Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

[Jimothy Sterling]

Hey Jim, have you lost weight? You're looking a lot better man

[sub]Not a joke, seriously, you look like you've lost a few pounds.[/sub]

Maybe! The exercise bike seen in the "Thank God for Me" episode wasn't just for show. I've been on a "Red Dwarf's worth of pretend-biking per weekday" regimen for a few months.

Thanks for noticing whatever minuscule shred of fatty-fat-fat might have disappeared as a result.

 

[jklinders]

This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.

That's not what "monopoly" means...

Copied from Dictionary.com


mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

4.
something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.

5.
a company or group that has such control.

Which is what I said, maybe not in those exact words but I did say it. So yes, Sony and similar companies are in fact monopolies because nobody else is allowed to produce and distribute any system or game that they created and still possess the rights and patents to.

EH?

It is not having a monopoly to have exclusive rights to sell something you create. The Playstation, Vita, et al are games and systems to which Sony has ownership of. They have competition from Nintendo and Microsoft in the form of the systems and games they have ownership of. Saying that Sony has a Monopoly because only they have the right to sell a Playstation is like saying Ford has a Monopoly because only they can sell a ford model car. It's ludicrous statement. To say something like this is to have no understanding whatsoever of the definition you just quoted.

An example of a monopoly would be like in my area we have only one power utility company. One company provides the power for the entire province. That is a monopoly. They would lose that monopoly if another utility opened up and provided a similar service.

Nintendo and Microsoft provide a similar service with their own technologies therefore Sony as much as I hate those cheeky anti consumer bastards do not have a monopoly.

I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

[Rageout Avoidance Mode Activated]

Ok, I'll try to stay civil and avoid trying to scream at you all caps. In return, can you PLEASE at least try to pay attention to what I'm saying?

Sony has a monopoly because copyright and patent laws mean that unless they premit it (and they don't and probably never will) Sony and only Sony are allowed to produce and sell the PS3, PSVita, any of their other systems, as well as any games exclusive to those systems until their patents and copyrights are no longer valid, which can take years even if they don't renew them.

If other companies besides Sony were allowed to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and the rest then then there would in fact be competition and Sony would NOT have a monopoly, but nobody else is allowed to. Just because companies like Microsoft and Nintendo are also able to produce consoles that are able to play video games DOES NOT mean that Sony does not have a monopoly, because they do not possess the copyrights and patents allowing them to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and so on.

True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.

Don't angry or uppity with me bub, just because you[i/] don't have a clue what you are saying.

It cannot be a monopoly as there are other products and services similar to what they provide out there. There is competition. there is a lot of competition. For your convenience courtesy of Wikipedia.

A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry).[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power, to charge high prices.[3] Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market).[4]

A monopoly is distinguished from a monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service ; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods. Monopolies, monopsonies and oligopolies are all situations such that one or a few of the entities have market power and therefore interact with their customers (monopoly), suppliers (monopsony) and the other companies (oligopoly) in a game theoretic manner ? meaning that expectations about their behavior affects other players' choice of strategy and vice versa. This is to be contrasted with the model of perfect competition in which companies are "price takers" and do not have market power.

When not coerced legally to do otherwise, monopolies typically maximize their profit by producing fewer goods and selling them at higher prices than would be the case for perfect competition. Sometimes governments decide legally that a given company is a monopoly that doesn't serve the best interests of the market and/or consumers. Governments may force such companies to divide into smaller independent corporations as was the case of United States v. AT&T, or alter its behavior as was the case of United States v. Microsoft, to protect consumers.

Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by mergers. A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors by using practices (such as underselling) that derive from its market or political influence. There is often debate of whether market restrictions are in the best long-term interest of present and future consumers.[citation needed]

In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are sometimes used as examples of government granted monopolies, but they rarely provide market power. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.

I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.

I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry maybe because your slavish need for their brand saw nothing past them as alternative. I don't buy their stuff. It's rather easy. therefore there is no monopoly.

Good day sir.

Captcha take umbrage

How ironic

 

[NightHawk21]

snip

I don't think you understand what a monopoly is Immortal. Lets use cars cause you might see why your argument doesn't make sense. Toyota (or any other car company) doesn't have the rights to develop a car and brand it a Ford and sell it as such, they can only make Toyotas. They can make many different kinds of Toyotas but they can never make a Ford. Now just because Toyota cannot make a Ford, and vice-versa, does not mean that Ford has a monopoly. For Ford or Toyota to have a monopoly they would have to be the only country producing cars.

Going back to your definition, and your understanding of monopoly it could be argued that because Sony has a monopoly, being the only one able to produce playstation items, both Microsoft and Nintendo also have monopolies. As you see this doesn't make sense, because you have 3 competitors (something which doesn't exist in a monopoly) each with a monopoly, which goes against the very definition of a monopoly. For sony to have a monopoly they would have to be the only producer of video games and video game consoles on the market; ie. Microsoft, Nintendo, and many other companies could not exist.

I've hope I made myself clear. If I haven't let me know. I've already come up with a much better and simpler explanation using apples

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

 

[5-0]

Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

That was amazing
And since you're here: OMG I LOVE YOUR SHOW AND I'M YOUR BIGGEST FAN. Ahem.

 

[Entitled]

Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

Maybe arguing about the specific term did go too far, but the idea behind it is interesting; that maybe our entire modern system of gaming platforms as "products that competete each other", could be seen as another man's "megacorporations directly owning whole virtual economies", and it's just a series of historical accidents that things ended up like this, instead of every console being a little free market on it's own.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

Especially when history has shown that whenever an entity has a monopoly on anything, it will eventually either be destroyed from within, or by the demand of the people.

I think Jean from LUNAR 2: Eternal Blue said it best before her fight with Lunn: "Power grows when spread amongst the many and perishes when hoarded by a few."

 

[immortalfrieza]

mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.

I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

[Rageout Avoidance Mode Activated]

Ok, I'll try to stay civil and avoid trying to scream at you all caps. In return, can you PLEASE at least try to pay attention to what I'm saying?

I JUST put the meaning of "monopoly" as it applies to markets around the world IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony does not fit into it? Sorry, couldn't resist.

I did pay attention to what you're saying and what jumps out is that you're using "monopoly" wrong.

I get the increasing problem of patents, copyrights, proprietary platforms, exclusivity and ownership deals dragging games down into a never ending maelstrom of legal technicalities. You want to say it's a problem that should be worked on by invalidating all of that so every game maker can start with a clean slate and be able to make whatever games they want, however they want.
But none of that changes the fact that that's not what "monopoly" means. Saying Sony has a monopoly on its own products is a tautology: "We're the only ones who make this product because we're the only ones who make this product".

You can say that ownership of patents, licenses, trademarks, etc. is bad and is the problem with modern business, and I'd be inclined to agree with you to a point, but use the right terms: Sony runs a closed platform on which they enforce too many licensing rules and it's holding back gaming.
Say that and it's your valid opinion.

No, if I say patents and so on are bad would be my opinion (and I do) but saying that they have a monopoly on producing and selling the PS3 (for instance) because of those things is an factual statement.

Say 'Sony has a monopoly" and it's just factually wrong and people will try to correct you.

I don't know why they would try to correct me for saying that, because that is in fact correct. The only reason anyone would try to correct me is because they fail to read what I actually wrote and think that I meant that Sony has a monopoly on the gaming industry itself, which for the tenth time was NEVER MY ARGUMENT!!!

Sony has a monopoly upon their product, nobody aside from them can make a PS3 in any form (even if the knockoffs don't actually play PS3 games) legally, that makes it a monopoly. Copyright and patent law supporting it doesn't matter, it wouldn't matter if they weren't abusing their licensing rights or anything, under the actual definition of a monopoly it is in fact a monopoly.

For an analogy, hypothetically, say for instance there are only 2 snack companies in existance, Doritos chips and Pop Secret Popcorn, and lets say each owns the patent to chips and popcorn respectively. As a result, nobody but them can make any sort of chips or popcorn EVER legally until the respective patents expire. This would mean that no company could ever be made that would have either chips or popcorn, they'd have to make an entirely new product that was different from either. Lays or any other chip wouldn't be able to exist, because it's a chip and Doritos' patent means they can't be made, same for any popcorn company. Sure, neither company would have a monopoly on the snack industry itself, but if the customers want chips or popcorn they have no choice but to pay whatever amount of money Doritos and Pop Secret want them to, and for whatever quality that those companies decide to provide, they have no other choice, since nobody else is allowed to make chips or popcorn to compete with them. It's the same situation with the PS3 and it's exclusive games that Sony still has the copyright and patents to, which they probably always will since Sony will probably keep renewing those copyrights and patents even if they never use them again, just for the sake of keeping their monopoly.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

It upsets me that a company that once ruled the market now makes such childish mistakes.And for no good reason they have proven that they can do it right .PS+ is a good service that gives a reason to give them money, yet they still get it wrong with a new product.

I really like your avatar.
Just wanted to say that.
On topic.
Meh, don't have a Vita, still enjoying my PS2 way to much to care.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

Yeah, nothing but scrabbling around...

 

[-|-]

I don't know why they would try to correct me for saying that, because that is in fact correct.

Not it isn't. You might define monopoly that way, but it is meaningless to do so. No reasonable person thinks that sony has a monopoly cos microsoft and nintendo.

By your ridiculous definition literally everything is a monopoly apart from the most generic of products.

 

[Duol]

Snip

What you are describing is not a monopoly according to economics. Simply because you are the only one who can produce something does not mean you have a 'monopoly' over something. Your' dictionary definition may make it seem that way, but open an econ textbook and simply by the quantity of information on a monopoly it will become quite obvious that a dictionary definition is not sufficient to determine what a monopoly actually is.

While you may say that you are not talking about 'the gaming market' that is the only context in which to talk about monopolies and dominant positions etc. If you're not talking about that then you're not talking about monopolies.

 

[Mr_Terrific]

Didn't watch the whole thing due to all the usual Sony bitching but, are we encouraging piracy now? It's all good as long as it's not the Humble Indie bundle, right?

Wouldn't it do more good to encourage your your viewers to simply sell off their Vitas or not buy one to begin with, instead of adding yet another excuse to the seemingly endless list of reasons why pirates don't pay for things?

 

[Entitled]

Didn't watch the whole thing due to all the usual Sony bitching but, are we encouraging piracy now? It's all good as long as it's not the Humble Indie bundle, right?

Wouldn't it do more good to encourage your your viewers to simply sell off their Vitas or not buy one to begin with, instead of adding yet another excuse to the seemingly endless list of reasons why pirates don't pay for things?

Correction. Pirates pay for things.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/05/file-sharers-are-content-industrys-largest-customers/

For more things than most other people. They just do it when and how they want to.

'Cause a pirate is free.

 

[immortalfrieza]

snip

I don't think you understand what a monopoly is Immortal. Lets use cars cause you might see why your argument doesn't make sense. Toyota (or any other car company) doesn't have the rights to develop a car and brand it a Ford and sell it as such, they can only make Toyotas. They can make many different kinds of Toyotas but they can never make a Ford. Now just because Toyota cannot make a Ford, and vice-versa, does not mean that Ford has a monopoly. For Ford or Toyota to have a monopoly they would have to be the only country producing cars.

No, they don't have a monopoly because both companies can produce trucks for instance, they just can't sell trucks under each other's brand names (brand names are themselves technically monopolies, but small, barely noticable ones). Both companies are able to produce the trucks with their own personal tweeks and sell them for whatever price and at whatever quality they wish, but since both companies can and do sell the same exact product they do not have a monopoly on said product. Now, if Toyota had a patent on trucks and Ford had a patent on SUVs, with which each could only make and sell trucks and SUVs respectively, THEN each would have a monopoly, not on the car industry itself, but on a particular type of vehicle.

Going back to your definition, and your understanding of monopoly it could be argued that because Sony has a monopoly, being the only one able to produce playstation items, both Microsoft and Nintendo also have monopolies. As you see this doesn't make sense, because you have 3 competitors (something which doesn't exist in a monopoly) each with a monopoly, which goes against the very definition of a monopoly. For sony to have a monopoly they would have to be the only producer of video games and video game consoles on the market; ie. Microsoft, Nintendo, and many other companies could not exist.

No, in fact, I have never said that in this entire 3 page long discussion. I said Sony has a monopoly on the PS3, PS Vita and any games that were exclusively produced for it, and if customers want said products they would have no choice but to pay whatever price Sony wants them to and deal with the shoddiness of the products and there's nothing they can do about it. It's not like there's another company out there for consumers to buy from that is legally producing and selling PS3s for cheaper and functioning better, they can't because patent and copyright laws would have them arrested if they tried, THAT is a monopoly. I NEVER said that Sony had a monopoly over the gaming industry itself, just on their products.

 

[Raioken18]

Yeah... I'm a PC gamer...

There are a lot of problems with PC gaming that are along similar lines to Sony's current problems.

But compare Sony to a digital distribution company, Steam. Now steam is considered by many to be an absolute bastard due to the strict user only purchases is doing things in a way that while considered a bit unethical, are a great way to defer pirates.

You get occasional sales, easy access to old games, tons of indie games, easy access to new games and minimal updates. It's like once every month or so, and everything is managed for you!

It allows you to easily back up games and install them on other computers, but the system is set up that it discourages you from even sharing games with friends, and nobody cares because it's cheap and convenient.

They don't need to beat physical sales by much and the lower cost of digital distribution allows them to easily cover it.

But the best thing, you can get any game you want in minutes, and they have an insanely bad way of going about it but are also popular as hell. Sony... you could learn a thing or two from Steam.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I don't know why they would try to correct me for saying that, because that is in fact correct.

Not it isn't. You might define monopoly that way, but it is meaningless to do so. No reasonable person thinks that sony has a monopoly cos microsoft and nintendo.

By your ridiculous definition literally everything is a monopoly apart from the most generic of products.

Again, yet another person confusing what I said to mean Sony has a monopoly on the entire gaming industy when I said nothing of the sort.

PLEASE everybody, actually read and understand what I wrote before coming up with an argument against what I wrote, since apparently a ridiculous number of people continue to argue against a point I NEVER ACTUALLY MADE!!!

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

I have the Tomba music stuck in my head now. Thank you Jim

Shame for the Vita as it does look like a very good handheld device. It saddens me how Sony of this generation has treated it's customers, little things that should be easy to do take forever to be updated. We didn't get a multiple delete file option on the PS3 for six years for god's sake. Do you know how many Pro Evolution Soccer option files I had to manual delete before that firmware update sony? Each took some 40 minutes to delete, it would have been faster to just reset the entire ps3.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Before I saw this video
"I wish I had some games for my vita"

After video
"They added ps1 games? Hey Grandia and rayman 1 and 2 are here!"

Thank god for Jim. If he didn't complain, the $20 I put on psn to get Dawnguard might never have been used

 

[immortalfrieza]

I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.

Nope, there are no alternatives, (legal ones anyway) that was my entire point from the beginning. If I want a any system or game that Sony has the exculsive copyrights to, I must get it through Sony's distribution channels, pirate it or get an illegal knockoff, or not get it at all, there are no other companies that can produce and distribute that same game or system legally, which is what makes it a monopoly. In fact, the entire point of this Jimquistion episode is the fact that pirates provide a better, hassle free, and much more wallet friendly service for the PS1 classics than Sony itself does.

I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry...

I'll just stop you right there, because nothing I've ever wrote in this thread ever stated the above, I never even implied that, which if people that are quoting me actually read what I wrote instead of just reading a couple sentences out of context and then prematurely started complaining about them they'd know.