Jimquisition: Piracy Episode One - Copyright

[Ashley Blalock]

This is one of those times I have to disagree with Jim.

Yes movie studios, record labels, publishers and other evil companies are an evil bunch that are making things worse instead of better, but the answer to stopping evil pricks doesn't seem to be let's be bigger more evil pricks. Pirates vs evil corporations just makes the internet into something like a virtual Mad Max world not a better place.

The answer should be to fix copyright laws not make it a lawless world because the fight to reform laws is harder than just taking stuff for free.

Let's apply that it's okay to pirate law to the real world and you see how crazy it is. The Conquistadors were some bad guys who went and stole art from Central America. But just because the Conquistadors were evil pricks that doesn't give me the right to break in museums and take things because some evil prick did something evil first.

 

[Raesvelg]

Considering that I'm liking Jim's show less and less as time goes on (and never liked it all that much to begin with, since for the most part it's based on superficial, emotional arguments with imperfect understanding of the issues at hand), does that mean that, by Jim's standards, I am now justified in intercepting his paychecks?

Cuz, y'know, I don't like him, and I his treatment of certain issues means that I don't particularly care what happens to him?

 

[irishda]

You don't have to sell the rights to your IP in order to get it published. This is all the realm of contract negotiation. It's difficult to pull off if you're an unproven developer, but let's say you have a publisher sign off on your game idea where they hand you a big stack of cash to make the game in return for the IP. Now, if that game proves wildly successful, you can take any future IPs and offer them to publishers without also offering up the property rights. A publisher doesn't need the rights to publish the game, they just need the IP owner's consent to do so. If you can convince the publisher that your property will make a lot of money (which again, is easier to do if you've already proven you can), then you can get a contract that ensures your control of the IP. I feel no pity for the developers just because either A: selling IPs is what it takes sometimes to make it, B: investors need to have some sort of protection for their interests if you don't want them to bleed money and then have no publishers left to give developers money, or C: they weren't smart enough to negotiate a better contract.

TL;DR: Developers don't have to sell their IPs, and even when they do, publishers need protections to make sure they don't lose money. And remember, when publishers lose money, developers get no money.

 

[Davroth]

Hey guys

Remember that article The Escapist ran in December about how the Swiss government conducted a study about the effect of piracy on the entertainment industry, and found out that there is no negative effect at all, and how piracy for private use remains therefore legal in Switzerland for private use?

Now where did I put that again? Oh right, here it is.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland

You know what's my favorite part about it? Where are all the violent anti piracy advocates in there? Only 32 comments, and most of them neutral or positive?!? :O

Yeah, I realize it's hard to argue with a study conducted by the Swiss government, who have no interest of protecting piracy, really. You could at least try, though.

 

[-|-]

The naive views of the escapist community amaze me sometimes. Even though this issue is actually quite simple: If you own something and you sell it to somebody else for a mutually agreed price then it is no longer yours. It's the same for intellectual property as it is for a TV.

Still it seems some of you want to prevent people selling their ideas for money.

But wait, I hear you say. It's ok for people to sell their ideas, but they have to be treated "fairly" and get compensated for their work. I agree, but who gets to decides what's "fair"? You? Me? The state? Or, even ...gasp... the creator and publisher themselves through a negotiated contract.

Jims rhetoric is pitiful - I'm surprized that anyone falls for it.

 

[Badwolf14]

So thats what happened to metal arms.....I always wondered why they never followed up especially because of the way the game ended.....is there any hope that the trilogy can be brought back?



and btw.....



boom

 

[Ashley Blalock]

This is one of those times I have to disagree with Jim.

Yes movie studios, record labels, publishers and other evil companies are an evil bunch that are making things worse instead of better, but the answer to stopping evil pricks doesn't seem to be let's be bigger more evil pricks. Pirates vs evil corporations just makes the internet into something like a virtual Mad Max world not a better place.

The answer should be to fix copyright laws not make it a lawless world because the fight to reform laws is harder than just taking stuff for free.

Let's apply that it's okay to pirate law to the real world and you see how crazy it is. The Conquistadors were some bad guys who went and stole art from Central America. But just because the Conquistadors were evil pricks that doesn't give me the right to break in museums and take things because some evil prick did something evil first.

Isn't that pretty much what he said? The only thing I don't see you saying here that he said, was the he doesn't care anymore. Otherwise you're basically parroting him and calling him wrong at the same time. He just said he didn't care. He still doesn't promote or encourage or even "like" piracy, he explicitly said that.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting Jim's point, but it sounds a lot like he's saying I don't care take whatever you want just as long it's from big corporations with billions in assets not from small companies or individuals.

It seems like part of the reason we've had junk like SOPA was because people could somehow justify taking from large corporations. So yea I kind of care if people just take what they want when the rest of us are playing by the rules even if we don't like the rules.

 

[Kojiro ftt]

Jim, for once I have to disagree. The original content creators don't own the copyright because they sold it, fair and square. Take this example:

Jim makes a video. He owns the copyright for his creation. He can either post it and wait for ad revenue to trickle in, or he can sell the copyright to a publisher, say a website. The website gives Jim a lump sum. This allows Jim to feed himself and fund his next video. The website has basically invested in this IP because it believes waiting for the ad revenue to trickle in will make them more money than the lump sum they paid to Jim. It was an investment. So if you pirate that video, it is not a victimless crime. That website spent it's hard earned money. If they don't earn it back, then next time they won't pay Jim so much, if at all. If everyone uses ad blocker and/or pirates the video, the website doesn't get any ad revenue. So Jim finishes his next video, and the website now either pays Jim less money because they didn't make as much as they projected, or they decide to pass completely and Jim goes hungry.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Hang on if anyone said this on the forums they would get banned faster than you could say "hypocrisy".

I completely agree with Jim though, and that was a great episode.

No I've said as much on these forums before and didn't even get so much as a warning for it. This aint gamefaq; I think they actually believe in freedom of speech on this site...people get modded but for posting pharma ads. Editr work from home ads like the one below.

As someone who used to be poor, I used to "download" games for free from questionable places. However, if it was really good, I would buy a real copy. I'm also not recommending it; if only that you expose your pc to god knows what?

Jim's right. Everybody says how the devs don't get their money if we pirate or don't accept online passes but they're going to paid the same crappy wages no matter how many people buy it. The only ones who get your money from online passes or even legitimate purchases are the obscenely rich bozos who OWN the dev studios and IPs.

 

[Itsthefuzz]

Dragon Age 2 was a great game

After browsing these forums for quite some time... I honestly, until now, didn't know you had a sense of humor.

Uhm...er... I think you failed maybe?

There is no humor in that post, nor this one. You could list 5 things that made DA 2 bad and I could probably agree with you that those things weren't good. I still loved that game more than the original. I would also bet you could list 5 games you think are better than DA 2, and I could list 5 things that made them not as great (for me) as DA 2.

I will also go on the record by saying I have never been paid by EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Valve, Actavision, ect ect ect...

Honestly you don't have to stay committed to the joke, it was funny you don't need to prove it. Still I appreciate the good humor.

 

[Mosstromo]

Most excellent episode. We need a ruler like you Mr. Jim. Stern but fair.
I agree with you in most of your points, specially the more strident ones.
(^-^)

 

[dbenoy]

Wow, someone give this man a big hug!

 

[dbenoy]

It seems agreeing to the new 'code of conduct' made my comment double-post, so I'll use the edit button to modify this one

I'm glad your opinions can evolve, Jim, it's a sign of character.

Although I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between what's morally unacceptable, and what people find distasteful. Although copyright infringers may be doing something that some of us find sleazy, it's not actually an act that hurts anyone, and copyright enforcement is an act of aggression against peaceful people who simply have different opinions.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Thank God for Jim! Telling it like it is.

You distilled the problem to exactly its bare essence. The question isn't whether not not creators should be compensated for their work.

The question is do we use the scarce resources of our legal system to subsidize the profits of a few publishing companies at the expense of the public domain and freedom of communication?

My answer was always NO.

And piracy is GOOD for indies: example, http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/internet-piracy-is-good-for-films-1 and also http://400lonelythings.blogspot.com/2009/11/flyway-transmission-two-ink.html

 

[dbenoy]

And piracy is GOOD for indies: example, http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/internet-piracy-is-good-for-films-1 and also http://400lonelythings.blogspot.com/2009/11/flyway-transmission-two-ink.html

Yep! There was a claim that copyrights are needed, or else creative works would not exist.

Some people tried making money without copyright and it turns out it actually works.

Not only that, they even made more than they would have expected using a copyright based business model.

The only exception is predatory mega-corporations. They may far less money without copyright.

This is all stuff that has been tried in the real world. The obsolescence of copyright is no longer a theory.