Jimquisition: Piracy Episode One - Copyright

[Duskflamer]

To be honest i think the Metal Arms thing is more a case a Abandonware; software that has long since stopped being available to buy... anywhere and whos rights can be seen to have lapsed due to the copywrite holder not using the IP.

A big reason why copyright laws don't really reflect the digital age is that they don't account for this. A given game usually becomes old news nobody cares about within a year. A popular game maybe 5 (till the end of its console), a popular series can stretch longer and certain classics may last for far longer periods of time. But copyright laws are such that even the very first video games ever made are still technically protected under copyright and will be long after people who enjoyed the games as kids have all died.

There is a different form of legal protection (Trademark IIRC) where the rights to it do lapse if the owner doesn't take steps to protect it (meaning if they no longer care about it, people are essentially free to use it), perhaps those laws could be examined for potential use as the basis of new IP protection laws.

 

[Duskflamer]

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.

Wait really? that soon? On one hand, thanks for letting me know to keep an eye out. On the other hand, you've ruined the ability for Steam to be the ones to surprise me with that fact, like they surprised me when Chantelise came out XD

Carpe Fulgur does throw a wrench into what we consider indie though huh? If you go under the thoughts that you're only indie if you self publish, and you're not if you have a publisher...then the 5 people at EGS being published by the 2 guys at CF don't count as indie XD

 

[Caverat]

I disagree with the sentiment that Jim was more than hinting at. Software piracy is not a moral act, a person who engages it isn't some kind of rebel standing up to the evil regime of some hodgepodge Orwellian rip off facsimile.

Also, anyone who is okay with copyright infringement against big time publishers, but in anyway changes their tone when discussing indie developers is a ****. Period. (See what I did there?)

Just because one entity is rich and the other isn't doesn't change the nature of the action, it's the same fucking thing.

I'm not rich, neither were my parents, I just hate the idea that someone can just feel entitled to a product and violate another entities' rights just because they feel that entity has more shit than them.

And no, copyright holders aren't violating the rights of the IP creators, as the creators willingly sold said rights away.

 

[Exile714]

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.

You're not looking at this from a property law standpoint. Every person owns the IP they create, but they sell it to their employer. The fact that they are working under an employment agreement simply changes the timeline of this exchange, not the fact that IP is changing hands. An employee agrees to give their IP to their employer in exchange for a paycheck, but the IP still begins its existence (if only for the briefest of moments) as the property of its creator.

What Jimquisition has wrong is that copyright LAW is not the problem. The problem is that major companies with capital (see, financial resources) are the ones who are funding developers. Major companies are poorly managed on the micro level and often let good IPs go to waste because they don't see the value in micro-profits.

What we need is for corporations to become more willing to relinquish their IP rights when they are no longer utilizing them. The reason they don't is because they count their IP as collateral in order to secure investment. IP is treated like a tangible asset which can be sold to pay off stock holders. Stocks are how corporations acquire the capital needed to do what they do: suck up IP's to make profits off of a few of them.

What we really need to do is not change copyright law, but change corporate governance. We need to change the way companies value unused IPs. If Jimquisition's idea about temporary copyright were adopted, it would have this effect but there are other ways to do this too. But politicians don't care about small, unused IPs because nobody is donating money to their campaigns for that cause.

 

[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.

You're not looking at this from a property law standpoint. Every person owns the IP they create, but they sell it to their employer. The fact that they are working under an employment agreement simply changes the timeline of this exchange, not the fact that IP is changing hands. An employee agrees to give their IP to their employer in exchange for a paycheck, but the IP still begins its existence (if only for the briefest of moments) as the property of its creator.

What Jimquisition has wrong is that copyright LAW is not the problem. The problem is that major companies with capital (see, financial resources) are the ones who are funding developers. Major companies are poorly managed on the micro level and often let good IPs go to waste because they don't see the value in micro-profits.

What we need is for corporations to become more willing to relinquish their IP rights when they are no longer utilizing them. The reason they don't is because they count their IP as collateral in order to secure investment. IP is treated like a tangible asset which can be sold to pay off stock holders. Stocks are how corporations acquire the capital needed to do what they do: suck up IP's to make profits off of a few of them.

What we really need to do is not change copyright law, but change corporate governance. We need to change the way companies value unused IPs. If Jimquisition's idea about temporary copyright were adopted, it would have this effect but there are other ways to do this too. But politicians don't care about small, unused IPs because nobody is donating money to their campaigns for that cause.

Be all that as it may, the simple fact is that this:

"The fact that they are working under an employment agreement simply changes the timeline of this exchange, not the fact that IP is changing hands. An employee agrees to give their IP to their employer in exchange for a paycheck, but the IP still begins its existence (if only for the briefest of moments) as the property of its creator."

is essentially meaningless for all intents and purposes. Whether or not the IP rights belong to the creator for half a second, half an hour or half a week, the fact of that matter is that anyone toiling as an artist/creator/designer for a company is creating these IPs on behalf of that company, whether they want to or not.

It's academic, for our purposes. All I was saying is that creators do not automatically retain rights to any IP they create. If they did, and I wish they did, these huge corporations wouldn't own them and either continue to make money off of them or leave them to rot. I understand that you can draw the technical distinction that the IP changes hands and that's something I never disputed. Perhaps the way I worded it didn't take that into account, but it's a moot point anyway. Regardless of how it's sold- whether it's via sale for money or because of a pre-existing contract that gives a company ownership in return for providing that person with funding, equipment, space, time and a salary, it's a bought and sold commodity.

I agree that corporations need to be more willing to relinquish IP rights, but let's be honest, they won't be, not now and not in the near future. I do disagree that copyright law isn't the problem, because much of it is. I'm not going to go hunting down all the details as to why, but some googling by anyone will probably point to many people that agree with me and many reasons as to why. What can be done and should be done more immediately is that independent creators should hang on to their IPs and not sell out for bucks right away. I know that's easy to say, but not so easily done with a mortgage payment or a student loan payment or any other debt hanging over a person's head, but until creators look at the long term gains rather than short term reward, we'll remain mired in the morass of copyright law and mismanaged and criminally shackled IPs.

 

[ACman]

Cut

I still insist that the internet has demolished the power of the big music companies and is about to do the same for book publishers.

That not to say that they can't still provide a service but now anyone with marketing abilities and/or producing/editing abilities can get in on the game. Music and book publishers used to own the means of supply. Now they don't; the replacement of physical media with digital means that anyone anywhere can get their music to anyone anywhere.

If I make music I don't have to go to EMI or Universal an that is a big thing. These companies used to have an artificial monopoly through the cost of producing/distributing records/CDs and owning/bribing record stations to play them. Now the only important job is marketing.

The same is likely to happen with books now that you can get any book in digital form. Unfortunately this also leads to book piracy. (Check out the torrents for books, a 30Mb torrent can net you an authors entire bibliography.)

The removal of the barriers to entry allows anyone to participate and the advantage of the monopoly of distribution that publishers had before is gone.

 

[VictorKane115]

So, when it comes to piracy, everyone is wrong. The corporations are wrong in some ways due to how they treat copyright properties and their consumers. The pirates are wrong because they're still stealing. And SOPA/PIPA is wrong because censoring the internet to counteract piracy is obviously not the way to go about it. And my entire generation is wrong because we think that robbing someone is somehow OK if he's rich, and rich people somehow owe us stuff anyways. And this comment is wrong because that's the running theme it has going.

 

[JMeganSnow]

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.

I probably shouldn't even reply to the imbecile lack of reading comprehension illustrated in this post, but here goes:

I'm not ordering anyone to do anything. I am stating a moral position, namely, that if you object to someone's behavior, you should not act in a manner that condones it. If you steal a product (and piracy IS stealing, perhaps not in the sense that you're removing someone's possession from them, but that you're making use of it in a manner they did not choose to allow), you are condoning it. You have declared that it is a value to you--perhaps not enough of a value that you're willing to pay for it, but you have now invested time and probably effort in this product.

It doesn't matter whether it affects the publisher directly or not. What matters is that you are being a hypocrite. You are being a dishonest person--primarily dishonest with yourself. It is a moral failing. So you wind up with publishers who view customers as thieves and developers as cash cows to be milked dry. The primary dishonesty of the pirate taints and distorts all the relationships involved.

If you want to be a dishonest creep, go right ahead. I don't give a damn. What disgusts me is people who get all self-righteous and defensive when they're called a dishonest creep, which is what they are.

Of course, dishonest people are just that, dishonest, so it's rather absurd to expect them not to lie to themselves about the true nature of what they're doing.

As for ordering people around: reality is what it is. You can choose either your actions, OR their results, NOT BOTH. If you want the relationships within the gaming industry to improve, you have to start with yourself. I'm not ordering people to fix it, I'm pointing out that if they want to fix it, this is what they have to do. They have to adopt a policy of strict honesty, reality-orientation, and justice, both to others and to themselves.

Are publishers often stupid and malign? Sure. But so are customers and developers. What goes around comes around.

 

[LilithSlave]

imbecile lack of reading comprehension
hypocrite.
You are being a dishonest person
If you want to be a dishonest creep
What disgusts me is people who get all self-righteous and defensive when they're called a dishonest creep, which is what they are.

Now you're just being insulting and giving ad hominem attacks instead of arguing.

 

[spectrenihlus]

Just figured a great way to fix this. Simply have the government implement a $1million dollar tax a year to the ownership of IP's older than 15 years. Publishers would have to pay a $1million tax every year for each IP they own older than 15 years. It would be impossible for every publisher to hold on to every IP they may own and so after a while games like Advent Rising (which was developed by what is now CHair (the guys behind shadow complex and infinity blade) can have a proper ending, and the government gets some more tax revenue.

 

[Cureacao]

-Snip-

Hmm. Now that I've had a good nice opportunity to reflect and think over what you're saying, I see where you're coming from a lot better now. The internet has certainly taken away much of the hold that publishers used to completely dominate. With a lot of hard work, some luck and a lot of smarts anyone can now get ahead to the same place that publishers can get to.

I guess my point is, however, that many people don't have the right amount of marketing smarts and well as distribution smarts. Talking to a few of my friends who are in a band, they hadn't heard of Sound Cloud, Band Camp or Last FM; they only used MySpace for people to listen to their music and currently won't allow downloading of anything (they have some decent demos, not the best but worth giving away for free). They're not a bad band by any stretch as well, I've certainly heard better but compared to the same people in their scene they're pretty decent. These guys need a publisher, they're musicians not marketers; they have no idea how to promote themselves apart from facebook and putting music on MySpace.

I'd say that the above is also correct for a lot of bands still trying to make a name for themselves, although to degrees not nearly as bad as that. Even still most bands don't know how to get gigs from anywhere but their local area or maybe a couple of towns away. Publishers know how to get them gigs from all over the place. Anywhere there's a market for their genre, they can get them there.

As for books, yeah fair point. With kindles and Ipads (or even just Itouches) hard copies are becoming a luxury, which lets every author have their own shot at the industry. I'd say getting published would still help but if you can crack out a killer book, that can spread like wildfire.

 

[Jonluw]

Fuck yes, Glitch in the system.

I loved the demo to that game as a child, but never bought it for some reason. I need to play that game now.

 

[CaptainOctopus]

I agree of what you said Jim and I never pirate games anymore, nor have I done that for the last several years now. I find it that the best way to improve the market is to simply ignore the games & companies that are shit and promote the ones that are great. Granted there are always some games on the market published by assholes like EA & Activision that I find interest in but in those cases I often just wait until they are available for a much cheaper price. For example I will probably not buy Mass effect 3 until its around 10-15$ and does not require Origin for it to run.

By the way I loved how you ended the video . Fuck them indeed, I wouldn't shred a single tear if parasite companies like EA, Nintendo & Activision suddenly went bankrupt or if Sony & Microsoft left the gaming business. Fuck 'em! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk7f_nYKXZE

 

[Klepa]

Escapist forums have always held a disproportionately hostile attitude towards piracy, so I'm glad one of the content creators is finally shedding some light into this.

+1 for Sterling.

 

[mellemhund]

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.

Well if McD serves bad food, you can get a refund. If a game is crap, it's just too bad. So it is only natural to test if the product is actually what is promised. How else would one know what publishers to avoid?

 

[Giandroid]

THANK YOU JIM! Metal Arms is my all time favorite game ever made, and yes, it was destroyed because of copyright.

What's more: I've actually emailed Steve Ranck to tell him my love of Metal Arms. Let me post the actual exchange I had with him. Take a look escapists!

Dear Steve Ranck,

Hello. My name is Giando Sigurani, and I just wanted to tell you that Metal Arms: Glitch in the System was, and remains, my favorite game.

I discovered it when I was in high school. I just couldn't believe that such a high quality game COULD exist. It was so full of heart, the lines of dialog were gut-bustingly funny, the environments were as diverse and expansive as the available weapons, and, of course it was incredibly fun. My favorite thing about it was the final boss; no game I have ever encountered has done a final boss fight so well. It was the only one I've ever played since the old NES days where you can only win after expending all your best weapons, grenades, and healing items, and by the time General Corrosive finally keels over, you've only got an eighth of an inch left on your last health bar and Glitch is smoking like a Cuban cigar czar on his day off.

Now, ten years later, I'm playing games that just don't have nearly the same amount of soul. Every game company seems to be required by law to hold down imaginative people and force them to draw space marines until all their dreams and hopes float out the window. Games like gears of war have the EXACT same environment throughout the whole game, heck, throughout TWO whole games, and they have twice the processing power at their expense! If Metal Arms can take you through a junk yard, military trenches, a desert base, a space ship and a mining town in the space of ten hours, then WHY can't anyone else?

So I just wanted to say: Good job. You've made a game that has a special place in my heart, and always will. I know that the only thing stopping you from making another Metal Arms is that you just don't know who you sold the rights to, be it Blizzard, vivendi, Sierra, or whomever. But it would mean a lot to me to see another installment of such a brilliant franchise in my lifetime. Iron Star still remains one of my favorite game worlds to visit for reliable thrills; I'd like more than anything to do so again!

Sincerely,

Giando


Steve's Reply:

Hi Giando,

Thanks so much for writing. It means a lot to hear how much you enjoy Metal Arms. As a development team, we had a blast working on the game. Hard to believe it?s been nearly 7 years since it hit the shelves and we?re still getting fan mail.

Although Swingin? Ape no longer exists and the team is scattered about, I appreciated your comments so much that I forwarded your email to the senior development staff, all of whom still stay in touch. They wanted me to pass along a heartfelt thanks.

As you mentioned, I tried to acquire the IP several years ago but Vivendi had no interest in selling it. Now that Activision is involved, I just don?t see it ever happening.

Thanks again for writing and for the kudos!

Steve

You heard it straight from his mouth: His own creation was stolen from him.

METAL ARMS: Relevant in all things.

 

[-|-]

You heard it straight from his mouth: His own creation was stolen from him.

Escapist piracy apologist logic:
Copying without permission from the owner, i.e taking something without paying for it - not stealing.
Buying an idea from somebody else, i.e. taking something and paying for it - stealing.

 

[Giandroid]

He wasn't paid for it. You see, with books, which I write, you don't have to give up your IP in order to get your work published. Not so with video game publishers. That's the entry fee. You're actually paying them, and the price is the right to your own idea. You HAVE to give up your idea If you want to get your game published with a big publisher like Vivendi. You don't get the option of publishing it somewhere else later, even if you're unhappy with your publisher. It's no longer "yours."

Maybe it's not stealing legally, but it is ethically questionable.

 

[Giandroid]

And maybe game creators have more options now, but they didn't back in 2004 when Metal Arms came out.