On the morality of copyright.

[incal11]

the existence of piracy supports this idea - given that people torrent a game to be able to play said game, rather than own it, the box, the manual, etc. It is the *idea* they find valuable, not the *ownership*. Ergo, the ideas require equal (if not more) protection than the tangible commodity.

I understand the logic, but because an idea is valuable does not mean it's access needs to be restricted. By "protecting" it, from what is wrongly perceived as an absolute loss of potential, you hinder it's spreading, and by consequence it's increase in value.

...someone else being able to experience said game (assuming it is good) will gain respect for the publisher/studio and be more likely to buy a new game from them in the future. This over-aggressive system restricts reasonable access, and seems to be based around the assumption that the games produced are *bad*, rather than good.

Exactly, and that assumption is made by the heads of industry who have no understanding or respect for what their own biseness is about.
An amusing idea would be to have some of them take a year off just to play games, in hope it would make them into hardcore gamers.

I'd be fascinated to hear your ideas about a sensible/potential middle-ground.

First I'd like copy protection, DRMs and EULAs (save for "you can't reuse any part of this without crediting the original authors") to be taken away completely. Though this is hardly what you'd call a middle ground, and institutions are now so dependant on copyrights I don't see how this could happen either.
Second, reducing the length of copyright, at least let's not extend it beyond the death of the author or a few years.

"Piracy" is very widespread,and I think this should be taken advantage of, not fought. Many who put online a torrent go on to say "go pay for the game/movie/etc , it's worth it", this should not be ignored. Even if people don't donate much and often, there are so many who download that it is bound to add up. I don't see how it could not anyway.
Well, about this I had an idea going around in my head, for what it's worth...
There should be site (or several, but one could work better, we could call it "ThePiratePay") whose goal is to allow everyone to donate easily to their favorite artists, devs, and even publishers whatever amount of money they think their work is worth.
Granted many already have their own paypal accounts, but not all of them do, and tracking down the ones you think deserve a reward for their talent can be complicated especially for older games, books, and more obscure pieces. Putting them together should be a common effort. Roughly, every person or entity would have a page listing what they created or helped to create, with a convenient way to donate to them. Pages would be linked, artists pages to publisher pages, and so on.
It could work in partnership with torrent sites, which could put a link to the relevant pages of the donation site on the same pages that let you download the torrent clients.
The point is, it could work in parallel to the current system. Potential consumers would still be encouraged to use the "conventional" channels, but at least they'd have more liberty when it come to culture and ideas, which can only be a good thing for everyone in the long term.

In short: a compromise could be a sort of common paypal/wiki linked with torrent sites.

 

[incal11]

As for the legal issue, then laws are there to be kept, although be balance of consumer rights and practical everyday internet use vs. industry rights is usually skewered heavily in favour of latter, giving the law a decided sheen of unfairness, and making it hard for it to gain acceptance among the wider population. Doesn't change the fact that it must be followed when legitimately passed though.

Agenda motivated lobbying is not what you could call "legitimate".

in the case of most media and entertainment, they are simply reflecting the opinions and interests of their audiences. Game designers do not and cannot create demand. They do not force people to desire "shininess." But over time they have discovered that an awful lot of people are willing to pay for shiny distractions. Perhaps they exploit that willingness a little bit more than should. But I also think a lot of people could stand to be a lot less careless with their hard-earned cash.

Indeed, but even though a public more knowledgable about quality would be a good thing it wouldn't help shorten copyrights.

Despite what I've been raised to think? I rage against the Man just as much as anyone!

Sorry, I said "probably", it was only about the impression you gave me, not you personally.

who else is there in this world aside from people? Who is going to write our laws who is less fallible than us? If we are to live together peacefully, we need to agree on a set of rules to abide by.

Something to take in consideration. Still, if there are cases against the law in place it should be everyone's right to rage about it, and the governments duty to listen and think about the arguments before taking action.

people cannot do the work that is required to make a modern big title game unless they get something in return for it, and it is probably a good idea to have some rules protecting their ability do so.

I never questioned that, I only question the methods and nature of these rules, as we have established in this thread that they do more harm than good.

...People love the game, and tons of them play and enjoy it, but instead of paying the price you've set they steal it and claim that they have a 'right' to it, even though they didn't help you develop it

Here you go again. I have developped this issue with others, the loss of a potential sell for a particular work is not absolute, and if it's good then it spread wide, which means more people will be willing to reward you for your talent.

Illegal file downloads today do not seriously impact profit (at least not to the degree big game publishers claim). That's because most people who illegally download a game would never buy it if they had to pay for it. But if people who would have paid for the game don't, where is the profit supposed to come from? I think pay-what-you-want is a really cool method of marketing and selling a game, but it is far from a tried and true earner. And would you be willing to stake your livelihood on the generosity of others?

Since the dawn of times entertainers depended exclusively on the generosity of others, and they still do today, for better or for worse thanks to the torrents. This method has already been tried and proven true, it's intimidating because it's different from the modern way, but this is sort of a return to how it used to go in the past.

If you make a cheese sandwich, am I entitled to pick it up off your plate and eat half of it? What if I do that every single time you make yourself food? Do I have a 'right' to have food prepared for me by you?

Examples involving anything material have been proven irrelevant time and time again. since works of art can be numerised they are basically reduced to mere ideas, a new concept that you'll have to wrap your head around. The material form of the works should always be paid for one way or the other, I never questioned that either.

But the critical difference between the idea in Zeitgeist and what you advocate is that the artist has a right to decide for themselves how their art is to be shared.

Irrelevant material argument nonwithstanding you raise the points of the artist's right to control what they make. Or rather, to control where their ideas go.
I have to admit I am split on this issue, I don't understand why an artists would want to slow the spreading of his own fame, but I admit it's only fair to pay for a recent creation.

Digital media are unique in that there is no cost for creating virtually infinite numbers of copies. It would actually be feasible to make a copy of digital art for everyone in the entire world (assuming it was transmitted via internet). But does that indicate an OBLIGATION to do so? And just because it is easy to illegally download games and hard to prevent it does not mean there is nothing wrong with doing so. It is easy to kill people and get away with it in Columbia, but it's still wrong.

Again, irrelevant material arguments nonwithstanding, they are not "obliged" to share, I wouldn't "force" them to. It remains that they have no choice, when something is basically reduced to an idea it will fly away literally on it's own, wanting to control that absolutely is absurd.

You should quit your job and work 8 or more hours a day unpaid for a year or more to produce something, and then give it away for free to everyone who asks

They don't "ask" they just take, and what you say only apply to indie devs whom I respect very much. My point there is that most devs and artists are already paid by their publishers, who then proceed to keep an iron grip on the idea for literally more than a century, which we agree is absurd.

I think you overestimate the importance of big title games in society.

I don't care much about crappy AAA titles but even they have their importance, what you do underestimate is the value of genuinely original and creative works, this is where copyrights are the most harmfull.
Humanity's intellectual development is not to be underestimated, and it rests on many things, including those you don't care or value much yourself. It's more ethereal than other more direct and pressing issues, but it's no less important.

 

[Gigano]

As for the legal issue, then laws are there to be kept, although be balance of consumer rights and practical everyday internet use vs. industry rights is usually skewered heavily in favour of latter, giving the law a decided sheen of unfairness, and making it hard for it to gain acceptance among the wider population. Doesn't change the fact that it must be followed when legitimately passed though.

Agenda motivated lobbying is not what you could call "legitimate".
...

No, but democratically elected politicians choosing to follow them is. A people has the politicians it deserve, and if they're mindless drones to lobbying then vote for someone else or found a party or NGO to present your side of things (Sweden's got a "Pirate Party"). If you think they're violating some human right bring it to the courts. Otherwise the societal contract is that within the limits of constitution and international law the majorities among democratically elected politicians get to pass the laws they feel for. As Churchill said, it's the worst system in the world except for all the others.

 

[incal11]

Okay...

Enjoy Mickey Mouse pissing on the truck logo then.

Mickey is in the public domain now, didn't you know that ?

A people has the politicians it deserve, and if they're mindless drones to lobbying then vote for someone else or found a party or NGO to present your side of things (Sweden's got a "Pirate Party"). If you think they're violating some human right bring it to the courts. Otherwise the societal contract is that within the limits of constitution and international law the majorities among democratically elected politicians get to pass the laws they feel for. As Churchill said, it's the worst system in the world except for all the others.

That's a part of the "social contract" that ough to change. As in if a politician is being a dumb shit and reveal his real agenda only just after being elected what he decide is worthless if it does not reflect his electors' opinions.
Also, if the majority isn't aware that restrictive copyright is detrimental for them, pirate parties are there to make them realise. In effect that's what I'm doing here.

 

[QuantumT]

Okay...

Enjoy Mickey Mouse pissing on the truck logo then.

Mickey is in the public domain now, didn't you know that ?

According to the provisions of the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act"]Copyright Term Extension Act[/a], Mickey Mouse won't enter the public domain until at least 2023. Be sure to check your facts next time.

That's a part of the "social contract" that [ought] to change. As in if a politician is being a dumb shit and reveal his real agenda only just after being elected what he decide is worthless if it does not reflect his electors' opinions.
Also, if the majority isn't aware that restrictive copyright is detrimental for them, pirate parties are there to make them realise. In effect that's what I'm doing here.

I agree that there is generally a lack of accountability for politicians, however this is as much the populace's fault as anyone else's. Until you decrease voter's general apathy, you probably won't have a decrease in this behavior.

Additionally, plenty of congressman are elected to multiple terms (in fact I think most of them are), so while they could be surprising you with their agenda the first term, you should know what their agenda is come reelection time, and if you vote for them again, you're (generally, sometimes you don't really have a choice) showing your acceptance of that agenda implicitly.

Edit: I checked, and at least in the House of Representatives, 373 of 435 congressman have been reelected to that spot. So the overwhelming majority have been there before and so shouldn't really be able to 'surprise' you that much.

 

[likalaruku]

I think patents are facist.

 

[HT_Black]

Hi! Welcome to capitalism! If you want it, whatever it is, you pay for it, and nobody cares what you have to say about it! If you don't like that, start a revolution! If you can't do that, just move to China! Intellectual property laws don't exist there!

Ba-bye now!

 

[incal11]

Hi! Welcome to capitalism! If you want it, whatever it is, you pay for it, and nobody cares what you have to say about it! If you don't like that, start a revolution!

Hi, welcome to free thinking, where that kind of cynical and cowardly opinion isn't worth shit.
I know you'll probably laugh at this, but given the means a "revolution" is what I might do.

According to the provisions of the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act"]Copyright Term Extension Act[/a], Mickey Mouse won't enter the public domain until at least 2023. Be sure to check your facts next time.

I though someone said he was already in the public domain in this thread, anyway I wasn't being serious. Don't you tire of copyright extensions btw ?

I agree that there is generally a lack of accountability for politicians, however this is as much the populace's fault as anyone else's. Until you decrease voter's general apathy, you probably won't have a decrease in this behavior.

but how can I fight this apathy without defending my opinion ?
I don't have the means to be a politician, but I'll take responsibility for my words, this is the best I can do for now.

I think patents are facist.

This thread is more about copyrights, but yes patents are unfair too. could you develop your opinion?

 

[Gigano]

...

A people has the politicians it deserve, and if they're mindless drones to lobbying then vote for someone else or found a party or NGO to present your side of things (Sweden's got a "Pirate Party"). If you think they're violating some human right bring it to the courts. Otherwise the societal contract is that within the limits of constitution and international law the majorities among democratically elected politicians get to pass the laws they feel for. As Churchill said, it's the worst system in the world except for all the others.

That's a part of the "social contract" that ough to change. As in if a politician is being a dumb shit and reveal his real agenda only just after being elected what he decide is worthless if it does not reflect his electors' opinions.
Also, if the majority isn't aware that restrictive copyright is detrimental for them, pirate parties are there to make them realise. In effect that's what I'm doing here.

I don't think anyone ever ran on an agende to make file sharing less restrictive, so there's little for them to double back on.

It's certainly a problem that most people do not realize how restrictive current copyright laws are (outlawing streaming of fanmade youtube videos using copyrighted material etc.), and a better balance need to be struck between consumer and industry rights. They would still need to ensure that artist and producers get paid the reasonable rate of return on the free markets they release on in the end for their work though, so I'm against an abolishment of them.

 

[NotSoNimble]

The real purpose of copyright laws is not to deny consumers access to products, it's to ensure that the producers and artists behind them get paid. This would also be the core of the ethical question as far as I'm concerned, giving due reward for good work.

Whenever a possibility exist/arise for paying for something in a form where it is useful to you, piracy is/becomes unethical. If however you live in China and pirate an independent underground French movie which is not and never will be sold in Asia (unless the pirated copies becomes popular enough that a profitable demand arise...), then I find it hard to get worked up over that ethically, even if it was illegal under Chinese copyright law (which are - at least in enforcement - exceedingly lax, creating a separate "unfair competition" problem).

As for the legal issue, then laws are there to be kept, although be balance of consumer rights and practical everyday internet use vs. industry rights is usually skewered heavily in favour of latter, giving the law a decided sheen of unfairness, and making it hard for it to gain acceptance among the wider population. Doesn't change the fact that it must be followed when legitimately passed though.

...

You claim you can't buy old games?

Name the game, I will give you a link since you are lazy.

Fate/stay Night [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_stay_night].

Since it's apparently so easy for you to acquire any old game, I'd be most thankful for a link to a legal copy of the original PC game. In English and shipping to the EU, mind you.

Good luck!

Checking the games official website helps. Time spent to find your old game: less than 5 minutes : P

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.typemoon.com/&ei=wbG1TKj4FMjPnAeW_txq&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q7gEwAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtype-moon%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DfIh%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26prmd%3Div

Under Downloads, you can even get a trial version.

It says it's adult only, but this isn't hentai, right? You need to be 18 to play this anyway.

The game was never released outside of Japan. This is the game, no English version was ever legally available for you to play.

 

[illas]

An amusing idea would be to have some of them take a year off just to play games, in hope it would make them into hardcore gamers.

In short: a compromise could be a sort of common paypal/wiki linked with torrent sites.

I can support both of these notions. Forcing EAs board of directors to complete all the average games that they produce sounds excellent.

As for a "pay what you want" scheme, I remember it working very well with the Radiohead album "In Rainbows", so I'd agree with you on that, too. However, I fear that such a system would only be accepted by the good studios; since the average studios would want their fixed fee. For example, many of the current "triple A" releases are based around extremely short, high-production value games. These impress the customer in trailers/demos; cause the customer to buy said game; then after 6 hours, wonder why they spent £30 on it.

 

[WolfEdge]

Mickey is in the public domain now, didn't you know that ?

Actually, he isn't.

Disney fought tooth and nail to extend the copywrite for Mickey for another seventyfive years. They fought, and they won. And I thank you for trying to sidestep the implications of my argument with such cheap tactics.

Let me posit to you a question, since you seem so hard up on the evils of copywrite... actually, let me ask you two questions.

Say we're flung far into the future, and Nintendo, still kicking, is on the verge of losing their copywrite to Mario. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Mario is still a flagship character and the biggest mascot of the company.

Why is it a good thing, for Nintendo or indeed, Mario himself, for that copywrite to go public?

We're talking about a character that, whether Nintendo likes it or not, represents the company to a large and unnavoidable degree. They're very defensive of him for this reason. Suddenly, any jackass can attribute to the myhtology of Mario as canon, be it good or ill, and have it negatively affect Nintendo by association. This is why It's illegal to use the word "Pepsi" without consent in a work, because now they are, as a company, associated WITH the work.

Secondly, since you seem to hate copywrite in general as a tool of, I don't know... "The Man" or whatever, I'm going to turn the tables a bit.

I'm an artist. I create the next Bone, or Harry Potter, Last Airbender, or (God help me) Minecraft, as a solitary project. I'm not bound to a syndicate or corporation, I'm completely by myself.

The copywrite is litterally the one. Single. SOLITARY defense I have against a big name company stealing it from me, and claiming preamacy over the work. They have the budget, the talent and the BUDGET to completely saturate the market and remove my singular self from existence.

Bottom line: Intellectual Property is PROPERTY. It's the only thing an artist has conceptually, because everything else is the same. The only difference between your ink and paper and mine is the idea it conveys. Without the Idea, the one I've spent a life time crafting and perfecting, I have nothing.

But, you know, whatever. Don't mind me.

 

[HT_Black]

Hi! Welcome to capitalism! If you want it, whatever it is, you pay for it, and nobody cares what you have to say about it! If you don't like that, start a revolution!

Hi, welcome to free thinking, where that kind of cynical and cowardly opinion isn't worth shit.
I know you'll probably laugh at this, but given the means a "revolution" is what I might do.

By all means, go ahead. I'd start one too in the right circumstances, but not over copyright laws. You see, copyright laws are what keeps IP creators--like me--in business. Get your head out of your arse buddy; this is the Western world, and it's the way it is.

 

[NotSoNimble]

The real purpose of copyright laws is not to deny consumers access to products, it's to ensure that the producers and artists behind them get paid. This would also be the core of the ethical question as far as I'm concerned, giving due reward for good work.

Whenever a possibility exist/arise for paying for something in a form where it is useful to you, piracy is/becomes unethical. If however you live in China and pirate an independent underground French movie which is not and never will be sold in Asia (unless the pirated copies becomes popular enough that a profitable demand arise...), then I find it hard to get worked up over that ethically, even if it was illegal under Chinese copyright law (which are - at least in enforcement - exceedingly lax, creating a separate "unfair competition" problem).

As for the legal issue, then laws are there to be kept, although be balance of consumer rights and practical everyday internet use vs. industry rights is usually skewered heavily in favour of latter, giving the law a decided sheen of unfairness, and making it hard for it to gain acceptance among the wider population. Doesn't change the fact that it must be followed when legitimately passed though.

...

You claim you can't buy old games?

Name the game, I will give you a link since you are lazy.

Fate/stay Night [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_stay_night].

Since it's apparently so easy for you to acquire any old game, I'd be most thankful for a link to a legal copy of the original PC game. In English and shipping to the EU, mind you.

Good luck!

Sorry double post, I added a little more info at the end.

Checking the games official website helps. Time spent to find your old game: less than 5 minutes : P

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.typemoon.com/&ei=wbG1TKj4FMjPnAeW_txq&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q7gEwAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtype-moon%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DfIh%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26prmd%3Div

Under Downloads, you can even get a trial version.

It says it's adult only, but this isn't hentai, right? You need to be 18 to play this anyway.

The game was never released outside of Japan. This is the game, no English version was ever legally available for you to play.

You can use Google to get an English Translation patch.

You're Welcome

 

[incal11]

You see, copyright laws are what keeps IP creators--like me--in business. Get your head out of your arse buddy; this is the Western world, and it's the way it is.

I had a feeling you'd answer this. The world changes continually, it won't stay the way it is forever. So whatever I could do to make the future a bit better is worth a try. the thing is if your IPs are average shit I undestand that you don't want fixed prices to go. If you just found this insulting, time for you to get your head out of your ass and start making things that would make me want to pay you.
If you cared to read the arguments in my original post (and your IPs are any good) you'd rethink your position. I do not argue for copyrights to be entirely taken away, as I know it would be night impossible, but merely reduced to something more reasonable than your death + 50 years. What do you think would be a better length for copyrights ?

Disney fought tooth and nail to extend the copywrite for Mickey for another seventyfive years. They fought, and they won.

I didn't check the fact because I did not take your post seriously, you can admit you gave me no reason to. Snarky comments don't make you right, and I'm not surprised that mickey's copyright was extended.

We're talking about a character that, whether Nintendo likes it or not, represents the company to a large and unnavoidable degree. They're very defensive of him for this reason. Suddenly, any jackass can attribute to the myhtology of Mario as canon, be it good or ill, and have it negatively affect Nintendo by association. This is why It's illegal to use the word "Pepsi" without consent in a work, because now they are, as a company, associated WITH the work.

They can still claim "their" mario is the only real one, hordes of 6th generation fanboys will be willing to back them up. In any case, a mention like "original product" can always help.

The copywrite is litterally the one. Single. SOLITARY defense I have against a big name company stealing it from me, and claiming preamacy over the work. They have the budget, the talent and the BUDGET to completely saturate the market and remove my singular self from existence...

There you just mix it up with intellectual property (and then bring what I'm going to call the "oh, my hard work!" fallacy), go read my original post, please.

But, you know, whatever. Don't mind me.

No, don't worry, if after carefully reading my OP, with it's updates and links, you still have objection to my argument i'd be pleased if you would share your thoughs with me again.

As for a "pay what you want" scheme, I remember it working very well with the Radiohead album "In Rainbows", so I'd agree with you on that, too. However, I fear that such a system would only be accepted by the good studios; since the average studios would want their fixed fee. For example, many of the current "triple A" releases are based around extremely short, high-production value games. These impress the customer in trailers/demos; cause the customer to buy said game; then after 6 hours, wonder why they spent £30 on it.

That would be the advantage of a parallel system, since piracy will always be there it would be just as well to take advantage it. While the curent system can keep working as it does today, minus the useless and costly crackdowns on downloaders.
The pigeons stay free to be plucked, I don't like it but hey, it's a compromise.

 

[illas]

That would be the advantage of a parallel system, since piracy will always be there it would be just as well to take advantage it. While the curent system can keep working as it does today, minus the useless and costly crackdowns on downloaders.
The pigeons stay free to be plucked, I don't like it but hey, it's a compromise.

I support this as a sensible compromise: particularly since I'd imagine that a lot of people pirate stuff not because they don't want to *spend* money on it, but because they don't want to *waste* money on it. Experiencing the media and then paying for it seems an excellent solution to that side of the problem.

Furthermore, there will always be pirates who don't even consider paying, but then there are also people who steal material copies of games from stores, too; so the problem is not exclusively internet-related in that regard.

 

[Kagim]

I told you why you're wrong then repeated the arguments you keep ignoring. If you weren't ignoring them I wouldn't be repeating myself. I realise you may (wrongly) feel the same about me. I just didn't find the words that would suit you, plus you made me loose my cool, which I agree is bad.

1. Ignoring to you means make a counter point. I'll keep that in mind.

2. Your decision in that I am wrong is merely that i disagree with you.

3. I like how the idea you might be wrong is so foreign to you despite the fact your information and research only comes from biased sources, and no actual experiences ever.

Now that's "glazing over" an argument. You may never have the stomach to go on a picket line yourself, but other people will, no matter what you think of them. As for the effect of said picket lines, it can't be predicted, but I guess making more people aware of a problem, even briefly, is a good step.

1. Not glazing as i had already explained why i didn't think people would do shit about it in my last post.

2. I also explained further in my following remark.

3. People are aware, they have been aware since they started complaining about this ten years ago. This little argument isn't new by the way.

It is you who brought up that subject, on the ground that some of my arguments wouldn't stand on the face of governments taking serious action against file sharing. Now you say yourself it won't happen ? Well, let's hope it won't.

1. You mean when i was making a joke with the other dude?

2. The government, once again, views this mess as a waste of god damn money. Tax dollars disappear with these stupid frivolous cases.

3. If anything, they will make a move that will punish both sides that insist on squabbling.

I understand your situation better than you would like, but your biseness is about material stuff, with unitary values. I'm talking about pure ideas that indeed you can package and sell in your store, but otherwise can and should be shared more freely when they are not in their packages.

1. You understand MY situation better then I would like? So your stalking me? Or are you saying you KNOW me.

2. Your not talking about pure ideas, your talking about ideas that have been set in motion and turned into physical things.

3. Once more kids. "It's easy to share what you put out no effort in creating". It's easy for you to complain that it should be shared more when you have never spent two years working on a book or writing a script. Months agonizing over a single damn painting. Thousands of hours going through strings and strings of code to be sure not a single glitch remains.

I am not a bisnessman or an artist but I took the effort to learn a few basics for my subject. Before you take that as a reason to ignore everything I said realise that a young store clerk (even counting your dad) is hardly more knowledgable on the subject than me.
Anyway, if you have greater biseness truths that you haven't told me yet, go on.

1. Hey, I have business experience AND I am a writer! I don't take it as a reason to ignore everything but your basic information you gleamed from likely biased sources doesn't mean you know more then me. Which you have said, multiple times.

2. Store clerk? My dad runs and owns his own business. Nice try but my dad spent three years teaching me how business works. We weren't "store clerks" we were "owners".

3. I like how horribly condescending you are. "Just because i know the basics i know more then you!" Jesus and you call me egotistical. Shit man. Listen to yourself.

I don't see how I could have put it out of context, it was all pretty clear. Explain how then.

1. Because i was talking about how consumers do not have the right to demand my work. No one has the right to demand i hand over my work.

I am not just a consumer, I am a human being like you and your dad. if it's for the good of our specie it gives me all the rights I need.

1. I didn't realize MW2 was instrumental in the furthering of the species.

2. God forbid kids grow up never watching James Cameron's Avatar. They might get cancer if they don't...

They. Make. Life. Better. Still.

1. Then. Go. To. A. Fucking. Library.

2. You have heard of a library right? There are these awesome places where you can go and check out comics and books and hell they got cds and movies. Mine has an entire section devoted to movies now. And like four full bloody racks of cds ranging from classic to some pretty recent shit to.

3. Best part is it's all free. You should try supporting your local library sometime.

You can't miss what you don't know, but you are made intellectually poorer and less developed by people who keep a stranglehold on ideas. Yes a lot of ideas are frivolous, but maybe you haven't been exposed to the ones who are meaningful and fulfilling yourself, a pity.

1. Stranglehold on ideas? What the fuck are you talking about. Rather then staring narrow mindedly at what the main stream is doing why not look to the left or right where thousands of independents would kill to get you to just watch there god damn film.

2. Libraries, Webcomics, Flash games, Flash animations, indie films.

3. Seriously, go check it out.

Getting angry was my mistake. Using this as an excuse to refuse my arguments just proves my point.

1. No, i refuse your arguments because they are self entitled tripe. There are thousands upon thousands of free games, music, movies, books, and god damn libraries to get a wealth of information.

2. Your just pissed you can't get the specific ones you want.

Probably not, but I never considered myself to be one, for this anyway.

1. Funny, your brave heart speech insisted you were.

Yes it does, if it's many movies that you can't watch.

1. Not really, people lived and thrived intellectually for YEARS without movies. It's not going to kill you to not get to watch every new movie that comes out.

2. For everything else, there is the library and netflix. Seriously, is $8 a month so fucking much these days?

3. Hell even if it is you still have libraries.

Heroes and victims are not always about the most extreme things, it only suits you to limit the meanings of the words to just what you are able to understand.

1. Ahh, more condescentation.

2. Yeah, your right. Fuck the starving, billy get watch transformers. We gotta start re routing tax dollars to fix this madness.

If you can't picture you writing a book that would be in any way an addition to culture, neitheir do I.

1. More condescension. Is your goal just to belittle me into submission or something? You sound like your 16.

2. More to the point the idea that X years after my death anyone can take my work and use it for profit without even having to ask my children? Yeah, I am such a prick.

There, you mix it up with material stuff again.

1. There you go, forgetting not everything i say is a direct analogy.

2. Fine, let me spell it out for you. if i write my child a bedtime story I don;t think i should have to be forced to publish it or otherwise be a, what did you say... Self centered swine?

3. Do you want the mushy poetry I wrote my wife to?

I said in my OP that I do not download recent works, which means I pay for what I want now. Still, after a reasonable period of time, arguably more reasonable than your death + 50 years it would be a genuinely good thing for you to add your humble stone to the pile of human culture (this is an image).

1. How recent is recent, 70 years or 6 months.

2. Public domain means anyone can take my work, use it however they like, and never ask my children for permission or show them a dime of there profits.

No.

Sharing the ideas in non material forms on the internet (without the packaging you see in your store) is what you seem unable to approve.

1. No, the idea that after a certain period of time my children lose all there rights to my work is what i don't approve. A hundred years from now if anyone is going to make money off my work I want it to be my children, not some random fuck, be it a big corporation or some unimaginative little prick.

I have developped the subject with others, it seems the problems come from you thinking a potential is lost every time a download is made. This is wrong on the ground that even if a potential is lost for a particular product (and this is not even always the case) the potential for the whole market is not lost. On the contrary it increases :
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars

1. Oh look, your not actually reading anything I am typing. Let me quote myself.

1. I enjoy your use of the words art and culture to justify wanting free stuff. If you really were one of the honest ones you probably would have read everything i said and noticed that I am not talking about the honest people, and the only people I am annoyed by are the ones seeking sympathy or praise as though they are victims or champions.

2. I never said that it was hurting the companies. Only that i understand peoples desire to protect there investments. If you read my whole post you would know that people like the RIAA and methods such as DRM piss me off. Just because i understand them doesn't mean i approve of what they are doing. However people who scream that File sharing is the way to stop DRM, or people who act like if they couldn't play video games there life would be in shambles. Those are the people i am telling to fuck off.

Downloading games for free doesn't make you a hero. Not being able to play the latest and shiniest games as soon as they come out doesn't make you a downtrodden victim. That's the shit i was, and still am, calling out.

You can;t say you never read that, you have been quoting two parts of it over and over. Or is it just the fact you didn't take it as a challenge to how massively intelligent other people you read about are?

1. I don't care if people download shit if the year honest about what they are doing.

2. I know it doesn't hurt companies.

3. I am just sick of self entitled little shits demanding everything. We have libraries, netflix, a plethora of free and legit games, thousands of people who would PAY YOU to watch there films. Yet no, they demand they get the big name shit for free.

4. "But kagim! I only do old stuff!" Bullshit, there is TONS of old shit that is cheap as hell or flat fucking free to get. Once again, netflix, Library or you can suck it up and, i dunno, watch or play or read some indie stuff and give them a little love. There is more to life then the mainstream, and lots of it is free even though it was JUST released.

From the way you answered apparently I did insult you, and now we made some progress in our argument, it's freakishly hard with you, but it's a progress.

1. Are you seriously thinking you weren't trying to insult you? Did you think you were giving me some deep philosophical incite on my very soul? You really are egotistical.

2. Progress? Sure, i am now almost certain you are a 16 year old who has never worked a day in his life, never picked up an instrument of creation, and gets all his information for self entitled little shits who ignore all the legitimate free shit from people BEGGING for your attention because you only want to play with the shiny toys and you want to do it for free.

 

[HT_Black]

You see, copyright laws are what keeps IP creators--like me--in business. Get your head out of your arse buddy; this is the Western world, and it's the way it is.

I had a feeling you'd answer this. The world changes continually, it won't stay the way it is forever. So whatever I could do to make the future a bit better is worth a try.

And how. Carry on.

the thing is if your IPs are average shit I undestand that you don't want fixed prices to go.

Actually, that's the very reason copyright laws are important in a market environment. Say, for example, Incal11 writes a book and sends it to the store. If fixed prices are a thing of the past, Joe Subaverage can simply lift it, read it, and not pay Incall11 a single dime because "It's Shit", even if it's better than a Mark Twain book. That might cause problems for Incal11 if (s)he lives in a capitalistic country.

If you just found this insulting, time for you to get your head out of your ass and start making things that would make me want to pay you

They say I already do; but odds are you're not one of they, so I probably shouldn't waste your time by telling you that.

If you cared to read the arguments in my original post (and your IPs are any good) you'd rethink your position. I do not argue for copyrights to be entirely taken away, as I know it would be night impossible...

You probably haven't figured it out yet, but I actually agree with you to an extent. Draconian copyright laws are definitely a bad thing--in fact, just the other day two friends and I got together and hatched a plan to kill the entirety of the RIAA governing body--but copyright laws are a necessity in a country when people like Incal11 and HT_Black need people to buy their whatevers to put food on their tables.

...but merely reduced to something more reasonable than your death + 50 years. What do you think would be a better length for copyrights?

I dunno...maybe forty years after the last entry in Franchise X was published unless you pay a fee? Or a decade after the creator's death? That's really a subjective mattter, but strangely enough, my thoughts on the matter are already in my will. I want everything I ever wrote entering the public domain as soon as I kick the bucket, but my private papers are not to be seen by anyone for two hundred years. I'm actually going to fill the strongox with spring-loaded snakes, however.

 

[teknoarcanist]

Speaking as a writer:

If I create something, be that a hand-carved chair, a three-story home, or a short story about sentient grapefruit, I have the right to use that creation to whatever ends I so choose. Being that it is my own creation, I have no responsibility or inherent duty to give it to you.

Don't get me wrong: I want to give it to you. I want you to enjoy it. But I also want to be able to support myself, and living in a globalized capitalistic system, as we currently do, I would like to be able to support myself as a cultural craftsman, and to subsist entirely on the 'sweat of my own brow'.

You say:
"if you want to share something that is yours, you should have the unquestionable right to do so. Obviously copyrights are there to limit or take away this liberty, is it right ? is it wrong ? and how ?"

That statement is wrong, and it's because you're misjudging the purpose of copyright law, which is not to prevent my right to share, but to defend my ability to choose not to, if I so choose. If I desired to spend my entire life creating free works of art to give freely to the rest of the world, I am perfectly capable of doing so under the Creative Commons laws.

If however, I choose to ask you for compensation in return for my work, and you turn around and take my hard work anyway, the copyright laws exist to grant the legal system means to protect me, in the same exact way that anti-trespassing laws exist to protect me from people I've refused entry into my home, but who have come inside anyway.

If I instead choose to sell the rights to compensation for this work to someone else, and dot the i's and cross the t's on a contract stating such, I have willingly relinquished that option. End of story. In the same way that the trespassing laws would now apply to me breaking back into a home I've built and then sold, and protect the person I've sold it to FROM my trespassing, the copyright laws now protect the person I've forfeited my work to. If I didn't read the contract closely enough, that's my own fault.

Finally, your assurances that "The hard work of artists and companies backing them will always be compensated by most grateful people." aren't a hell of a lot to go on (in addition to being pretty naive, I'm sorry to have to say), and they don't put food on my table or gas in my tank in the here and now.

And admittedly, at this point, neither do the things I create.

But I have a god(s)-given, federally-protected, self-evident RIGHT to hope that they someday they will, and to pursue that goal BY WHATEVER MEANS, AND THROUGH WHATEVER MECHANISMS, I CHOOSE, to the fullest extent of my passion and hard work.

My hard, hard, HARD work.

---------------------------

Now putting my philosopher's cap on:

That having all been said, I do think free culture is the direction the human race is inevitably moving toward. I believe without a doubt that in 30-40 (-50...-60...?) years when most mass-scale manual labor and service-industry work-needs have been met by machines...that is, when culture and consciousness are becoming synonymous, when biology and technology and software are becoming indistinguishable, and the longevity of human life has been exploded exponentially...that yes, copyright will become obsolete. It won't be morally wrong, it will simply cease to apply in any practical way, when the population of the world has become an infinitely-connected network of universe-spawning godheads.

As of this point in history, however, it does NOT fail to apply. I really do wish that it did...but it doesn't, I'm sorry to say.


Now IF you think Copyright Laws are a bad thing, then let's consider that, and we'll find that they're a symptom rather than a cause--the cause being the globalized capitalistic pyramid scheme in which we all live--and if you're arguing for their dissolution now, then you're putting the cart before the horse, my young radical!

If your aim is free culture, then instead of arguing about it in forums, do something meaningful to advance your goal, aid your species, and expand its spiritual richness. Feed the hungry! Clothe the poor! Clean up oil spills, plant trees, march at climate change rallies; write your f**king congressman -- do SOMETHING to help bring peace and unity between the nations and peoples of the world, and I promise you: free culture will follow.

(...and dare I say, lacks relevance anyway, until these problems are solved?)

 

[Guttural Engagement]

SNIP

Nice rant buddy, good for you for being a corporate good guy (sheep). Perhaps you should've read my post a little more thoroughly and you would've noticed that I pirate my games BEFORE I buy them to see if I even like them. A demo can hardly show you if you'll like a game or not.

And because of gay ass copy right laws, I bought a game one time; didn't like it at ALL (fucking trailer was the only good thing about the game) - so when I went to the store to return it they turned me down with their explanation being "You could've copied the disk, so we can't let you return it" (It was a FUCKING XBOX game too!, like, WTF).

Everyone is out to make money these days, honest people are turning into so called "dishonest" people because the so called "honest" people are greedy bastards who only care about money and not the customer.

If I owned a video game company, everything would be distributed digitally. It would be hard coded into all the games, you get a FREE week of the FULL game; and then it auto-destructs parts of dlls or something. You then buy the game, and haven't wasted time & money only to find out you don't like it.

And, could you be any more literal when it comes to terminology? This is a gaming forum for god sakes; the term 'Piracy' is going to be used when referring to copy-right infringement.