Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

DanDeFool

Elite Member
Aug 19, 2009
1,891
0
41
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
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.

jklinders said:
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.
So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.

NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.

Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.

You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident.



Have your last word.
"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth. That's my entire point! Why can't you... Damn it... I'm getting out before I start swearing and insulting you and end up banned. In fact, that's probably what you're trying to invoke since you can't get the incredibly obvious point I've been making.

However, I will say one more thing. I am no troll, I'm making a legitimate point. "You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident."

I could say the same. Just because you aren't willing to admit that you are wrong and I am right doesn't make me wrong.
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything. A lack of IP leaves anyone with original content naked to exploitation by the likes of Zynga. You know those industry parasites that rob everyone's ideas and copy them without giving any credit.

I don't want to live in a world where creativity is stifled by a lack of reward for hard sweat and work. IP is the only barrier we have to keep ideas flowing as without some mechanism to protect your ideas you are naked to having others steal (copy) your work without putting any effort into it.

It is a very imperfect system. I challenge you to find a better one in this very imperfect world.

I'll be waiting for you to come up with the better way. I don't think I will live to see it though.

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth.
You call it technicalities, I call it the difference between holding a monopoly on a service and having protection for your ideas which are also your livelihood. You are the only one here defining it this way. Maybe you should think about that...

Now I really am done.
jklinders is right, of course. Monopolies can only be had over an entire industry; IP protection hardly applies here.

You could make the argument that Sony consolidating so many IPs under their banner, making it easier for them to subject people interested in those IPs to anti-consumer business practices is similar to monopolizing an industry, but Sony hasn't gone far enough for it to count yet.

Not that it isn't still shitty for the end users, but there's a pretty substantial difference between businesspractices that are stupid and harmful, and those that are actually illegal.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
DanDeFool said:
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
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.

jklinders said:
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.
So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.

NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.

Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.

You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident.



Have your last word.
"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth. That's my entire point! Why can't you... Damn it... I'm getting out before I start swearing and insulting you and end up banned. In fact, that's probably what you're trying to invoke since you can't get the incredibly obvious point I've been making.

However, I will say one more thing. I am no troll, I'm making a legitimate point. "You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident."

I could say the same. Just because you aren't willing to admit that you are wrong and I am right doesn't make me wrong.
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything. A lack of IP leaves anyone with original content naked to exploitation by the likes of Zynga. You know those industry parasites that rob everyone's ideas and copy them without giving any credit.

I don't want to live in a world where creativity is stifled by a lack of reward for hard sweat and work. IP is the only barrier we have to keep ideas flowing as without some mechanism to protect your ideas you are naked to having others steal (copy) your work without putting any effort into it.

It is a very imperfect system. I challenge you to find a better one in this very imperfect world.

I'll be waiting for you to come up with the better way. I don't think I will live to see it though.

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth.
You call it technicalities, I call it the difference between holding a monopoly on a service and having protection for your ideas which are also your livelihood. You are the only one here defining it this way. Maybe you should think about that...

Now I really am done.
jklinders is right, of course. Monopolies can only be had over an entire industry; IP protection hardly applies here.

You could make the argument that Sony consolidating so many IPs under their banner, making it easier for them to subject people interested in those IPs to anti-consumer business practices is similar to monopolizing an industry, but Sony hasn't gone far enough for it to count yet.

Not that it isn't still shitty for the end users, but there's a pretty substantial difference between businesspractices that are stupid and harmful, and those that are actually illegal.
Thank you. I was beginning to think in the fog of cold medication and a nasty head cold I was the one who was deluded.

I've never argued that Sony were not a pack of smashed assholes but we are not compelled to deal with them for our video game entertainment. So they have no monopoly, they just own some desirable IPs. And not even a majority of those.
 

DanDeFool

Elite Member
Aug 19, 2009
1,891
0
41
jklinders said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.
And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.
Restricted travel and lack of reproduction techniques were their own security measures. The Printing press and later digital tech makes your argument such as it is invalid. :p
And there probably were forms of IP protection before 1710. I doubt any renaissance artists could have copied other artists works and claimed they were their own original works without someone eventually doing something about it.

The ease with which different types of creative works can be copied and (more importantly) distributed makes it more important for IP law to be codified and enforced, but I figure the concept of "intellectual property" has been around since ancient times.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
jklinders said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.
And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.
Restricted travel and lack of reproduction techniques were their own security measures. The Printing press and later digital tech makes your argument such as it is invalid. :p
Then their security measures were leakier than a Ubisoft DRM, because they copied each other's shit all the time.

 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.
And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.
Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,526
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Daystar Clarion said:
Hey Jim, have you lost weight? You're looking a lot better man :D

[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.
Nevertheless, it seems to be working. Keep it up :D

Could you have stumbled across a a hidden exercise technique?

Are you motivated by this ancient hymn?

 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.
And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.
Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.
The cost of living and producing things at a scale large enough to meet demand was quite a bit different as well. Please understand that while government allowed monopolies under copyright and patent laws can stop new ideas based on a copyrighted creation from being implemented until the original creation or idea enters into the public domain, the law has very important uses. The drive to create and provide something taking much time, effort and money would be severely crippled without a guarantee that someone else couldn't take your product or idea and sell it as their own. The law's intent was for the benefit of society while maintaining an incentive for people to make new things.

The recent changes in the lifetime of copyright laws do not leave me with a very positive outlook for where copyright law is going though. Especially in cases where the creator is not the possessor of the copyright on their creation.
 

Kyr Knightbane

New member
Jan 3, 2012
427
0
0
The Vita is struggling and Sony should have done more homework and PR to different companies to garner more support IE Capcom for a new Resident Evil perhaps, even maybe a Devil May Cry game, Activision for a LAUNCH Call of Duty, and they should have pulled their shit together and produced a DECENT RPG at launch.
The only RPG that looks good besides Persona 4 (A fucking REMAKE, REALLY?) is Ragnarok Odyssey, and Japan got it long before the US. Which is a massive amount of horseshit. Sony needs to exercise a modicum of accessibility to all and not just Japan, however big their player/consumer base is, they also need to throw the US a few bones every now and then.
The Vita is a good machine, i love mine, it just has bugger all for titles right now. Even the announced titles are somewhat small, i realize its a launch year but still, for a new handheld that's supposed to compete with Nintendo's handheld, they're lagging in support, games and overall customer appreciation. Its just silly how they barely added PSX support. That should have been a major consideration when it was being developed. I just really hope it does better next year and they can get some more 3rd party support. That will help. It wont fix everything, but it should repair some of the larger holes in their sinking ship
 

Nalgas D. Lemur

New member
Nov 20, 2009
1,318
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Are you motivated by this ancient hymn?

Darn you all to heck. Now after hearing that I have to go finish watching the rest of those. I only made it through half of the episodes before I had to give the box set back to my friend, and right now I'm in the middle of trying to fill in the episodes of Doctor Who I missed (which I have clearly failed to do in time for the new ones, but oh well). One of these days I'll get caught up on everything...maybe.
 

Gitty101

New member
Jan 22, 2010
960
0
0
Hmmm, Tomba is out now you say Jim? I think I'm going to have to go and purchase that...

OT: Right as always. Thank God for Jim.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
immortalfrieza said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.
And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.
Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.
-Dragmire- said:
The cost of living and producing things at a scale large enough to meet demand was quite a bit different as well. Please understand that while government allowed monopolies under copyright and patent laws can stop new ideas based on a copyrighted creation from being implemented until the original creation or idea enters into the public domain...
Which is a moot point since many things STILL have not entered the public domain despite it very creator being dead for decades. Copyright and patent extenstions allow the companies to keep a monopoly on their IPs for pretty much as long as their company exists, even if they no longer produce that IP anymore. Something like the PS3 could be legally unproducable by anybody but the holder for potentially decades or centuries. Sony for example still owns the rights to the PS1 system despite the PS1 being made almost 2 decades ago and they have not even produced new games for it for years now.

-Dragmire- said:
The drive to create and provide something taking much time, effort and money would be severely crippled without a guarantee that someone else couldn't take your product or idea and sell it as their own. The law's intent was for the benefit of society while maintaining an incentive for people to make new things.
No, they'd have more incentive than just money to make new things and they'd have a reason to make their product's quality as high as they can possibly get it while also selling it for close to the bare minimum profit for the production costs.
 

drummond13

New member
Apr 28, 2008
459
0
0
So does the fact that he says that Sony deserves Pirates mean he's going to get a warning or suspension from the forum moderators?

Because that's what anyone seems to get whenever they say anything about piracy other than that it is the work of the devil's children.
 

Mr_Terrific

New member
Oct 29, 2011
163
0
0
Entitled said:
Mr_Terrific said:
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.
So a pro piracy site reports on a vague study amongst a bunch of pirates...well, can't even call them that considering how it's legal to download media off the net like games,movies, in Switzerland....and that's your source? No numbers, no info on the alleged group that probably doesn't buy a ton of music/games anyway. Nothing but the word of people that take shit off the internet. Totally believable survey. Thanks Switzerland.

The next link is from a study in Norway that polled 1,900 people out of millions and millions of pirates. At least SOME numbers were given in this round of bullshit. This same article later points to another study from an unlisted number of subjects stating that soon after illegally downloading music, they bought music. What it does not state is if the music being illegally downloaded is the very same music being pirated..for example. You pirate the Beetles and buy the Stones. Someone is still getting screwed. Either way, the study only tells the story pro pirates want heard. This link also hints at another flaw with this survey. Wayyy at the bottom it says that people that are into pirating something they're interested in are more than likely to make a purchase than those that ARE DISINTERESTED in buying anything at all. So basically, these pirates were polled against people that don't buy shit anyway because they're not interested.

The most telling is your third link that clearly states that pirates pirate because things costs too much..particularly the part about video games. Normal people don't pay for things that cost too much but unlike pirates, normal don't take those things anyway. It also told me that Switzerland is the pirating capitol of the world, which makes your first link even more ridiculous.

The notion that pirates buy more things they're interested in than those that are disinterested in the same things tell me nothing. Poll a bunch of dishonest people and expect the truth...sure dude.

I'm sure you have a link in there somewhere that says that waiting for sales on full price items hurts the industry more that just downloading them for free....
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
zelda2fanboy said:
It's pretty bad when Nintendo is more consumer friendly and has more easily accessible content. Nintendo.
LOL, no!

Nintendo ties your games to hardware and they still don't have an account system to manage your purchases. You can now play some of your PS1 classics on your Vita along with your PSP and PS3. How many Wii Virtual Console games can be played on your DS or 3DS?
 

Darknacht

New member
May 13, 2009
849
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.
And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.
Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.
Back then people created new things because very rich people or groups paid them to, they did make them for money. The big difference between then and now is how easy it is to make an exact copy of something.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
Darknacht said:
immortalfrieza said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.
And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.
Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.
Back then people created new things because very rich people or groups paid them to, they did make them for money. The big difference between then and now is how easy it is to make an exact copy of something.
Indeed.

Patrons of the arts are almost impossible to find these days. Artists are supposed to stand on their own merits. Ironically enough it's harder than ever to do that given how easy and portable copying technology has gotten.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Ahh, the Jimquisition: saying what every other gamer on a power trip on the internet is saying.

Couple of things. First, the assumption that piracy is a matter of service over money is a crock of shit, because pirating something is a lot harder than just buying it. Even with DRM/Always-online requirements. Cracks, fake servers, disc image files, emulators, etc. Hell, sometimes you'll spend more time trying to get the game to work than actually playing it.

Second, I feel like there's a massive disconnect between the way some people use their gaming systems and the way I use it. I have a PC and a PS3 to be clear. I don't have a Vita (or any handheld, because if I'm away from my house I'm not interested in playing a video game), but if I did, I very much doubt I would ever feel the need to have a game on both my PS3 and handheld. Even in the most hardcore, gotta-play-a-game-every-waking-moment mind set, I just can't see myself playing a game on one system only to play the same game (but on a completely different save file) on a handheld. Thoughts of "it shouldn't take this long to do x" just doesn't resonate with me because unless it's taking half an hour to boot up, I could give less of a shit. This is taking some time to download? Guess I'll go cook dinner while I wait. I can't help but feel like Jim's playing into Louis C.K's "Everything is amazing and no one's happy" bit.

Finally, sweet idea, Jim. Let's pirate the shit out of more games and put more companies putting out original products out of business because we're busy trying to make a stand on arbitrary shit like whether or not we feel a firmware update is necessary. Or that we have to guess which games work on Vita through the PS3, (because I'm sure everyone has at least 50 games or so saved to their PS3)