Jimquisition: Piracy Episode One - Copyright

[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.

 

[JMeganSnow]

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".

There is a HUGE difference between saying "don't steal" and "keep buying every shitty product they produce". If you dislike what a publisher is doing, DON'T PLAY THEIR GAMES. Don't pirate them, don't buy them, DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

If you want to support proper relationships, buy proper products. Don't steal improper ones, eschew them altogether.

To use your analogy, what you are saying is that, if McDonalds keeps screwing up your order, you should steal their stuff. No. You should stop eating at McDonalds altogether. Which is what I do. I pay for what I want. I don't do ANYTHING about what I don't want.

 

[vidatu]

In the interest of sharing info:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4&feature=related

 

[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.

It's not a joke dude. Can you understand that? Or are you just trying to get a rise out of me?

No, I wasn't. What else was I supposed to think you were doing?

 

[Cureacao]

If you allow a recording company to produce your album than you're almost definitely in a contract. Record labels aren't stupid, they realise that bands might use them for one album and then drop them and they contract to combat this.

Sounds like a good reason to avoid that contract and find someone who is just going to market you instead of insisting on rights and outmoded methods of distibution. With viral marketing you can get an amazing amount of coverage. All you need to do is chuck you track up on soundcloud and hit the music blogs and reddit\music.

Every label contracts. There are some Christian labels out there that contract with great flexibility, but they still contract. If publishers don't utilise contracts they can get screwed ridiculously easily and waste a lot of time and money on artists who abuse their services. While you can go with just getting marketing experts you're still forced to expend a lot of time and money on all the other things publishers do which I have listed in a previous post (if you can't remember/be bothered looking, it was a lot).

Viral marketing is no walk in the park. To get a decent campaign going you need a lot of time and know-how. Sure you can hit up music blogs and reddit and that might get you a couple of fans, but no one will really care unless you have something amazing. You have to show people why they should care about you and why you're better than the millions of other people doing the exact same thing as you, and that is where this falls short. Publishers have the capability and knowledge to show people why they should care and why you're different.

People who write great books/music will almost always get a publishing deal.

No. People who write commercially viable music and books will always get publishing deals. I can think of quite a few of my favorite authors who spend years getting that first deal. And most of my favorite music wasn't touched by big companies until they had success in the independent field. Now that you aren't reliant on big publishers for distribution all they can really offer is marketing.

Hmm, I see you cut out the end of that sentence. If you look again you'll notice in brackets I put, '(assuming their great works gather them a fanbase)'. I suppose that's not really too important though.

I agree with your first statements here. Artists don't get published if they can't prove they're what people want. Where your argument falls apart is you don't acknowledge how much bigger the publishers make them. Being independent is great and all but one of two thing generally happen: People find that they are no longer amassing new fans, they hit a wall. Or they find that they are only gathering fans at a much decreased rate than before. Everyone that you can reach has been reached and no one else really cares. Most indie people get stuck here, some can pass through it but they are few and far between. Publishers, on the other hand, are constantly researching and evaluating where you're at and seeing how you can gather more support. As in, there are people who make their living charting and graphing artists and discovering where they should be marketed next. Doing this by themselves is damn hard since they lack the expertise of these people (well, probably).

, a solid mixer, about 10 different mics and decent music mixing and mastering programmes

You'd be surprised at what a computer can achieve here.

Depends. If we're talking about one guy making dance music then I probably would be surprised. If we're talking about anything that covers the spectrum from soft rock - metal with some indie thrown in, then I doubt I'd be surprised. The recording quality always suffers when it's not done properly. Mixing is a lot harder than people give credit for, the difference between a professionally mixed/recorded track and a track done by an amateur is staggering.

-snippity-

Hmm, well played sir. I concede on this one, although I must say I don't think going around a publisher is necessarily the best way to go in all cases.

The barriers to entry into the print and music industries have been demolished. Without the need for physical copies and the new ability to market your self to niche websites ( escapist/extra credits is an example of this) big traditional publishers aren't particularly necessary.

You kinda terraformed my argument here. Extra Credits weren't indie in that example, if they were ALL they would have is their own site (which they don't as they put their videos on PAtv) and they would only be advertising on Escapist/PAtv as opposed to uploading their content. Or something like this. I'm actually starting to become confused at my own analogy... My point is, this is still a very viable market for music publishers to still be in (and book publishers if you want to get hard copies out. I'm sure they're good for other stuff but I can't argue that point due to lack of information and you having bested me you cheeky monkey) because of their infallible knowledge in the way the industry works and their supporting and nurturing of bands. Unless they're evil and take everything away from the artists, then they deserve to BURN (metaphorically).

 

[Zom-B]

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.

Without reading 8 pages of content, I don't know if anyone's refuted this, but it's not true.

If you're working for a company like EA or Activision as an employee and create something original, they own it. As their employee, they own whatever you create. Unless you happen to be in a position to sit down and sign a contract with them wherein you retain rights to the properties you create.

Sure, if Mr. Smith creates a game and along comes the devil with a million bucks and he signs on the line, no one should have a problem with whatever the devil does with that IP.

There's also a lot of grey areas in between all the way from being able to own elements of an IP right up to creators literally being swindled out of their intellectual property.

You're statement is disingenuous at best.

 

[menacingfox]

Great episode, now this argument I can get behind, yes support and buy from the Creators who made the material but as for greedy businesses that steal the rights from those creators, F... them.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

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

It kind of seems like copyright law is used less for protecting artist as it's so that big companies can be the only place that gets to make the remake.

If we had the old copyright laws there is nothing that says 28 years later Paramount could not make a remake of it's old film. But because Paramount is so worried that 28 years later Warner Brothers might make the remake of the Paramount film the copyright laws are rigged to give a copyright almost forever.

Instead of the risk of new stuff companies rather just milk the old stuff or let the old stuff sit on a shelf just so no one else can use it. After 28 years if you haven't done something with a book series or movie series then chances are you aren't ever going to do anything with it.

 

[dbenoy]

Instead of the risk of new stuff companies rather just milk the old stuff or let the old stuff sit on a shelf just so no one else can use it.

Right. Copyrights are a 'right of monopoly', meaning it ensures by force of law that a certain person or company is the only one permitted to create a specific product.

It's not unlike any other form of monopoly. By its nature, it removes the incentive to improve and innovate.

This is ironic, because the stated goal of copyright is to encourage the innovation of new artistic works.

 

[dbenoy]

If you're working for a company like EA or Activision as an employee and create something original, they own it. As their employee, they own whatever you create. Unless you happen to be in a position to sit down and sign a contract with them wherein you retain rights to the properties you create.

Yeah, it's a muddy issue. In most cases though, even if you're an employee you sign away your IP claim in writing as part of your employment contract.

It's very unusual for someone to believe that they have copyright on some particular work, only to find by surprise that they're not eligible to the rights to their own work. Almost always the actual creator will automatically be granted copyrights unless they're explicitly signed away.

This is especially interesting in the area of photography. Did you know that if you commission someone to take your picture, the photographer owns the copyrights? You legally can't reproduce the photographs of yourself that you paid someone to take of you, unless you buy the rights from them. This isn't theoretical, either; it's quite common for photographers to have a set price for buying the rights to the photographs you commission.

 

[dbenoy]

There is a HUGE difference between saying "don't steal" and "keep buying every shitty product they produce". If you dislike what a publisher is doing, DON'T PLAY THEIR GAMES.

Seems to me that once you have decided you won't buy the game under any circumstance, it doesn't affect the copyright holder whether you make an unauthorized copy or not.

I suppose you could say, in that situation, downloading their game actually helps them in a small way, so if you're protesting them you shouldn't even do that. So maybe you're right, JMeganSnow.

 

[LilithSlave]

Very well put. It doesn't fall in line completely in line with my views of piracy(because I don't correlate piracy to lost sales, for starters, my main contention is with the idea that piracy reduces sales instead of promotes them).

But this does definitely exemplify why I love buying indie games.

Speaking of indie titles. Fortune Summoners by publisher Carpe Fulgur should be coming out 5 days from now. That would definitely be a good indie game to support! Believe me, they're not a publisher that is hogging a lot of money.

 

[Duskflamer]

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).

I'm sure someone's brought this up by now, but in case they haven't, according to the Steam store, the only games published by Valve were developed by Valve (look up a Valve title, click where it says publisher: Valve, and it lists all the games published by Valve. Find me one game on that list that wasn't also developed by them), and Jim specifically stated that he has no issue with copyright holders who actually made the content.

 

[LilithSlave]

There is a HUGE difference between saying "don't steal" and "keep buying every shitty product they produce". If you dislike what a publisher is doing, DON'T PLAY THEIR GAMES. Don't pirate them, don't buy them, DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

If you want to support proper relationships, buy proper products. Don't steal improper ones, eschew them altogether.

I hate to have to make the obvious statement that piracy is not stealing yet again. But piracy is not stealing.

Furthermore, you're just status-quo mongering and ordering people around. Do you really think that just telling people to stay away from things they're not interested has lots of weight to it? For everyone person ordering people to stay far away from the things they're not interested in, is someone calling someone a closed minded, idiot, retarded fanboy/girl bigot and ordering them to play "good" games they like and stop playing "bad games" they don't like.

Ordering people around isn't an argument. And your argument doesn't hold any more weight than the thousands of gamers ordering people to stop playing jRPGs, stop justifying playing jRPGs, and to play Mass Effect right now or nobody will respond to your posts here without you being insulted. And we will turn the entire community against you.

And you know what? I bet that sounds petty. It's just a forum. It's just someone ordering someone around. They can just ignore them and like what they like, it doesn't hold any weight. But that's exactly what you're doing, about piracy. You're ordering people around and telling them what they can and cannot do as your argument. I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold anymore weight than some jerk out there ordering people to stop playing jRPGs.

If your claim had any weight, people wouldn't even be playing games because they enjoyed them, they'd be playing games because other people ordered them to.

To use your analogy, what you are saying is that, if McDonalds keeps screwing up your order, you should steal their stuff. No. You should stop eating at McDonalds altogether. Which is what I do. I pay for what I want. I don't do ANYTHING about what I don't want.

McDonald's is not digital and cannot be copied. So no, it is not comparable.

It would be comparable if we had a perfect item duplicator. Someone went to McDonald's, bought a cheeseburger. Then went outside, copied it thousands of times, and started passing it out, for free. And piracy is comparable to taking one of those free cheeseburgers offered to you.