots that say will enhance your video game experience, we'll know not to take them unless you want nano machines in your bloodstream that'll force you to buy all their games.

And also good to hear of someone else who appreciates Metal Arms. I never owned it, but I did play it a lot at the demo xbox in Gamestop, then called Funcoland, back in the day.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
JMeganSnow said:
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.
So what developers have received more respect from their publishers that you buy games from?

Just saying "Don't pirate and publishers will respect devs more" doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "If you want McDonalds to stop messing up your order, keep giving them money".
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Well put Jim, big money publishers are a bunch of dildos, fuck them.

Piracy is bad, but publishers are worse, hang them all I say!
 

Ashcrexl

New member
May 27, 2009
1,416
0
0
everyone here is in big trouble! the forum rules clearly states that posts cannot advocate or discuss piracy! enjoy your suspensions! especially YOU jim!
 

geizr

New member
Oct 9, 2008
850
0
0
How so fickle. Just because one does wrong against another does not give excuse to commit wrong in retaliation. There is also the fact that in the case of the creator not having the rights to his/her own creation, as I understand, that is a result of that creator consigning those rights to the publisher in exchange for publicity and marketing. Yes, it is a dick move that companies hold onto these rights and do nothing with them. However, it was a conscious choice on the part of the original creator to hand those rights to the publisher, and so, it is 100% legitimate. If you agree to something, then you accept the full consequences of that agreement, until such time as the agreement is annulled or rescinded, either by the parties with whom the agreement was made or by higher authority.

-----

In the past, a publisher was more necessary because it was difficult for individuals and small groups to execute the entire process of creating, refining, and marketing their works. The publisher acted to assist these individuals and groups, and because the publisher was a necessary partner in the endeavor, the publisher had significant power to negotiate such onerous terms as has lead to the complete gang-rapeage that content creators are suffering from.

However, the advances in technology, the advent of the internet, and numerous digital content outlets have paved the way to allow self-publication. The publisher is no longer a necessary partner. Yet, many content creator are still hesitant or at least uncertain about going the independent/self-publishing route. Thus, they continue to constrain themselves to an outdated paradigm that only screws them over in the end.

To be sure, the publishers themselves are fighting to maintain relevance in a changing market environment, and it's rather sad that it has been the technology companies, not the publishers, that have devised the new means by which the market can continue and flourish into the future. The publishers are dinosaurs, and their extinction is inevitable because they refused so long to adapt to the changes in the market and failed to recognize new opportunities for new business models that would help them to continue. Their insistence on maintaining the old ways of doing business has doomed them to perdition.

Even further, the incumbent publishers have sealed their fates with the generation of growing resentment for their policies and tactics and their failure to serve the needs of the market. In my opinion, the market, as a whole, having tried everything up to this point to give the existing publishers the benefit of the doubt and encourage them toward the products and services that are desired, making abundantly clear those things for which we would gladly give our money and being summarily ignored or dismissed by the publishers, is at a point of exhausted patience and now should seek to take matters into its own hands with publicly generated content. Essentially, if the current incumbent publishers can not or will not serve the demands of the market, then the market must find its own solution without them. The publishers have had their chance and been given ample opportunity. They were given the choice to join us to venture forth into the future or be left behind to die. They have chosen death.

In my opinion, the way forward is self-publication and publicly generated digital content. Current technology has made such content extremely easy to create, market, distribute, and discover. I foresee the cusp of a new market reality in which the old hegemony of big content publishers is extinguished and in its place will be a new collection of self-publishers, public content, and digital distribution services(things like Amazon, iTunes, Steam, etc. but perhaps with better search, discovery, and community features). Granted the quality of such content is not necessarily going to be that great at the outset(of course, it's not like the current content from many of the big publishers is hitting it out of the park), but, in time, the market is likely to further adapt to be more discerning and provide opportunity for methods, services, and technologies that help separate the wheat from the chaff.

One thing that the incumbent publishers are not understanding is the social nature of today's fans of content. People no longer passively take in content like hooking a hose to a garbage disposal unit. Instead, they like to involve themselves with the content and share that involvement with others. Fans today like to develop a community around the content and express their love and appreciation of the content by creating their own derivatives of that content(check out fanfiction.net sometime for just one example of what I mean). In my opinion, it is critical for any content creator or content service going forward to allow, encourage, and cultivate that community because it builds loyalty and enthusiasm for the works, which can serve to boost sales. Understand, I am not talking about piracy, I am talking about community cultivation in which fans are freely able to show their love of the content through their own works based on that content(bootlegging would still be illegal).

So to summarize: piracy is still a bad thing, regardless how one feels about the tyranny of the current content publishing regime. However, the current publishers are doomed precisely because of their tyrannical actions which has garnered them nothing but antipathy from the market. Further, technology has advanced to the point that the old business models are no longer needed or functional; yet, the current publishing regime has failed to recognize this and adapt accordingly. It is now necessary for the market to proceed into the future of content creation and distribution via self-publishing and publicly created content that is uninhibited by the whims of the current publishers; in essence, it's time to just leave them behind to die. In going forward with these new business models, it is important to account for the desire of the market to socialize and become emotionally invested in the content through community building.

Didn't mean to end up with a wall-o-text on this, but this is just my opinion.
 

Bunnymarn

New member
Oct 8, 2008
243
0
0
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?
That's like - to use an example from Australia - a farmer selling his produce to Coles and/or Woolworths. Either the farmer agrees to accept any price that they demand, even if that means he runs at a loss, or he doesn't sell any produce. I'd say Coles and Woolworths own around 80-90% of the food market (not to mention others, like the liquor market).

And I'm willing to bet that it's the same for most of these game developers who want to get their games well known and distributed to as many people as they can. Either they accept whatever these publishers offer them, or they sit around and get nothing. And Steam really only advertises inside of Steam, so only a set amount of people will really know about indie games on there (I could be wrong about that - I've never seen a Steam advertisement outside of Steam).
 

Sprinal

New member
Jan 27, 2010
534
0
0
There is a reason why I haven't bought a game from EA etc for about 2 years. Mostly because their games suck. But I suppose that's most of the problem. As the publishers find things that work they then repackage and re-release their old works. In order to make more money and do nothing for it. Whilst at the same time killing anyone who wants to do anything new. So while I do buy games from Bethesda and Mojang (the ONLY companies I have bought things from in the last 2 years) I simply refuse to play anything from anyone else almost. If EA decides to make a good game and not be cunts about it. Then I may buy it. But if it ends up like spore. Then they are going to have fun trying to stitch their own necks back together.

eh... It really does seem like all the good games are either old or made by Lesser known devs.

Well that does me. I'm just keen for good games
EDIT:

To the mods. I have not pirated for the last 2 years I have only bought and played about 3 games.

Therefore I am not a pirate. Unless of cause modding SKyrim/New vegas/fallout 3 counts as piracy which under SOPA/ACTA/PIPA could.
 

Phlakes

Elite Member
Mar 25, 2010
4,282
0
41
Oh dear lord no.

This will be, and probably has been (not reading through five pages) twisted into "fuck yea piracy is freedom and rebellion we're fighting the corporate power fuck da police".

Now, I do agree that that kind of situation is an exception, but piracy is still a crime and pirates deserve to be punished.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
Holy shit, i went from apprehensive about Jim Sterling to having deep respect for the man in only 6 episodes.

Thank god for Jim Sterling.
 

NaramSuen

New member
Jun 8, 2010
261
0
0
The interesting thing is that I never agreed with your original stance on piracy because of the current state of copyright law. I did appreciate the parrot and fake beard though.

Keep preaching the good word Jim!
 

Torrasque

New member
Aug 6, 2010
3,441
0
0
Very good points and I agree wholeheartedly.
I think from now on whenever I pirate something (mostly music and anime) I'll do some research to find out who I am actually pirating from.
 

BoredRolePlayer

New member
Nov 9, 2010
727
0
0
My only thing is when people get mad if someone owns a digital copy of a game they already bought. I can understand hate if someone buys a game makes copies and gives those copies to people. But copying a digital archive for personal use shouldn't be a issue and if you get rid of the digital copy when you lose or get rid of the physical copy it shouldn't be a issue.
 

ACman

New member
Apr 21, 2011
629
0
0
Sober Thal said:
Notch is such a jackoff, isn't he...
Id don't think that Jim is claiming that publishers shouldn't be able to demand rights when taking financial risk to support work. I think he take bigger issue with the rent seeking behaviour of publishers especially in the area of IP squatting.

But we aren't just talking about games here. This issue includes music, books, and films. Book and music publishers are now essentially obsolete with their remaining market value being the residual IP that they "own".

Big budget games and movies would not get made without publisher money but that shouldn't mean that they should be allowed to squat on IP for perpetuity stifling the creativity of derivative works.
 

gyroscopeboy

New member
Nov 27, 2010
601
0
0
I actually had a good experience with copyright law..i got to sue someone who used my work without my consent, but that was music...which seems a little more ways along in the independent publishing/distribution than the games industry.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
wow...jims angry

I still dont agree with piracy though

and Nine Inch Nails FTW!!!
 

Jacob Iott

New member
Apr 4, 2010
29
0
0
I've always wanted to play the Gamecube or Xbox version of Metal Arms. The PS2 version had horrible graphics, an extremely low frame rate, and only two player multi-player and I still loved it.