The Needles: Crash Course in IP Enforcement Strategy

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
The Needles: Crash Course in IP Enforcement Strategy

The U.S. Government has just unveiled its first-ever strategy for intellectual property enforcement. Here's what you need to know.

Read Full Article
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

Get it right people. There's a difference.

Anyone else tired of the US trying to make everyone else in the world like the US? Because it's getting kinda annoying.

Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.

I don't care what you do in your own borders, but it stops at the border.

*Edit
Can people stop quoting me? It's getting seriously annoying I get that "New Message" icon every 5 minutes. Besides almost everything in reply has been said/spoken already.
 

Kanodin0

New member
Mar 2, 2010
147
0
0
dududf said:
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

Get it right people. There's a difference.
I'm pretty sure the article itself acknowledged that calling it stealing wasn't absolutely technically correct. Instead of trotting out that old horse pirates keep beating why not adress the meat of the article.
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
Kanodin0 said:
I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.
 

Iron Lightning

Lightweight Extreme
Oct 19, 2009
1,237
0
0
If the U.S. government thinks that it can tell other countries what to do then it has the same sense of entitlement as the piracy-engaging "youth."
 

Kanodin0

New member
Mar 2, 2010
147
0
0
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.
Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.
 
Nov 5, 2007
453
0
0
Look, I agree with what they are doing but don't fuck with Canada.

Feel free to fuck with pirates though, they're kind of assholes.
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
Kanodin0 said:
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.
Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.
"Don't agree with our rules, or we'll remove one of your largest sources of income, and remove the jobs of millions of people"

Seems like bullying to me.
 

Baldr

The Noble
Jan 6, 2010
1,739
0
0
75% of US exports are IPs. Almost half of our economy is IP, of course the Government wants to protect it.
 

Kanodin0

New member
Mar 2, 2010
147
0
0
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.
Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.
"Don't agree with our rules, or we'll remove one of your largest sources of income, and remove the jobs of millions of people"

Seems like bullying to me.
The U.S isn't required to trade with any state, why should it then give it's business to a state that won't cooperate with copyrights? You can talk about how that hurts the country in question, but that hypothetical country doesn't have some right to U.S. trade on any terms it likes.
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
Kanodin0 said:
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.
Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.
"Don't agree with our rules, or we'll remove one of your largest sources of income, and remove the jobs of millions of people"

Seems like bullying to me.
The U.S isn't required to trade with any state, why should it then give it's business to a state that won't cooperate with copyrights? You can talk about how that hurts the country in question, but that hypothetical country doesn't have some right to U.S. trade on any terms it likes.
I'm not saying they have a right. I'm saying that the leverage they have could severely frig up a countries economy to all hell if they don't agree with something.

"Don't like what we're doing, say good bye to your economy" is what it looks like. Yeah I know they don't have a right, but that doesn't make it "right" to force countries that rely on the states so heavily to do as the states wish. THAT'S what I'm trying to say.
 

The Random One

New member
May 29, 2008
3,310
0
0
dududf said:
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

Get it right people. There's a difference.
As the article says, though? Does it matter if there's a difference, if the government, the ones making the laws, say there isn't one? You can argue until your tongue drops off but you're still comitting a crime (defining 'crime' as 'something against the law' rather than 'something fundamentally wrong').

I don't pirate, but the music industry only woke up to the modern 'sell a song by a few bucks' model after it was pirated to hell, so even if I agree in high theory with these laws, I don't think they'll be any good. But my main beef is that the victims are huge corporations. The government should help people; huge corporations can defend themselves.
 

BboyTeddyBear

New member
Mar 8, 2010
56
0
0
interesting. seem the gov is doing a lot with the net. rumors of a internet kill switch also going to be covered at all on escapist?
 

DayDark

New member
Oct 31, 2007
657
0
0
The strategy document also acknowledges that while "the most frequently cited" numbers were based on 2007 estimates by the Institute for Public Policy that piracy cost the U.S. economy $58 billion in total economic output and over 373,000 jobs, other submissions questioned those figures, claiming they were based on the "unsubstantiated assumptions" that each pirated good represented a lost sale and that jobs lost in one industry weren't replaced by jobs in another.
I wish someone would do a research on how many pirates actually buy the game, even though they pirated it, and how many would buy it, if they couldn't pirate it. $58 bill. is a shitload of money, even if only 5% of that were true loss, it would be a lot of money.
 

Kanodin0

New member
Mar 2, 2010
147
0
0
Oh now I get it, you are arguing morality while I am merely arguing practicality. All I will say beyond that is that international politics is a cutthroat business, and don't think your country wouldn't do the same thing given the opportunity. Quote tree messed up somehow and was thusly removed.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
BboyTeddyBear said:
interesting. seem the gov is doing a lot with the net. rumors of a internet kill switch also going to be covered at all on escapist?
Yeah that was in the escapist news about a week ago. It was also mentioned in the religion and politics section of the forums too. The news post however is the one with a lot more posts.
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
Kanodin0 said:
Oh now I get it, you are arguing morality while I am merely arguing practicality. All I will say beyond that is that international politics is a cutthroat business, and don't think your country wouldn't do the same thing given the opportunity. Quote tree messed up somehow and was thusly removed.
I was looking at that going..Huh?

But yeah I'm kinda arguing morality here.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Iron Lightning said:
If the U.S. government thinks that it can tell other countries what to do then it has the same sense of entitlement as the piracy-engaging "youth."
Agreed. Every country is different, and, will run things different...the US cannot think it can enforce its policy on everytone else through strong arming...its just wont work
 

Tom Roberts

New member
Mar 1, 2010
52
0
0
I'm wondering just how evenhandedly those rules on copyright infringement/IP theft will be applied.

China is certainly one of the main offenders but can you honestly see America going "I'm sorry, but until you sort out these legal issues to our satisfaction we won't be engaging in Trade with you."

When the obvious response by the Chinese is then "OK, since it doesn't really affect us anymore if your economy goes through the porcelain bowl, we'd like our usual trade deficit to be paid in the form of all those loans. Dongyi."

Basically I figure the old adage of 'At your feet or at your throat' will apply.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
The Needles: Crash Course in IP Enforcement Strategy

The U.S. Government has just unveiled its first-ever strategy for intellectual property enforcement. Here's what you need to know.

Read Full Article
I'm interested that in your mention of Canada as a part of the 301 report, you didn't make any reference to Canda's own Bill C-32, introduced last month as the "Canadian Copyright Modernization act" to bring us in line with that report.

A bill which guarantees canadians an awesome number of rights to use technology and media we buy the way we want, and which shields us from overly-punitive damages in civil cases.

... and which then throws all those rights out the window by making it illegal to circumvent any kind of manufacturer-included DRM, copy protection devices, or digital locks.

-m
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
I dunno, there's more than a few countries out there who will drop their pants and bend over if America looks their way and grunts.

But yeah, if America decides to cut all economic ties with countries it suspects have people in it who pirates, then they will find themselves very, VERY alone. Heck, given The Bush years, most of the world has realized they need us more than we need them.
 

Space Jawa

New member
Feb 2, 2010
551
0
0
dududf said:
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."
*IMAGE SNIP*

Get it right people. There's a difference.
Considering that before "digital piracy", it was pretty hard to argue that piracy =/= theft since it did require you take a physical object from someone else by force (and as far as the open seas are concerned, it still it), we really need to find a new term for "making an illegal copy of a digital product for the purpose of using it without paying the creator(s) the money they would otherwise receive and thus depriving them of said funds if said copy was obtained through legal means".
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Space Jawa said:
dududf said:
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."
*IMAGE SNIP*

Get it right people. There's a difference.
Considering that before "digital piracy", it was pretty hard to argue that piracy =/= theft since it did require you take a physical object from someone else by force (and as far as the open seas are concerned, it still it), we really need to find a new term for "making an illegal copy of a digital product for the purpose of using it without paying the creator(s) the money they would otherwise receive and thus depriving them of said funds if said copy was obtained through legal means".
There is one. Bootlegging.

-m
 

Enigmers

New member
Dec 14, 2008
1,745
0
0
I think Digital Distribution is a great anti-piracy measure, because it allows games to be cheaply and conveniently sold to a consumer without worrying about stuff like how many copies a store has in stock. I don't think retail stores will die out anytime soon, but Digital Distribution is a great alternative to piracy(weird way of putting it, I know), in which you're not getting shit for free, you're getting it for so cheap it almost feels like a better deal; and the developers profit a lot more because Digital Distribution effectively cuts out the middleman.
 

AzraelSteel

New member
Aug 11, 2009
40
0
0
I honestly am more and more reminded of things like the "war on drugs" that had been so popular in the government a few years back - the idea of taking a system of control that is quite obviously floundering and, rather than having people find a new system that works better for the current environment, continuing to punish people for not accepting that which used to work okay-ish. The system isn't even consistently applied, which adds to the problems being encountered.

What we need to be spending time on is finding a system for "IP" that will actually work well enough to benefit the customer AND the game makers without putting the two bases at odds with each other.

Edit: Also, the government in the US, and likely other places as well, needs to get over the "Let's protect a business type because it's been around for a while" metality and focus on helping develop new innovations to business that will work without government subsidies.
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
I think Andy is overblowing things. If there is one thing pirates have been absolutely EXCELLENT at, it's adapting. The government will have to absolutely overdo itself if it's going to even be able to piss pirates off.

With that said, there are some cause for concern. The 301 and Canada's mention in it is indeed something I'm keeping an eye on to see how it develops.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
dududf said:
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

Get it right people. There's a difference.

Anyone else tired of the US trying to make everyone else in the world like the US? Because it's getting kinda annoying.

Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.

I don't care what you do in your own borders, but it stops at the border.
First off, England never would. Second, nobody else has the balls to try. Why? It will spark World War III Nukes.
 

squid5580

New member
Feb 20, 2008
5,106
0
0
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.
Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.
"Don't agree with our rules, or we'll remove one of your largest sources of income, and remove the jobs of millions of people"

Seems like bullying to me.
The U.S isn't required to trade with any state, why should it then give it's business to a state that won't cooperate with copyrights? You can talk about how that hurts the country in question, but that hypothetical country doesn't have some right to U.S. trade on any terms it likes.
I'm not saying they have a right. I'm saying that the leverage they have could severely frig up a countries economy to all hell if they don't agree with something.

"Don't like what we're doing, say good bye to your economy" is what it looks like. Yeah I know they don't have a right, but that doesn't make it "right" to force countries that rely on the states so heavily to do as the states wish. THAT'S what I'm trying to say.
I really don't think the States is in any position to threaten anyone with economical reprecussions.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.
Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.
"Don't agree with our rules, or we'll remove one of your largest sources of income, and remove the jobs of millions of people"

Seems like bullying to me.
The U.S isn't required to trade with any state, why should it then give it's business to a state that won't cooperate with copyrights? You can talk about how that hurts the country in question, but that hypothetical country doesn't have some right to U.S. trade on any terms it likes.
I'm not saying they have a right. I'm saying that the leverage they have could severely frig up a countries economy to all hell if they don't agree with something.

"Don't like what we're doing, say good bye to your economy" is what it looks like. Yeah I know they don't have a right, but that doesn't make it "right" to force countries that rely on the states so heavily to do as the states wish. THAT'S what I'm trying to say.
Hey, our economy is in the shitter, so we have NOTHING to lose. That said, how are you going to actually stop us them (I only download music personally)?
 

thisbymaster

New member
Sep 10, 2008
373
0
0
I love how they mention all the people who had input that are the people who have something to gain from it, like the law makers who get it from taxes and industry hacks who want the laws to enforce their broken and out of date business models, but the ones that were left out the ones that suffer at the hands of massive corporations, the people themselves. We the people has become the Corporation of rich people.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Tom Roberts said:
I'm wondering just how evenhandedly those rules on copyright infringement/IP theft will be applied.

China is certainly one of the main offenders but can you honestly see America going "I'm sorry, but until you sort out these legal issues to our satisfaction we won't be engaging in Trade with you."

When the obvious response by the Chinese is then "OK, since it doesn't really affect us anymore if your economy goes through the porcelain bowl, we'd like our usual trade deficit to be paid in the form of all those loans. Dongyi."

Basically I figure the old adage of 'At your feet or at your throat' will apply.
We'd respond "Ok, your payment is coming in the form of our 10s of thousands of nukes coming at your country. Good bye."
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
From a legislative standpoint, this really just represents the government affirming that it groups INTELLECTUAL property under the same protections as PHYSICAL property. While enforcement is the biggest problem, this at least goes a LONG way toward removing the weak rationalizations currently used by pirates.

dududf said:
I'm not saying they have a right. I'm saying that the leverage they have could severely frig up a countries economy to all hell if they don't agree with something.
We didn't tie their economy up like that. They did. We're just looking to protect what is ours. What we are asking for DIRECTLY relates to the products they're getting from us. This is not bullying.

Bullying is using force, or the threat or implication of force, to change someone's behavior. Like if I said "Give me your wallet, or I'll hit you." The force is not connected at all to the behavior. This isn't that. This is more like saying "I will let you into my club if you wear this hat. If you do not wear this hat, I will not let you into my club." The consequence relates EXACTLY to the behavior.

Simply being in the advantageous position doesn't make it bullying--otherwise, EVERY law would simply be "bullying," since the state is in the position to enforce it and you're not equipped to stand up to the entire police force. It's a tricky distinction, but it's an important one. A couple more examples, to clarify my point:

DESIRED OUTCOME: You want a member of your bowling team to wear the team shirt.

BULLYING: "Wear the shirt, or I'll hit you in the face." Hitting in the face is not a logical consequence for not wearing the shirt--it is simply a threat of force meant to coerce a response.

LEVERAGING/ENFORCING POLICY: "Wear the team shirt, or you can't participate with the team." This creates a logical consequence and presents a choice. If they want to participate, they will have to comply unconditionally.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
Space Jawa said:
dududf said:
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."
*IMAGE SNIP*

Get it right people. There's a difference.
Considering that before "digital piracy", it was pretty hard to argue that piracy =/= theft since it did require you take a physical object from someone else by force (and as far as the open seas are concerned, it still it), we really need to find a new term for "making an illegal copy of a digital product for the purpose of using it without paying the creator(s) the money they would otherwise receive and thus depriving them of said funds if said copy was obtained through legal means".
There is one. Bootlegging.

-m
Makes people think of piracy and legs, which causes one to think of hair covered pirate legs. No thanks.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Enigmers said:
I think Digital Distribution is a great anti-piracy measure, because it allows games to be cheaply and conveniently sold to a consumer without worrying about stuff like how many copies a store has in stock. I don't think retail stores will die out anytime soon, but Digital Distribution is a great alternative to piracy(weird way of putting it, I know), in which you're not getting shit for free, you're getting it for so cheap it almost feels like a better deal; and the developers profit a lot more because Digital Distribution effectively cuts out the middleman.
*I wanted to use Mal's middleman quote but I couldn't find nor remember it*
 

Nimbus

Token Irish Guy
Oct 22, 2008
2,162
0
0
Trying to fix Piracy with law is like trying to fix the hole in the ozone layer with a sledgehammer. It is NOT going to WORK. End of story.
 

Ewyx

New member
Dec 3, 2008
375
0
0
IP laws are fucked. However, they're skewed toward powerful corporations, and not in the interest of the public and creativity. Go figure.

10 years. After that it should be public domain, if you can't make a profit in 10 years. You're obviously doing something horribly wrong.
 

Sparrow

New member
Feb 22, 2009
6,848
0
0
As much as I liked the article, I must admit that there were a few parts I just didn't get. Alright, you caught me, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

HG131 said:
Tom Roberts said:
I'm wondering just how evenhandedly those rules on copyright infringement/IP theft will be applied.

China is certainly one of the main offenders but can you honestly see America going "I'm sorry, but until you sort out these legal issues to our satisfaction we won't be engaging in Trade with you."

When the obvious response by the Chinese is then "OK, since it doesn't really affect us anymore if your economy goes through the porcelain bowl, we'd like our usual trade deficit to be paid in the form of all those loans. Dongyi."

Basically I figure the old adage of 'At your feet or at your throat' will apply.
We'd respond "Ok, your payment is coming in the form of our 10s of thousands of nukes coming at your country. Good bye."
I'm not sure whether your talking for China or America here, but nobody is that stupid.

"They won't trade with us? Nuke them. That'll fix the problem, obviously."
 

Reverend Del

New member
Feb 17, 2010
245
0
0
I'm inclined to go with Sparrow on the subject of America nuking folks if they don't agree. Not going to happen. Nobody's that suicidal. And yes, even for America that would be suicide.

As for this new IP shenanigan. It'll be interesting to see, certainly. The most interesting will be just how hard they hit the pirates. Because stringent punishments could easily be a good deterrent to most casual pirates.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Sparrow said:
As much as I liked the article, I must admit that there were a few parts I just didn't get. Alright, you caught me, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

HG131 said:
Tom Roberts said:
I'm wondering just how evenhandedly those rules on copyright infringement/IP theft will be applied.

China is certainly one of the main offenders but can you honestly see America going "I'm sorry, but until you sort out these legal issues to our satisfaction we won't be engaging in Trade with you."

When the obvious response by the Chinese is then "OK, since it doesn't really affect us anymore if your economy goes through the porcelain bowl, we'd like our usual trade deficit to be paid in the form of all those loans. Dongyi."

Basically I figure the old adage of 'At your feet or at your throat' will apply.
We'd respond "Ok, your payment is coming in the form of our 10s of thousands of nukes coming at your country. Good bye."
I'm not sure whether your talking for China or America here, but nobody is that stupid.

"They won't trade with us? Nuke them. That'll fix the problem, obviously."
No, America. It's more of a "They want to try to call in all that debt and take over since we can't pay it? Nuke em or let them take over America. That's easy, lets geta nukin!"
 

dochmbi

New member
Sep 15, 2008
753
0
0
I would love to read something written by a recognized professional philosopher on intellectual property as I'm on the fence about the ethics of it all and would love to delve deeper into the problem.
 

DRD 1812

New member
Mar 1, 2010
27
0
0
Ewyx said:
IP laws are fucked. However, they're skewed toward powerful corporations, and not in the interest of the public and creativity. Go figure.

10 years. After that it should be public domain, if you can't make a profit in 10 years. You're obviously doing something horribly wrong.
I don't understand quite what you mean. Are you saying after ten years time everything should be free or that a product that has not earned some amount of profit for its creators during the tenth year after its release should be free?

-m
 

dochmbi

New member
Sep 15, 2008
753
0
0
Ewyx said:
IP laws are fucked. However, they're skewed toward powerful corporations, and not in the interest of the public and creativity. Go figure.

10 years. After that it should be public domain, if you can't make a profit in 10 years. You're obviously doing something horribly wrong.
Something like this sounds good, a sort of limited copyright, so there's still incentive to invest in development of new ideas, but not so that human culture is controlled by few corporations.
Patents can be harmful too because they may reduce the efficiency of free market economics by creating monopolies for certain goods. There should obviously be some mechanism in place to still make it profitable to invest in R&D, but patents should also be somewhat limited because otherwise it reduces the efficiency of the market which results in less well-being overall, cause technological & scientific development + lots of cheap tech for everyone = good.
 

poiuppx

New member
Nov 17, 2009
674
0
0
I was wondering how long it'd take the Govt to start getting proactive about this. Say what you will, but piracy kicked the snot out of mass media starting about a decade ago. That's a lot of loss to the ol' GDP, given the bank the entertainment industry brings in.

Of course, that said, it remains to be seen if this has any fangs. If it's toothless, then it's just more of the usual political positioning.
 

subtlefuge

Lord Cromulent
May 21, 2010
1,107
0
0
dududf said:
Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.
Correction: if China and England called in their debts Right Now there would not be a China or England anymore. Calling in debts among non hostile countries is considered an act of war. Global politics are a bit trickier when you throw in consequences aren't they?

OT: I can understand the concept, and I really do sympathize with the people who lose money, but I really don't want the U.S. government policing the Internet more than they already are.
 

Epitome

New member
Jul 17, 2009
703
0
0
dochmbi said:
I would love to read something written by a recognized professional philosopher on intellectual property as I'm on the fence about the ethics of it all and would love to delve deeper into the problem.
You shouldnt need somebody else to tell you whats right or wrong, in this instance pirates are an economic drain. They are not the ridiculous overblown drain the industry likes to claim they are but they are a drain. On the other hand the industry has being systematically been a dick to its genuine customers and its attempt to force new laws and legislation through to try an beat a problem with brute force that obviously cant be beaten that way. The industry needs to seek an alterantive, find a middle ground with pirates and work on rebuilding teh relatonship to try and make some converts. Trying to hammer them wont work, they adapt to anything, and since you cant collectivly punish them all or even catch most of them you cant stamp it out.

for my mind the biggest ethical conflict for me comes from giant publishers whom i dont like whining with overblown statistics and using political and fiscal muscle to change laws to suit themselves. Then those same publishers turn around, shit on me for being a good customer with DRM, attack my love of a modding community, lock my consoles down with firmware updates. Their "poor developers who worked so hard" plea sounds hollow from a bunch of leeching burecrats intent on fucking up my idea of a good industry.
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
subtlefuge said:
dududf said:
Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.
Correction: if China and England called in their debts Right Now there would not be a China or England anymore. Calling in debts among non hostile countries is considered an act of war. Global politics are a bit trickier when you throw in consequences aren't they?

OT: I can understand the concept, and I really do sympathize with the people who lose money, but I really don't want the U.S. government policing the Internet more than they already are.
That's not the point.

Trying to order people around from which if they wanted could bankrupt the country in question is silly. You're picking a fight with someone from when in their eyes your practically their *****.

It wouldn't be feasible just to call it in (especially since they wouldn't be able to pay up, and all of the consequences) but just the thing that you are ordering someone superior (in a way) around.

It just seems silly to me. Keep your reform and change in your borders, unless we are open to the idea as well.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Well, actually I think the entire thing is a giant joke to be honest. It sounds like it's a govermental power grab right now, an excuse for the goverment to start passing special laws to go into legal areas they previously couldn't for the sake of "protecting intellecual property". A way of talking around an attempt to get rid of all those pesky civil liberties that have made things like computers and the internet a thorn in the goverment's sights. Now they aren't violating your rights to privacy, they are raiding through your computer/private site because of "tips" they received you were violating IP rights.

I say this because to be honest any discussion of this kind of policing of intellectual property rights is pointless UNLESS they take it internationally, and that basically amounts to starting the inevitable "World War III", which China is already arming up for incidently.

See, the issue of "robber economies" has been a big one for a while. Simply put the big issue with things like IP, copyrights, and patents is that nations like China simply choose to ignore international law, steal whatever they can, knock it off, and then sell it around the world at a greatly reduced price as they never had to do any of the R&D or anything to begin with. The end result being that neither the property holder, or his goverment, gets profits off of it. This is how China's fortunes have been raising in recent years above and beyond anything else.

Policing knockoff goods coming into the US isn't going to amount to much, since while we buy a lot of this stuff, the biggest issues have been things like selling medicines to the second and third world countries and the like. If you aren't going to take action to stop that by either attacking China and similar nations to shut them down, OR restarting the golden age of goverment based piracy by enforcing a "hard" embargo and pretty much destroying any planes or ships that leave the nations in question until they relent (preventing trade via military action, which again would start a war), then basically your not doing anything.

I mean they talk a good game, but this is pretty much right up the current administration's alley. Right or wrong, it's an amazing springboard to launch increasingly intrusive goverment powers from without actually making any signifigant differance at all.
 

hamster mk 4

New member
Apr 29, 2008
818
0
0
I wonder how this new policy will go over with our new big brother China. Thier leadership doen't seem to keen on video games, but software and movie piracy is a healthy part of their economy.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
dududf said:
subtlefuge said:
dududf said:
Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.
Correction: if China and England called in their debts Right Now there would not be a China or England anymore. Calling in debts among non hostile countries is considered an act of war. Global politics are a bit trickier when you throw in consequences aren't they?

OT: I can understand the concept, and I really do sympathize with the people who lose money, but I really don't want the U.S. government policing the Internet more than they already are.
That's not the point.

Trying to order people around from which if they wanted could bankrupt the country in question is silly. You're picking a fight with someone from when in their eyes your practically their *****.

It wouldn't be feasible just to call it in (especially since they wouldn't be able to pay up, and all of the consequences) but just the thing that you are ordering someone superior (in a way) around.

It just seems silly to me. Keep your reform and change in your borders, unless we are open to the idea as well.
Well, a lot of this is only because of America's morality. Nobody fears us because they don't believe we'll actually use our military power for our own benefit, rhetoric aside. China for example is building up a massive war machine, and blinding our satellites and such while thumbing their nose at us because they know we'll wait for them to start the inevitable war on their terms.

See, there is an old maxim "Free trade means he with the biggest guns trades freely". The debts to China exist because of the presumption than they could never collect on those debts because we would destroy them instantly. A lot of these "loans" are a polite way of basically demanding tribute... it's called diplomacy, people aren't as blunt IRL as they are in empire sim games as allowing the person on the receiving end to save some face is a good policy.

Of course due to our "peace at any price" mentality nowadays, we've pretty much let China build up into an increasingly more advanced military power, and the entire power structure is changing as a result.

Trust me, when some of these technologies we're seeing now advance a bit further, WMD equipped ICBMs are going to become obselete and it's going to be a bloodbath because we've become too lax due to belief in the deterrant of MAD, even if nobody believes we'd ever pull that trigger to begin with (notice Russia threatens countries with nukes whenever they want something, they did it to Poland over a defensive missle base they were hosting, people take them seriously. We're better armed in that respect than they are nowadays and nobody gives a flying [email protected] about tweaking our nose).

At any rate I post this all the time here, on the off chance you've missed it here is one of the articles on China's anti-satellite lasers. Do a search for "China, Satellite, Lasers" and you'll find a metric ton of stuff. Sort of a tangent, but somewhat related to my overall point about how the US is going a little far with turning the other cheek in light of clear and present dangers.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/06/china_satellite_laser/
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
There is one. Bootlegging.
Bootlegging is the act of creating illegal goods and then selling them. The "selling" being the key part of the term. A practice, when intellectual property is involved, no one can argue is harmless. Something the "used game" market is pretty damned close to.

The harm of whats known as piracy is even discredited by the document in question. So we have all this talk of enforcement for a white collar crime that even the enforcement document itself clearly states theres no proof of damages.

No damages, no crime. Simple.
 

Mstrswrd

Always playing Touhou. Always.
Mar 2, 2008
1,724
0
0
...So... I guess my friend outlasted me in out little bet.

I'll let him give me that automatic IP changer that changes my IP adress, well, automatically (I'm just redundant today), and also allows me to change it at will.

And I don't even Pirate anything, because, well, the gaming industry is the one I support wholeheartadly (now, the Manga and Anime industries, I do support, but not as much. Also, most of the stuff I partake in isn't liscenced in the U.S, so I'm in a legal gray zone. The U.S. isn't losing money from my watching or reading, but they are allies with Japan, and Japan is annoyed at us for this stuff).
 

dochmbi

New member
Sep 15, 2008
753
0
0
Epitome said:
dochmbi said:
I would love to read something written by a recognized professional philosopher on intellectual property as I'm on the fence about the ethics of it all and would love to delve deeper into the problem.
You shouldnt need somebody else to tell you whats right or wrong
Indeed I shouldn't, but I do need someone to examine things more closely for me so I can at least attempt to have coherent ethical beliefs. I often read stuff on the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, here's an article they have on property in general: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/
 

UberNoodle

New member
Apr 6, 2010
865
0
0
I do not like how IP protection always throws importation in with piracy. Right's holders say that their IP is threatened by importation but it is purely a licensing thing. Harvey Weinstain might say that importing a Hong Kong movie is violating IP protection laws only because he owns the rights in some countries. This is despite the imported disc being genuine. This is similar to how breaking region codes is included in piracy as well. I don't agree that abitrary region locking should be enforced legally for individuals.

dududf said:
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

Get it right people. There's a difference.

Anyone else tired of the US trying to make everyone else in the world like the US? Because it's getting kinda annoying.

Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.

I don't care what you do in your own borders, but it stops at the border.
That tired old picture? It is flawed in a few ways. 1) when it comes to software, you aren't buying a physical object. You are buying a license. By copying, you steal a licence to use that data. The duplication of that data is inconsequential. 2) language and legal definitions change. The argument in that picture fails to grasp that such definitions change constantly, with the culture and with need. Software piracy was unheard of when the concept manipulated in that diagram was first formulated - thousands of years ago. Times change, drastically. In our language, words to do with "theft" today are widely used to include the taking of something that isn't yours, regardless of whether it deprives the other person of its use, shown succinctly in phrases like 'you stole my heart', 'you stole my idea'. It's there, right in our language. Law is bound to catch up.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
Andy Chalk said:
I'm interested that in your mention of Canada as a part of the 301 report, you didn't make any reference to Canda's own Bill C-32, introduced last month as the "Canadian Copyright Modernization act" to bring us in line with that report.
C-32 is a whole 'nother argument and while it's absolutely worth discussing, at least among Canadians, I didn't think it was relevant enough to this to bear getting sidetracked on.

But, since you mentioned it, anyone who doubts the influence that the US can bring to bear on other nations need only look at the Canadian situation. US pressure is largely responsible for the government's dogged determination to update the country's copyright laws and bring them more in line with the US's vision of the modern era. And those laws are heavily slanted in favour of rightsholders - your average user is pretty much left out in the cold.
 

Veylon

New member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
The harm of whats known as piracy is even discredited by the document in question. So we have all this talk of enforcement for a white collar crime that even the enforcement document itself clearly states theres no proof of damages.

No damages, no crime. Simple.
The damages are, I'll admit, hard to see. But, let's take an example. Charles Dickens writes "A Christmas Carol" and sells it to a publisher, who sells a thousand copies. Then another publisher sells another thousand copies, but pays Mr. Dickens nothing. What they stole wasn't copies of books, but customers and sales. Mr. Dickens has a right to make something, sell it at a price of his choosing and benefit from whatever profits (if any) it happens to make. Now, back in England a hundred years ago they didn't have such laws to protect IP and Mr. Dickens suffered terrible financial distress despite writing one of the most popular works of his time and money that should have accrued to him went instead to those who stole his story and gave nothing back. The damages are those lost sales.

And that's the moral hole of piracy. They give nothing back. It takes time and effort to create something and they want to have it without giving in return. The common root of piracy and theft is taking something for nothing.

In all fairness, corporations exaggerate their losses beyond all logic and reason. Dicken's losses are easier to confirm; pirates had to pay for pirate copies at nearly the price a legitimate one would have fetched. Modern-day pirates pay nothing but the time and effort of downloading a copy. Sales are lost, but the cost of a copy is far less to the acquirer if it is pirated. So, I'd argue the true cost is the number of copies pirated, multiplied by the cost of pirating one copy, because it's unlikely many pirates would've bought the game in the first place if they couldn't pirate.

I do hope the government does take action here. The corporations need some kind of back-up; their only alternative is DRM and it is pure godawful and doesn't work to boot. Hopefully, this will put the screws to the pirates without every random innocent videogamer getting hit along the way.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Reverend Del said:
I'm inclined to go with Sparrow on the subject of America nuking folks if they don't agree. Not going to happen. Nobody's that suicidal. And yes, even for America that would be suicide.

As for this new IP shenanigan. It'll be interesting to see, certainly. The most interesting will be just how hard they hit the pirates. Because stringent punishments could easily be a good deterrent to most casual pirates.
Well, the thing is that none of this really matters much in a purely domestic sense. The only thing that could come out of it would be a sexxy new set of police powers for the Federal goverment, and very little in the way of results. As an issue media piracy is small potatoes, the big issues are things like the piracy of drugs, clothing, and the like. Pfizers (which ran a major complex down here in Connecticut where I live, even if it's leaving) came up with this little drug called "Viagra" for example which cost them a lot to develop. China has been knocking it off and selling it around the world for a lot cheaper than Pfizers wants to charge, in violation of their patents, costing both them and our goverment a ridiculous amount of money. Likewise Chinese sweatshops churning out things like denim jeans and slapping labels for "Levis" or "Calvin Klein" on them is another big deal. The money from these sales isn't so much from the US Market, but the fact that they sell these things globally at rates that the creators can't compete with due to sweatshop labour, and no need for China to engage in the creative process, R&D, or financing involved.

The issue of "robber economies" (of which China is the biggest) has been an issue for a while now, it's not new, however nobody has wanted to do anything about it because it would require a war. The Democrats with ther agenda certainly are not going to throw the first punch at China and other nations, however they will most certainly going to be more than happy to use piracy as an excuse to try and get more extensive goverment powers to deal with the "crisis" while actually acheiving very little in the long run. Power is power in this case, and I can virtually guarantee we've got people rubbing their hands together in glee over the abillity to get around a lot of the current laws so they can in theory locate and arrest 15 year old music/movie/game pirates which in the end aren't going to amount to much in the overall intellectual properties arena. Loss of a lot of civil liberties, for very little in the way of meaningful results.

As far as a nuclear exchange goes, well right now the US has the abillity to destroy the entire world ten times over. We're also pretty much the only nation currently known to have an effective anti-missle defensive technique. You might remember Russia freaking out a few years ago about some of the interception systems we were showing off because they violated treaties with the USSR before it's collapse that Russia thought should still have been in force. Including the enviromental concerns (nuclear winter, etc...) if the entire world was to turn on the US (no allies) and we fired off our stockpile while they all launched at us, according to the last estimate I read years ago the odds of our long-term survivial as any kind of civilization would be a paltry 10%. Of course that's really good when you consider the odds of the rest of the world surviving are 0%. The defensive strategy here being shooting missles at other missles, including ones from our various subs, and also using planes to intercept them.

Now before you start screaming "American Power Trip" let me tell you that I don't think any of that matters much. The reason being is that we in the US don't currently have the guts to use our military to it's full potential, and the rest of the world knows this. You can have the most awesome gun in the world, and it doesn't matter if nobody believes you'll pull the trigger due to your own morality.

What's more I firmly believe ICBMs are rapidly going to be obselete. Still dangerous mind you, but nothing like they are now. Things like China's anti-satellite lasers (search China, satellite, lasers for more information)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/06/china_satellite_laser/

are rapidly getting to the point where satellite-based targeting, which ICBMs need to be effective, is goint to be impossible in a serious war. Add to this generally rising levels of technology, and it's only a matter of time before other nations get better at the missle interceptions we apparently freaked Russia with, and we're looking at another era of conventional warfare. There will be nothing preventing this anymore, as the peace brought by WMD insured MAD will end.

China is currently involved in building up a military force of unprecedented scale. Some of their weapons like the "Yuan" class submarine have proven themselves capable of "Tagging" American Carriers like "The Kitty Hawke", while old, such a thing was thought to be impossible (tagging meaning that to show off they proved they could have gotten a kill). China is generally not viewed as being an offensive military threat because they don't have the abillity to get their massive population/armies from point A to point B. They are however building the weapons to do this. There is nothing "defensive" about their preparations, and while the media hasn't exactly concealed it, you don't see much continuous coverage of such things, it's mentioned once or twice and then buried.... but it's out there.

Bassically China knows the conflict is inevitable, heck to be entirely honest from some things I've noticed over the years (translated speeches, periodicals, etc... I used to follow them somewhat) they basically have every intention of invading the rest of the world for living space if nothing else. They very much have an attitude of racial and cultural superiority, backed by a desire to avenge their trivialization by the west. Right or wrong in what they are saying, it's a very scary situation.

The bottom line here is that the method that has been ensuring global peace is failing, and it seems like a war is going to be inevitable, above and beyond anything said here.

I've had my eyes on this for years now, and it keeps getting worse. Also I believe that as far as the stated reasons go, in the end the next big war is going to be fought over trade and economics. Though China itself has other motives like wanting more land for it's exploding population to inhabit.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
Matt_LRR said:
Andy Chalk said:
I'm interested that in your mention of Canada as a part of the 301 report, you didn't make any reference to Canda's own Bill C-32, introduced last month as the "Canadian Copyright Modernization act" to bring us in line with that report.
C-32 is a whole 'nother argument and while it's absolutely worth discussing, at least among Canadians, I didn't think it was relevant enough to this to bear getting sidetracked on.

But, since you mentioned it, anyone who doubts the influence that the US can bring to bear on other nations need only look at the Canadian situation. US pressure is largely responsible for the government's dogged determination to update the country's copyright laws and bring them more in line with the US's vision of the modern era. And those laws are heavily slanted in favour of rightsholders - your average user is pretty much left out in the cold.
Which is a crying shame, because the bill is written in such a way as to say:

You, as a user, are allowed to:

1. make backup copies.
2. time shift
3. format shift
4. etc.

Oh, unless the content distributor locked it.

They came *so* close to actually passing meaningful reforms, and then took it all away in favour of corporate interest.

-m
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Ewyx said:
IP laws are fucked. However, they're skewed toward powerful corporations, and not in the interest of the public and creativity. Go figure.

10 years. After that it should be public domain, if you can't make a profit in 10 years. You're obviously doing something horribly wrong.
On a differant track from what I've been saying elsewhere in this thread, keep in mind that copyrights need to be renewed and kept valid. This is why things like "Abandonware" exist, where a company has stopped maintaining the upkeep on a title, causing it to become public domain. It's a little more complicated than with books, but in the end if you take a look at sites like "Abandonia" or "Home Of the Underdogs" which operate publically, and legally, you'll find plenty of old games up for download there. If someone renews liscences or puts something back up for sale they are usually pretty good about removing the download.

Typically when someone maintains a liscence for the long term, it's done with the intent of trying to do something with that liscence again. Sort of like these nostolgia remakes and relaunches of 1980s franchises and the like. Someone maintained, or bought the rights to those liscences, feeling that given enough time they could make money off the ideas again.

That said I for the most part don't have any real issue with intellectual property laws in general, even if some people do get ridiculous with them. I'm not a big defender of piracy, despite the fact that I am a huge critic of institutions like the gaming industry.

My problem with this annoucement (all my rambling about international aspects, warfare, and everything else aside) is that in the end it's all about the fact that I think the goverment will use it as a springboard for a giant power grab, without actually achieving much of anything since the real money being lost here isn't from pirates/consumers in the US.
 

cmstewart87

Requirer of MORE Supply Depots
Feb 18, 2010
30
0
0
dududf said:
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

Get it right people. There's a difference.

Anyone else tired of the US trying to make everyone else in the world like the US? Because it's getting kinda annoying.

Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.

I don't care what you do in your own borders, but it stops at the border.
If they called their debts then the entire world economy would crash. So in turn literally screwing yourself over.

Also when the US plays nice everyone tells us its annoying but when we stop everyone says we're assholes. so in turn we'd rather be annoying than assholes because being annoying means you'll stop bothering us. =P

Also Definition of Piracy: "Piracy is a war-like act committed by private parties (not affiliated with any government) that engage in acts of robbery and/or criminal violence at sea."

And commenting on the borders bit. What you're saying is that if you created game that you were charging $20 per copy for and I bought the copy, left the country, and then gave it away online for free to everyone losing you many, many customers. You would be fine with it because I was doing it outside your borders? Makes a whole lot of sense.

All it all, making something yours without paying your dues whether you steal it or copy it..you are still taking something that is not yours thus theft thus illegal thus your picture is invalid.
 

cmstewart87

Requirer of MORE Supply Depots
Feb 18, 2010
30
0
0
Ewyx said:
IP laws are fucked. However, they're skewed toward powerful corporations, and not in the interest of the public and creativity. Go figure.

10 years. After that it should be public domain, if you can't make a profit in 10 years. You're obviously doing something horribly wrong.
I agree with you there. 10 years even 20 years is fine but 70 something years after the death of the creator and other random extension laws is stupid. You can thank Mickey Mouse for that crap. Oh Disney, you made all of your stories based off old famous writings proudly showing how sharing content can be great and then decided you wanted it all for yourself. Selfish dicks.
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
cmstewart87 said:
The borders bit was referring to the government trying to get others countries to have the same laws as they do in clarification. I don't give a damn if it's right or wrong in USA, but don't go trying to make everywhere else a mini USA. It's a different country for a reason.

And the picture is still valid.

Software piracy copies, it does not remove. Theft removes.
 

cmstewart87

Requirer of MORE Supply Depots
Feb 18, 2010
30
0
0
dududf said:
cmstewart87 said:
The borders bit was referring to the government trying to get others countries to have the same laws as they do in clarification. I don't give a damn if it's right or wrong in USA, but don't go trying to make everywhere else a mini USA. It's a different country for a reason.

And the picture is still valid.

Software piracy copies, it does not remove. Theft removes.
Ok I misunderstood the borders thing and in that sense I agree with you. and even if the picture is valid in your eyes its still wrong to do for anything other than having a backup.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
Veylon said:
The damages are, I'll admit, hard to see. But, let's take an example. Charles Dickens writes "A Christmas Carol" and sells it to a publisher, who sells a thousand copies. Then another publisher sells another thousand copies, but pays Mr. Dickens nothing. What they stole wasn't copies of books, but customers and sales. Mr. Dickens has a right to make something, sell it at a price of his choosing and benefit from whatever profits (if any) it happens to make. Now, back in England a hundred years ago they didn't have such laws to protect IP and Mr. Dickens suffered terrible financial distress despite writing one of the most popular works of his time and money that should have accrued to him went instead to those who stole his story and gave nothing back. The damages are those lost sales.

And that's the moral hole of piracy. They give nothing back. It takes time and effort to create something and they want to have it without giving in return. The common root of piracy and theft is taking something for nothing.

In all fairness, corporations exaggerate their losses beyond all logic and reason. Dicken's losses are easier to confirm; pirates had to pay for pirate copies at nearly the price a legitimate one would have fetched. Modern-day pirates pay nothing but the time and effort of downloading a copy. Sales are lost, but the cost of a copy is far less to the acquirer if it is pirated. So, I'd argue the true cost is the number of copies pirated, multiplied by the cost of pirating one copy, because it's unlikely many pirates would've bought the game in the first place if they couldn't pirate.

I do hope the government does take action here. The corporations need some kind of back-up; their only alternative is DRM and it is pure godawful and doesn't work to boot. Hopefully, this will put the screws to the pirates without every random innocent videogamer getting hit along the way.
You're talking about selling illegal copies. Which in practice is closer to the currently running "used game" racket than digital piracy. China, russia, and other second/third world countries being the few places were actual piracy is a profitable venture. Even then, prices aren't even close to comparable to what the first world demands. Meaning these places simply aren't viable markets.


You're also making the same assumption the document in question discredits. The idea that every downloaded copy is a lost sale. Pirates don't download one or two things, they download everything that interests them. As they are free from the constraints of their disposable income, they're exposed to more movies, games, television shows, than the average non-pirate. As "should I buy this... or pay my bills" never enters into the equation. Even asserting the average pirate would buy half of what they download is utterly delusional. But they do buy. Actual studies show pirates buy more than non-pirates. The logic works as well, they're exposed to more, they like more, they buy more. Faulty logic like, "why would they buy what they already have" doing little to discredit established trends. Pirates buy more than they would otherwise. Not even mentioning all the free advertising they produce. While cracked copies of asscreed2 were unplayable, the internet was almost totally silent on it. Then once the DRM was cracked interest had faded and no one talked about it. Also, if every pirated copy was a lost sale, and asscreed2 was unpiratable for a period, sales should've spiked. They didn't. Meaning ubisoft actually lost out on free advertising and buzz... because they protected their intellectual property.

Of course, if piracy were to suddenly end, pirates would actually buy less. Due to the current climate of "review creep" and marketing packages, pretty much every game/movie gets the same amount of press. Making it all but impossible to actually tell if something is good or not.

Also, I was refreshing my memory a bit to produce a real counter point to your Dicken's exmaple, but apparently it was an ass-pull. So no point, right?
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
cmstewart87 said:
dududf said:
cmstewart87 said:
The borders bit was referring to the government trying to get others countries to have the same laws as they do in clarification. I don't give a damn if it's right or wrong in USA, but don't go trying to make everywhere else a mini USA. It's a different country for a reason.

And the picture is still valid.

Software piracy copies, it does not remove. Theft removes.
Ok I misunderstood the borders thing and in that sense I agree with you. and even if the picture is valid in your eyes its still wrong to do for anything other than having a backup.
*Raises hand*
Agree to disagreeing is awesome when it doesn't end in tears, fire, and corpses.
 

7ru7h

Avatar of The Laughing God
Jul 8, 2009
128
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
Matt_LRR said:
There is one. Bootlegging.
Bootlegging is the act of creating illegal goods and then selling them. The "selling" being the key part of the term. A practice, when intellectual property is involved, no one can argue is harmless. Something the "used game" market is pretty damned close to.
How so? Because along with selling the illegal goods, you also need to create them. Places like Game Stop don't copy a disk for God of War 2 and then put that copy on the shelves while keeping the original in the back. If they did, that would be bootlegging, but they don't.

Honestly, I think game devs/publishers are just being stupid about the used game issue. Its not piracy, and its not illegal in the slightest (nor should it be). Why? Because of the first sale doctrine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]. Basically, once I buy a legal copy of something, I'm allowed to sell it to whomever I choose, whenever I choose. Saying that Ubisoft deserves any of the money that I spend on a used copy of PoP for my Xbox is no different than saying the guy who originally built the house I want to buy deserves any of the money that the sellers are asking for the house.

I just can't wait to hear the reaction from the music industry when they find out you can get an old album at CD Warehouse and not pay them a dime...
 

shadow skill

New member
Oct 12, 2007
2,850
0
0
Therumancer said:
Reverend Del said:
I'm inclined to go with Sparrow on the subject of America nuking folks if they don't agree. Not going to happen. Nobody's that suicidal. And yes, even for America that would be suicide.

As for this new IP shenanigan. It'll be interesting to see, certainly. The most interesting will be just how hard they hit the pirates. Because stringent punishments could easily be a good deterrent to most casual pirates.
Well, the thing is that none of this really matters much in a purely domestic sense. The only thing that could come out of it would be a sexxy new set of police powers for the Federal goverment, and very little in the way of results. As an issue media piracy is small potatoes, the big issues are things like the piracy of drugs, clothing, and the like. Pfizers (which ran a major complex down here in Connecticut where I live, even if it's leaving) came up with this little drug called "Viagra" for example which cost them a lot to develop. China has been knocking it off and selling it around the world for a lot cheaper than Pfizers wants to charge, in violation of their patents, costing both them and our goverment a ridiculous amount of money. Likewise Chinese sweatshops churning out things like denim jeans and slapping labels for "Levis" or "Calvin Klein" on them is another big deal. The money from these sales isn't so much from the US Market, but the fact that they sell these things globally at rates that the creators can't compete with due to sweatshop labour, and no need for China to engage in the creative process, R&D, or financing involved.

The issue of "robber economies" (of which China is the biggest) has been an issue for a while now, it's not new, however nobody has wanted to do anything about it because it would require a war. The Democrats with ther agenda certainly are not going to throw the first punch at China and other nations, however they will most certainly going to be more than happy to use piracy as an excuse to try and get more extensive goverment powers to deal with the "crisis" while actually acheiving very little in the long run. Power is power in this case, and I can virtually guarantee we've got people rubbing their hands together in glee over the abillity to get around a lot of the current laws so they can in theory locate and arrest 15 year old music/movie/game pirates which in the end aren't going to amount to much in the overall intellectual properties arena. Loss of a lot of civil liberties, for very little in the way of meaningful results.

As far as a nuclear exchange goes, well right now the US has the abillity to destroy the entire world ten times over. We're also pretty much the only nation currently known to have an effective anti-missle defensive technique. You might remember Russia freaking out a few years ago about some of the interception systems we were showing off because they violated treaties with the USSR before it's collapse that Russia thought should still have been in force. Including the enviromental concerns (nuclear winter, etc...) if the entire world was to turn on the US (no allies) and we fired off our stockpile while they all launched at us, according to the last estimate I read years ago the odds of our long-term survivial as any kind of civilization would be a paltry 10%. Of course that's really good when you consider the odds of the rest of the world surviving are 0%. The defensive strategy here being shooting missles at other missles, including ones from our various subs, and also using planes to intercept them.

Now before you start screaming "American Power Trip" let me tell you that I don't think any of that matters much. The reason being is that we in the US don't currently have the guts to use our military to it's full potential, and the rest of the world knows this. You can have the most awesome gun in the world, and it doesn't matter if nobody believes you'll pull the trigger due to your own morality.

What's more I firmly believe ICBMs are rapidly going to be obselete. Still dangerous mind you, but nothing like they are now. Things like China's anti-satellite lasers (search China, satellite, lasers for more information)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/06/china_satellite_laser/

are rapidly getting to the point where satellite-based targeting, which ICBMs need to be effective, is goint to be impossible in a serious war. Add to this generally rising levels of technology, and it's only a matter of time before other nations get better at the missle interceptions we apparently freaked Russia with, and we're looking at another era of conventional warfare. There will be nothing preventing this anymore, as the peace brought by WMD insured MAD will end.

China is currently involved in building up a military force of unprecedented scale. Some of their weapons like the "Yuan" class submarine have proven themselves capable of "Tagging" American Carriers like "The Kitty Hawke", while old, such a thing was thought to be impossible (tagging meaning that to show off they proved they could have gotten a kill). China is generally not viewed as being an offensive military threat because they don't have the abillity to get their massive population/armies from point A to point B. They are however building the weapons to do this. There is nothing "defensive" about their preparations, and while the media hasn't exactly concealed it, you don't see much continuous coverage of such things, it's mentioned once or twice and then buried.... but it's out there.

Bassically China knows the conflict is inevitable, heck to be entirely honest from some things I've noticed over the years (translated speeches, periodicals, etc... I used to follow them somewhat) they basically have every intention of invading the rest of the world for living space if nothing else. They very much have an attitude of racial and cultural superiority, backed by a desire to avenge their trivialization by the west. Right or wrong in what they are saying, it's a very scary situation.

The bottom line here is that the method that has been ensuring global peace is failing, and it seems like a war is going to be inevitable, above and beyond anything said here.

I've had my eyes on this for years now, and it keeps getting worse. Also I believe that as far as the stated reasons go, in the end the next big war is going to be fought over trade and economics. Though China itself has other motives like wanting more land for it's exploding population to inhabit.
Their war machine would grind to a halt before they could establish enough of a hold on any territory long enough to get anything good from it. Their main problem has always been food, their badass army is going to be totally worthless in a conventional war with real countries when they all start starving to death. If they plan on pulling a land grab that pretty much rules out nuclear weapons, the only things left with a big enough punch are some form of relativistic missile (Also called Kinetic Strike.) or some type of directed energy weapons. Unless they have that they don't have a chance to win a shooting war at all (For the purposes of a land grab against the bigger powers.) and even if they did, that still does not suggest that they would be able to actually hold large amounts of territory.

Also for the record MAD is an old wives' tale that has not mattered since we figured out that radiation likes to linger on an area. It is a useless weapon for land grabs which is still one of the most basic reasons for war. The concept did work wonders for the weapons industry though. I also wonder how much of China's military buildup has more to do with keeping up appearances inside their own territory than any real plans for using them outside of their territory?

These people managed to institute a population control policy that worked so well that they ended up with a gross imbalance between men and women. It is a recipe for rebellion waiting to happen. The hardliners who run China at the moment know that they really can't stop the erosion of their power base from happening since internet filtering is just never going to work, they know that they have to expose themselves to the rest of the world in order to be able to steal anything, all the rest of us have to do is wait for the current authority to crumble from the inside out. The fact that they are a robber economy is one of their biggest weaknesses, if they throw the first punch that IP is not going to flow nearly as freely as it did before which would of course mean that they would have to invest in their own R&D which is going to take away money from the war machine. I really think that the most we will see in the conflict with China is war through much smaller proxies. At least as long as food remains a problem.
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
dududf said:
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

Get it right people. There's a difference.

Anyone else tired of the US trying to make everyone else in the world like the US? Because it's getting kinda annoying.

Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.

I don't care what you do in your own borders, but it stops at the border.
First of all, there is a very simple explanation for what Biden said: He'd an idiot.

Secondly, if America was called on all of their debts right now, they wouldn't pay, they wouldn't just disband, it'd be messy, but I'm sure the country would continue to exist.

Lastly, I don't totally agree that it stops at our border, after all, it was something made in the US that was "stolen" and these illegal websites do allow people from the US to use their services.(for the record, I don't have a problem with "piracy" but I don't agree with this assertion)
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
Ewyx said:
IP laws are fucked. However, they're skewed toward powerful corporations, and not in the interest of the public and creativity. Go figure.

10 years. After that it should be public domain, if you can't make a profit in 10 years. You're obviously doing something horribly wrong.
I like this idea, I really like it.

Any game or movie or ebook or song or whatever should be public domain after 10 years.
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
Sparrow said:
As much as I liked the article, I must admit that there were a few parts I just didn't get. Alright, you caught me, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

HG131 said:
Tom Roberts said:
I'm wondering just how evenhandedly those rules on copyright infringement/IP theft will be applied.

China is certainly one of the main offenders but can you honestly see America going "I'm sorry, but until you sort out these legal issues to our satisfaction we won't be engaging in Trade with you."

When the obvious response by the Chinese is then "OK, since it doesn't really affect us anymore if your economy goes through the porcelain bowl, we'd like our usual trade deficit to be paid in the form of all those loans. Dongyi."

Basically I figure the old adage of 'At your feet or at your throat' will apply.
We'd respond "Ok, your payment is coming in the form of our 10s of thousands of nukes coming at your country. Good bye."
I'm not sure whether your talking for China or America here, but nobody is that stupid.

"They won't trade with us? Nuke them. That'll fix the problem, obviously."
Don't you know? Nukes fix everything

Anyway, China is actually quite heavily invested in the success of our economy, after all, if the economy collapses and our dollar becomes worth the same as say, a peso, then when China is paid their debt, it'll be worth about 1% of what it would have been due to the hyperinflation.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
You, as a user, are allowed to:

1. make backup copies.
2. time shift
3. format shift
4. etc.

Oh, unless the content distributor locked it.

They came *so* close to actually passing meaningful reforms, and then took it all away in favour of corporate interest.

-m
I'd like to take a closer look at the bill in a future column, I'm just not sure that something so specific to Canada would wash. Worth looking into a bit, I suppose.

ESAC (I think it was) tweeted once or twice a couple of weeks ago, extolling the virtues of C-32 because it codified all these admittedly excellent consumer rights. But it made no mention of the digital lock provision. When I asked about it, I was told that specifics were available in the actual legislation and I should look there for details - in other words, I was blown off. It's a great sales pitch, I suppose, but I wonder how many people who think it's about time we did something like this aware of just how likely it is that they'll soon be breaking a law or two.

Is it the result of US pressure? It may sound paranoid to suggest it, but I don't think it necessarily is.
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
dududf said:
Kanodin0 said:
I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.
Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.
"Don't agree with our rules, or we'll remove one of your largest sources of income, and remove the jobs of millions of people"

Seems like bullying to me.
If other countries want to steal things from each-other in their borders that's fine, but since they are stealing from the US when they host websites that allow for pirating of US made media, they are committing a crime against the US (all arguments whether piracy is a crime aside, considering that our government considers it a crime, they shouldn't be allowed to do it to us)
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
danpascooch said:
I'm complaining about America trying to make the world fit it's own image. It bugs the living crap out of me.

Also didn't you see my edit? Unless you've had that quoted for around 2 hours, you should've saw it.
dududf said:
*Edit
Can people stop quoting me? It's getting seriously annoying I get that "New Message" icon every 5 minutes. Besides almost everything in reply has been said/spoken already.
I get it, you disagree that's nice (is my feeling to the people who quote with me). What you say won't change what a think. All it's doing is spamming my inbox. (this is not directed specifically at you, but people who've just generally quoted me.)
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
dududf said:
danpascooch said:
I'm complaining about America trying to make the world fit it's own image. It bugs the living crap out of me.

Also didn't you see my edit? Unless you've had that quoted for around 2 hours, you should've saw it.
dududf said:
*Edit
Can people stop quoting me? It's getting seriously annoying I get that "New Message" icon every 5 minutes. Besides almost everything in reply has been said/spoken already.
I get it, you disagree that's nice (is my feeling to the people who quote with me). What you say won't change what a think. All it's doing is spamming my inbox. (this is not directed specifically at you, but people who've just generally quoted me.)
I saw the edit, but when I disagree with someone, I quote them, sorry, but that's forum practice, if it bothers you to the point where you wish you weren't quoted may I recommend simply deleting the quote alerts from this thread without reading them? Because if I want to make a point based on someones post, I'm going to quote them.

I don't really feel that this is a "make everyone like us" type thing, it's more of a "stop stealing from us" thing. It used to be quite simple, if you're physically in our borders, you'll follow our rules, but with the internet, you can commit a whole number of crimes in other countries without ever setting foot in them.

For example, let's say there was some tiny country where theft was perfectly legal, if I went there, set up a laptop, and somehow found a way to hack into electronic banking websites and steal billions and billions of dollars from thousands of Canadians, should Canada look the other way because I was in another country? I don't personally think Piracy is wrong, but I also believe that America should be allowed to protect itself from people committing crimes AGAINST THEM from other countries. It's one thing to commit a crime outside of the US that does not affect the US, but granted the US government considers piracy theft, they aren't going about their own business in their own country, they're stealing from us, and the US has every right to protect itself from theft.

You may be in another country, but the US shouldn't have to stand by while things are stolen from them, and they won't
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
danpascooch said:
dududf said:
danpascooch said:
I'm complaining about America trying to make the world fit it's own image. It bugs the living crap out of me.

Also didn't you see my edit? Unless you've had that quoted for around 2 hours, you should've saw it.
dududf said:
*Edit
Can people stop quoting me? It's getting seriously annoying I get that "New Message" icon every 5 minutes. Besides almost everything in reply has been said/spoken already.
I get it, you disagree that's nice (is my feeling to the people who quote with me). What you say won't change what a think. All it's doing is spamming my inbox. (this is not directed specifically at you, but people who've just generally quoted me.)
I saw the edit, but when I disagree with someone, I quote them, sorry, but that's forum practice, if it bothers you to the point where you wish you weren't quoted may I recommend simply deleting the quote alerts from this thread without reading them? Because if I want to make a point based on someones post, I'm going to quote them.

I don't really feel that this is a "make everyone like us" type thing, it's more of a "stop stealing from us" thing. It used to be quite simple, if you're physically in our borders, you'll follow our rules, but with the internet, you can commit a whole number of crimes in other countries without ever setting foot in them.

For example, let's say there was some tiny country where theft was perfectly legal, if I went there, set up a laptop, and somehow found a way to hack into electronic banking websites and steal billions and billions of dollars from thousands of Canadians, should Canada look the other way because I was in another country? I don't personally think Piracy is wrong, but I also believe that America should be allowed to protect itself from people committing crimes AGAINST THEM from other countries. It's one thing to commit a crime outside of the US that does not affect the US, but granted the US government considers piracy theft, they aren't going about their own business in their own country, they're stealing from us, and the US has every right to protect itself from theft.

You may be in another country, but the US shouldn't have to stand by while things are stolen from them, and they won't
My annoyance with the American-Assimilation-Thing (over dramatization...yummm) is not related to piracy.

I'm too tired to source every single thing I've seen, but it's a cummulative annoyance, over a wide variety of topics not just IP protection. I look at this and think "Oh joy another thing on the list, fuck off would yeah."

It's just getting annoying, especially as my government lacks any backbone when it comes to relations with the US, and does everything the US whims.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
Matt_LRR said:
You, as a user, are allowed to:

1. make backup copies.
2. time shift
3. format shift
4. etc.

Oh, unless the content distributor locked it.

They came *so* close to actually passing meaningful reforms, and then took it all away in favour of corporate interest.

-m
I'd like to take a closer look at the bill in a future column, I'm just not sure that something so specific to Canada would wash. Worth looking into a bit, I suppose.

ESAC (I think it was) tweeted once or twice a couple of weeks ago, extolling the virtues of C-32 because it codified all these admittedly excellent consumer rights. But it made no mention of the digital lock provision. When I asked about it, I was told that specifics were available in the actual legislation and I should look there for details - in other words, I was blown off. It's a great sales pitch, I suppose, but I wonder how many people who think it's about time we did something like this aware of just how likely it is that they'll soon be breaking a law or two.

Is it the result of US pressure? It may sound paranoid to suggest it, but I don't think it necessarily is.
Almost certainly it is a result of pressure from down south. If not political, commercial.

I've actually read much of the bill, and I support almost all of it. It's a very future-minded progressive document.

The catch is, it's not "a provision" regarding digital locks, it's actually a clause in the granting of every individual right.

As in, "you have the right to time shift recorded media as broadcast on TV, unless the broadcaster includes a digital lock on the broadcast to prevent you recording it" or "you have the right to convert a CD to MP3 for playback in your computer or MP3 player, unless the CD includes encryption to prevent the content being ripped"

each individual provision of a right has that caveat included.

It's really unfortunate. there's so much good in it. The document actually spells out parody and satire provisions as a protected use of copyrighted material, something we've not had before and desperately needed. (and which is pretty relevant to me as a Canadian comedy content creator). I'd really like to support it's passing, but I just can't abide that level of corporate pandering. It's nuts. If they think for one second that every single publisher and distributor releasing product in Canada isn't immediately going to add digital locks to everything they need to give their heads a shake.

I actually considered writing a piece about this to submit myself a few weeks back, but as you said, being so canada-specific, who knows if it'd wash.

Maybe it wouldn't hurt to add a Can-Con column though... :3

-m
 

Lord_Jaroh

Ad-Free Finally!
Apr 24, 2007
567
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
Andy Chalk said:
Matt_LRR said:
Andy Chalk said:
I'm interested that in your mention of Canada as a part of the 301 report, you didn't make any reference to Canda's own Bill C-32, introduced last month as the "Canadian Copyright Modernization act" to bring us in line with that report.
C-32 is a whole 'nother argument and while it's absolutely worth discussing, at least among Canadians, I didn't think it was relevant enough to this to bear getting sidetracked on.

But, since you mentioned it, anyone who doubts the influence that the US can bring to bear on other nations need only look at the Canadian situation. US pressure is largely responsible for the government's dogged determination to update the country's copyright laws and bring them more in line with the US's vision of the modern era. And those laws are heavily slanted in favour of rightsholders - your average user is pretty much left out in the cold.
Which is a crying shame, because the bill is written in such a way as to say:

You, as a user, are allowed to:

1. make backup copies.
2. time shift
3. format shift
4. etc.

Oh, unless the content distributor locked it.

They came *so* close to actually passing meaningful reforms, and then took it all away in favour of corporate interest.

-m
If I remember correctly, you are allowed to make *1* backup copy, and you are only allowed to format shift *once*. Ie. legally, you can put your music onto the computer, in mp3 form as a *backup*, but you can't then put it onto your ipod or mp3 player as a format shift. That would be *2* copies, which would be illegal.

Which of course is rendered null and void if the distributer locks the content, as it is illegal to break the lock...

Nothing like making consumer rights absolutely null and void...
 

whaleswiththumbs

New member
Feb 13, 2009
1,462
0
0
Baldr said:
75% of US exports are IPs. Almost half of our economy is IP, of course the Government wants to protect it.
hehe, i got this very strong thought of a hit squad dropping in behind a pirate in some Canadian hotel and killing him. which oddly corresponds with my thoughts on this article

OT:
I got this really strong thought(see the correlation?) that the US is setting up some agency to find the small things wrong with something and blowing it up like the Hindenburg.

(that doesn't fully get out what i thought, but it works i guess.)
 

SilentHunter7

New member
Nov 21, 2007
1,652
0
0
Tom Roberts said:
I'm wondering just how evenhandedly those rules on copyright infringement/IP theft will be applied.

China is certainly one of the main offenders but can you honestly see America going "I'm sorry, but until you sort out these legal issues to our satisfaction we won't be engaging in Trade with you."

When the obvious response by the Chinese is then "OK, since it doesn't really affect us anymore if your economy goes through the porcelain bowl, we'd like our usual trade deficit to be paid in the form of all those loans. Dongyi."

Basically I figure the old adage of 'At your feet or at your throat' will apply.
No offense to you, but every time I hear someone talk about China calling in it's debt, I want to punch a baby.

China (or anyone else, for that matter) cannot simply call in its debt. Treasury securities have to mature before they can be cashed in, and all the ones China has do not mature on the same day. If China wanted to sell all of its US-backed securities at once, they'd flood the market, and price would go through the floor, resulting in them taking a massive loss. In other words, them selling off all their US debt would hurt them more than it would ever hurt us.

EDIT:
Also, of all the U.S. debt, half of it is owned by the Fed. Another quarter is owned by American investors. So actually, 75% of our debt is owed to OURSELVES (try to wrap your head around that one). investors. And only a fifth of the Quarter that is foreign-owned is owned by China. And a third of the Chinese owned securities are owned by Chinese institutions and nationals, independent of the Chinese government.

So really, the Chinese government only owns about 3% of our national debt, which is just a drop in the bucket.
 

Freaky Spook

New member
Jun 30, 2010
1
0
0
IP Enforcement, Copyright protection etc all are good provided they are part of a balanced system.

Consumers need protection as well and big media and software companies are just taking consumers for a ride.

Software licensing restrictions, end user support, End user license agreements, refunds are all designed to make it impossible for consumers to have any protections or rights without investing time and money into laywers to attempt to recover damages or refunds from rights holders.

If rights holders want to protect their property so much why do they charge exororante fee's to license the use of the device rather then permit the purchaser to own it.

Why is it media can charge people enormous amounts of dollars for electroninc contennt and not be required to unlock the content if they go out of business or upgrade their Rights management servers forcing people to buy the updated version.

Big Media combining with the software industry only stands to make things worse for people as there will be more restrictions placed upon IP and people will be forced to give up more of their privacy with the expectation that the company they are giving it to won't do anything wrong.

Already we have seen gross privacy issues with Sony and their rootkit scandle, Amazon pulling books off Kindle, Sony breaking Linux on the PS3, Microsoft shutting down MSN music etc etc, how long will people take this crap for before they start askign their governments why are they allowing these companies to screw eveyrone over and get even stronger IP laws.

In the end the stronger the IP laws are the more the consumer will be screwed over.
 

Pumpkin_Eater

New member
Mar 17, 2009
992
0
0
Glad to see that Obama has his priorities straight despite all the unwarranted media attention to the greatest environmental disaster in history. Once he apologizes to BP we'll be in good shape again.
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
dududf said:
danpascooch said:
dududf said:
danpascooch said:
I'm complaining about America trying to make the world fit it's own image. It bugs the living crap out of me.

Also didn't you see my edit? Unless you've had that quoted for around 2 hours, you should've saw it.
dududf said:
*Edit
Can people stop quoting me? It's getting seriously annoying I get that "New Message" icon every 5 minutes. Besides almost everything in reply has been said/spoken already.
I get it, you disagree that's nice (is my feeling to the people who quote with me). What you say won't change what a think. All it's doing is spamming my inbox. (this is not directed specifically at you, but people who've just generally quoted me.)
I saw the edit, but when I disagree with someone, I quote them, sorry, but that's forum practice, if it bothers you to the point where you wish you weren't quoted may I recommend simply deleting the quote alerts from this thread without reading them? Because if I want to make a point based on someones post, I'm going to quote them.

I don't really feel that this is a "make everyone like us" type thing, it's more of a "stop stealing from us" thing. It used to be quite simple, if you're physically in our borders, you'll follow our rules, but with the internet, you can commit a whole number of crimes in other countries without ever setting foot in them.

For example, let's say there was some tiny country where theft was perfectly legal, if I went there, set up a laptop, and somehow found a way to hack into electronic banking websites and steal billions and billions of dollars from thousands of Canadians, should Canada look the other way because I was in another country? I don't personally think Piracy is wrong, but I also believe that America should be allowed to protect itself from people committing crimes AGAINST THEM from other countries. It's one thing to commit a crime outside of the US that does not affect the US, but granted the US government considers piracy theft, they aren't going about their own business in their own country, they're stealing from us, and the US has every right to protect itself from theft.

You may be in another country, but the US shouldn't have to stand by while things are stolen from them, and they won't
My annoyance with the American-Assimilation-Thing (over dramatization...yummm) is not related to piracy.

I'm too tired to source every single thing I've seen, but it's a cummulative annoyance, over a wide variety of topics not just IP protection. I look at this and think "Oh joy another thing on the list, fuck off would yeah."

It's just getting annoying, especially as my government lacks any backbone when it comes to relations with the US, and does everything the US whims.
Well, I can't really appreciate your collective annoyance at multiple acts because.....I don't know what acts you're talking about specifically, and I don't share your perspective.

Since it would be a royal pain in the ass to ask you to list them and go over them with you, let's call it a day.

G'night
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Wow this is dumb as hell. No, piracy is not right. But the US has a lot of bigger problems that need to be taken care of first, prior to focusing on ANYTHING internet-based.

This makes it clear where our country's priorities lie. Adding more bodies to the for-profit prison system by defining obscure and popular activities as "crimes" rather than focusing on our real issues.

Again, I'm not defending anyone per ce, but do you really know ANYONE under the age of 30 that HASN'T downloaded a few songs/albums by this point?

Meanwhile, we're wrapped up in two useless wars, disasters, both natural and man-made, and an entirely corrupt financial system. And of course 80% of our politicians are eventually caught banging hookers or spending public money on drugs/parties.

*Sigh,* I guess it's about time to move out of this country. 23 years old and I've already lost all faith in this government.
 

Klepa

New member
Apr 17, 2009
908
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
As in, "you have the right to time shift recorded media as broadcast on TV, unless the broadcaster includes a digital lock on the broadcast to prevent you recording it" or "you have the right to convert a CD to MP3 for playback in your computer or MP3 player, unless the CD includes encryption to prevent the content being ripped"
Sounds like something out of a school yard. "You can punch me in the stomach, and I promise I won't hit you back.... unless I want to".

It's all just too ridiculous. Artists get a laughably small amount of money from record sales, it's unfathomable. You're better off sending a one dollar bill in an envelope to your favorite artist, than buying their record. In most countries, the actual artist usually ends up receiving about 1% to 5% of the retail price of the record. The rest goes to the label, and the retailer.

Most music artists don't care if you download their albums, because they're not seeing the money. What they do care about, is having live performances.

So after all that, it's ridiculous for Obama to say "Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people.", when these laws really only give money to the record labels, who can sue pirates for ludicrous amounts of money [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars], mainly to intimidate people into buying their albums, instead of pirating them.
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
ITT: america trying to shove it's own rules down the throat of the rest of the world and hardly anybody notices it because they're busy with discussing how file-sharing is somehow worse then any other problem in the world.
 

JohnSmith

New member
Jan 19, 2009
411
0
0
HG131 said:
Tom Roberts said:
I'm wondering just how evenhandedly those rules on copyright infringement/IP theft will be applied.

China is certainly one of the main offenders but can you honestly see America going "I'm sorry, but until you sort out these legal issues to our satisfaction we won't be engaging in Trade with you."

When the obvious response by the Chinese is then "OK, since it doesn't really affect us anymore if your economy goes through the porcelain bowl, we'd like our usual trade deficit to be paid in the form of all those loans. Dongyi."

Basically I figure the old adage of 'At your feet or at your throat' will apply.
We'd respond "Ok, your payment is coming in the form of our 10s of thousands of nukes coming at your country. Good bye."
Really, and you wonder why people treat America as a nation populated by red neck stereotype douche bags.

America owes a lot of people a lot of money, most of its corporations can piss of to another country at the drop of a hat if it raises taxes and America imports a shit ton of stuff. So I can see why you end up with nukes being you only bargaining point because you have nothing else to bargin with.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
*Ahem*

[HEADING=1]Pirated product =/= lost sale.[/HEADING]

People pirate for many reasons, many do it becuase its an ultra conveniant way to listen to an album before you buy it. You can keep it on your MP3 player for a couple of days then buy it if you like it. I know losts of people who download but still buy CDs for the audio-quallity and for the simple fact they want to support artists they like.

The problem with "Copywrite enforcement" as it is put here is that it's VERY patchy. Here in the UK we have seen this in action, the main people this is set up to protect are the mega-publishers of music/film/games like time warner. All the system does is protect the copywrite of those who have the resources to bring enought cases forward to make an example, smaller people just end up being igored. It's enforcement with benefactors.

Furthermore how are they expecting to work this? The copywrite holders time and time again have been pretty much defeated in court for the very fact that it's hard to get a fair trail when a multiational coporation is sueing an individual for tens of thousends for downloading 3 songs. It's unworkable. It's borderline insane.
 

gl1koz3

New member
May 24, 2010
931
0
0
Those dumb f***s. Never used computers?

Technically, this is not theft, but clone brands. As described in the handy guide. The problem is that the parameters of the item are absolutely the same. On this note, on can be held responsible for distributing without license. But to prove you did that, one must first define bit (as in memory unit) property management, which is achievable only through smallest unit or bit-signing. Product signing will not work or will work as flawed as it does right now. This would require absolutely different technology, perhaps quantum encryption and DNA as key? Since that would not allow tampering with data.

Current implementation and proposal should be directed at researching new computing technologies and not this overblown publicity stunt.
 

lijenstina

New member
Jun 18, 2008
119
0
0
HG131 said:
First off, England never would. Second, nobody else has the balls to try. Why? It will spark World War III Nukes.
Nukes will go both ways. No cowboys riding into the sunset at the end of that movie.:)

EDIT: Seems to be a too drastic solution for the piracy problem.

Little Tommy downloaded a pirated Call Of Duty game! Send the nukes!

Stop the power trip.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Kanodin0 said:
The U.S isn't required to trade with any state, why should it then give it's business to a state that won't cooperate with copyrights? You can talk about how that hurts the country in question, but that hypothetical country doesn't have some right to U.S. trade on any terms it likes.
No the U.S. isn't required to trade with any country but their are countries like say China who can bankrupt teh U.S. whenever they feel like it. The U.S. oil supply is also heavily imported as well as many other things. If your economy cant survive on its own its a very very bad idea to try and bully other countries, especially ones your economy relies on.


Its an interesting concept but aslong as the U.S. doesnt try to expand their influence outside their own borders im fine with it. Do whatever the hell you want in your own country but stay the hell away from mine.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
JohnSmith said:
HG131 said:
Tom Roberts said:
I'm wondering just how evenhandedly those rules on copyright infringement/IP theft will be applied.

China is certainly one of the main offenders but can you honestly see America going "I'm sorry, but until you sort out these legal issues to our satisfaction we won't be engaging in Trade with you."

When the obvious response by the Chinese is then "OK, since it doesn't really affect us anymore if your economy goes through the porcelain bowl, we'd like our usual trade deficit to be paid in the form of all those loans. Dongyi."

Basically I figure the old adage of 'At your feet or at your throat' will apply.
We'd respond "Ok, your payment is coming in the form of our 10s of thousands of nukes coming at your country. Good bye."
Really, and you wonder why people treat America as a nation populated by red neck stereotype douche bags.

America owes a lot of people a lot of money, most of its corporations can piss of to another country at the drop of a hat if it raises taxes and America imports a shit ton of stuff. So I can see why you end up with nukes being you only bargaining point because you have nothing else to bargin with.
Well, guess what the collateral on that money is. The US. I don't think many people want China taking over the US.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
lijenstina said:
HG131 said:
First off, England never would. Second, nobody else has the balls to try. Why? It will spark World War III Nukes.
Nukes will go both ways. No cowboys riding into the sunset at the end of that movie.:)

EDIT: Seems to be a too drastic solution for the piracy problem.

Little Tommy downloaded a pirated Call Of Duty game! Send the nukes!

Stop the power trip.
Not always, as China most likely isn't covered in anti aircraft/nuke devices.
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
1. Prohibition on importing mod chips will work about as well as prohibition on importing drugs.

2. Democrats are in bed with content providers and the puppet in power has a D in front of his name so they trot out all kinds of crap like this to stroke the major donors.

3. http://www.thetunnelmovie.net/ and projects like it are just going to get bigger and bigger. Movie studios and music publishers are in their death throes, eventually they won't have enough money to have any kind of influence anymore.
 

RMcD94

New member
Nov 25, 2009
430
0
0
dududf said:
[
Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.
It's the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). England is not a sovereign nation. It's funny you made this mistake while correcting someone else's mistake.


I want to see the actual effects on stuff before I'm worried.
 

Baldr

The Noble
Jan 6, 2010
1,739
0
0
Look at an independent game like World of Goo, made by two people. Within the first four weeks, twice as many people were connecting to the World of Goo server as had actually paid for the game. This is almost half the profit lost to these two people, luckily it was a good enough game to make it big, but piracy does hurt the little people probably more than the large corporations.
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
RMcD94 said:
dududf said:
[
Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.
It's the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). England is not a sovereign nation. It's funny you made this mistake while correcting someone else's mistake.


I want to see the actual effects on stuff before I'm worried.
Ugh fuck...

That's pathetic of me.
/feels ashamed.
 

Podunk

New member
Dec 18, 2008
822
0
0
But... Waaah! I deserve free video games. That's one of those inalienable human rights, isn't it!?
 

JaredXE

New member
Apr 1, 2009
1,378
0
0
So if the government thinks theft is theft, then what do they call taxes?

Anyways, what worries me is the "Intent to steal" bit. So, since Google and other search engines have an auto-fill, the word torrent often comes up in addition to what you are searching for....I am seeing problems with this clause and forsee that it will be removed due to unconstitutionality.

Also, what about recording off of radio, or TV? That's piracy according to the wording and intent of this bill....so grandma that tapes her "stories" is a pirate and could face punishment because she wanted to watch All My Children later in the day.

Bra-fucking-vo lawmakers, way to be retarded.
 

Kanodin0

New member
Mar 2, 2010
147
0
0
666Chaos said:
Kanodin0 said:
The U.S isn't required to trade with any state, why should it then give it's business to a state that won't cooperate with copyrights? You can talk about how that hurts the country in question, but that hypothetical country doesn't have some right to U.S. trade on any terms it likes.
No the U.S. isn't required to trade with any country but their are countries like say China who can bankrupt teh U.S. whenever they feel like it. The U.S. oil supply is also heavily imported as well as many other things. If your economy cant survive on its own its a very very bad idea to try and bully other countries, especially ones your economy relies on.


Its an interesting concept but aslong as the U.S. doesnt try to expand their influence outside their own borders im fine with it. Do whatever the hell you want in your own country but stay the hell away from mine.
Every country will have another country with considerable leverage over them, that does not mean the country then shuts down on the world stage and does nothing, mostly it means they don't act directly against that country and that country alone. Really I understand anger and frustration over this action by the U.S. but this yelling about debt is simply an absurdity that changes nothing.
 

DRD 1812

New member
Mar 1, 2010
27
0
0
JaredXE said:
So if the government thinks theft is theft, then what do they call taxes?
A charge for services rendered?

JaredXE said:
Also, what about recording off of radio, or TV? That's piracy according to the wording and intent of this bill....so grandma that tapes her "stories" is a pirate and could face punishment because she wanted to watch All My Children later in the day.

Bra-fucking-vo lawmakers, way to be retarded.
Where is any of that mentioned in the bill? Anyway, these issues often boil down to a per-industry basis. As far as I know it has always been illegal to record music off of the radio. Take that one up with the FCC or RIAA or whoever. Recording off of the television already had its battle when Beta/VHS entered the scene. Could things change? Possibly, but there are a LOT of DVRs out there. I doubt the gov'ment is going to mess with the industry that much.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Kanodin0 said:
666Chaos said:
Kanodin0 said:
The U.S isn't required to trade with any state, why should it then give it's business to a state that won't cooperate with copyrights? You can talk about how that hurts the country in question, but that hypothetical country doesn't have some right to U.S. trade on any terms it likes.
No the U.S. isn't required to trade with any country but their are countries like say China who can bankrupt teh U.S. whenever they feel like it. The U.S. oil supply is also heavily imported as well as many other things. If your economy cant survive on its own its a very very bad idea to try and bully other countries, especially ones your economy relies on.


Its an interesting concept but aslong as the U.S. doesnt try to expand their influence outside their own borders im fine with it. Do whatever the hell you want in your own country but stay the hell away from mine.
Every country will have another country with considerable leverage over them, that does not mean the country then shuts down on the world stage and does nothing, mostly it means they don't act directly against that country and that country alone. Really I understand anger and frustration over this action by the U.S. but this yelling about debt is simply an absurdity that changes nothing.
Might have been bad wording on my part. The point that I was trying to get across is that the US cant bully alot of the coutries like china into obaying these rules because they rely on them so much. You cant threaten to cut trade with somebody when your economy itself is dependant on that trade.

Trying to stop piracy in your own country is fine and all but they have no real leverage for most countries where piracy is a large problem. You cant stop piracy if the torrent sites are being hosted in other countries which is the main problem. Piracy would be extremely hard to put a stop to since it is so popular and actually brings in fairly large amount of money, just not to those who created the content.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
rembrandtqeinstein said:
2. Democrats are in bed with content providers and the puppet in power has a D in front of his name so they trot out all kinds of crap like this to stroke the major donors.
To be perfectly fair, in our corrupt capitalist society, everyone is in bed with everyone. Its just one big orgy of nepotism and bribery.
 

Delusibeta

Reachin' out...
Mar 7, 2010
2,594
0
0
Ultimately, laws against piracy is like DRM: pirates will get around them, regular folk will get caught. The speed of which these laws will be repealed will depend on how quickly Average Joe will trip them, and if the "intent to pirate" bit is taken at face value, it appears that this law will be very easy to trigger.
[Edit] The Escapist is in go-slow mode. Must be Zero Punctuation day. Anyway...
rembrandtqeinstein said:
1. Prohibition on importing mod chips will work about as well as prohibition on importing drugs.

2. Democrats Politicians in all developed nations are in bed with content providers and the puppet in power has a D M in front of his name so they trot out all kinds of crap like this to stroke the major donors.

3. http://www.thetunnelmovie.net/ and projects like it are just going to get bigger and bigger. Movie studios and music publishers are in their death throes, eventually they won't have enough money to have any kind of influence anymore.
Fix'd. Otherwise, agreed.
 

Kanodin0

New member
Mar 2, 2010
147
0
0
666Chaos said:
Might have been bad wording on my part. The point that I was trying to get across is that the US cant bully alot of the coutries like china into obaying these rules because they rely on them so much. You cant threaten to cut trade with somebody when your economy itself is dependant on that trade.

Trying to stop piracy in your own country is fine and all but they have no real leverage for most countries where piracy is a large problem. You cant stop piracy if the torrent sites are being hosted in other countries which is the main problem. Piracy would be extremely hard to put a stop to since it is so popular and actually brings in fairly large amount of money, just not to those who created the content.
Ah, now that I can agree with. This legislation will never have any real teeth as long as it can't be used against China with it's rampant Ip infringement.
 

Anarchemitis

New member
Dec 23, 2007
9,102
0
0
Wouldn't be long until a Cybercrime division of the government; these days are the end of the good old days.

At least a few people can hope that the new division will have a Subsection numbered 9 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Security_Section_9].
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Ok, I've had it, I want to start over with our government, who's up for over throwing the government? Cause as I've stated before we CAN do it, we just need a large group of dedicated people.
 

saintfrankie92

New member
Jun 30, 2010
7
0
0
Well, between new regulation and the "wal mart" effect going on recently i think we can all agree this is the good ol' days of the internet.
 

7ru7h

Avatar of The Laughing God
Jul 8, 2009
128
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
7ru7h said:
How so? Because along with selling the illegal goods, you also need to create them. Places like Game Stop don't copy a disk for God of War 2 and then put that copy on the shelves while keeping the original in the back. If they did, that would be bootlegging, but they don't.

Honestly, I think game devs/publishers are just being stupid about the used game issue. Its not piracy, and its not illegal in the slightest (nor should it be). Why? Because of the first sale doctrine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]. Basically, once I buy a legal copy of something, I'm allowed to sell it to whomever I choose, whenever I choose. Saying that Ubisoft deserves any of the money that I spend on a used copy of PoP for my Xbox is no different than saying the guy who originally built the house I want to buy deserves any of the money that the sellers are asking for the house.

I just can't wait to hear the reaction from the music industry when they find out you can get an old album at CD Warehouse and not pay them a dime...
I said it was pretty close, not identical. you can pretty easily compare the costs of illegal production of, say, moonshine (speaking back in prohibition era), to the costs involved in obtaining used copies... also similar profit margins... but thats not what we're talking about here.

Since intellectual property doesn't depreciate in value the same way any non-consumable product does and it isn't consumed the same way commodities are, it shouldn't be treated like either of the aforementioned.
You're right, IPs don't depreciate the same as other non consumable goods. They depreciate much more rapidly. For example, my house has increased in value over the last 10 years, but has starcraft? No. Games, like movies and cds lose a good amount of their value relatively quickly. But just because it loses value so quickly doesn't mean the creators deserve to be payed multiple times for the same license (since that is all you are paying for when you buy a game).

The first sale doctrine protects consumer rights. We're not talking about consumers selling their used copies online/whatever. We're talking about massive retail chains. Massive retail chains should not be treated like consumers. They should be treated like distributors. Every sale they make of an IP should send a portion back to the people responsible for creating that IP, rather than funding their massive expansion so they may continue placing their slightly cheaper used copies between legitimate customers and new copies.
To an extent you are right, the first sale doctrine is about consumer rights, but it does have a few valid points, namely that when the video game is sold, the producer's no longer hold the right to any of the money that comes with any of the subsequent sales. By your logic, every time a painting is sold, the painter deserves a cut of the sale, since it is his IP that is being sold. And even though you and I may not like it, the government does recognize a corporation as a person, so they have every right to buy the game at whatever price you'll sell it for, and sell it for whatever someone else will buy it for. That's how our economy works.

Arguing its your right to trade in your games for about a tenth of what they're going sell it for, then buying a used copy for 9-10 times what it was bought is just saying we should rescind all fraud and con artistry laws, because its the people's right to get conned.
...no it isn't. It's economics. People buy and sell at levels they deem worth it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a scam.

And, I'm sorry, but I don't see CD Warehouses in every shopping center or mall,
Maybe where you live, but where I live, I can think of 5 places to sell used games (only two of which are in a mall) but there are at least 6 different places to sell used music and movies, and there are 3 or 4 of them in the malls (and one of the malls has two different places that do that)

which makes it pretty hard to argue the "used music" market is a clear case of distributors fucking over content producers for massive profit.
How does that involve distributors? They don't distribute them around, they buy the item from people and sell them at the same store.

Most the times I ended up in places like that, I was buying replacement copies of albums I really liked, and lost in strange circumstances. As thats what the "used music" market is. A replacement service. Pay a few bucks, and you have a mostly clean copy. Replacement is never a very profitable business model, so no harm, no foul. There is nothing comparable for games. Even the independant aftermarket is rife with bullshit like "[email protected]@K $300 CHRONO CROSS MINT SHRINKWRAPPED MANUAL INCLUDED SIGNED BY ME PRETENDING TO BE SOME OTHER GUY!"
Since that NEVER happens with any other type of media. Seriously, caveat emptor.

So, if I need to replace a game, and I can't find a new copy, I just pirate it, as I am not going to give a single fucking dime to any large retail chain for a "used copy." As every single dollar made off the used games business model is a clear "fuck you" to people responsible for content.

... Yea...
...and piracy isn't? Wow... that is by far one of the dumbest arguments for piracy I have ever heard. At least if you buy the game used, you show that you are willing to pay for the game, just not at the initial retail price, but with piracy, you not only say fuck you to the people responsible for creating the content, but it also tells them that their work was meaningless and that you feel entitled to play the game anyway.

So yeah, I may not be directly helping out the industry when I buy used games, but at least I'm not contributing to the scourge of DRM.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
7ru7h said:
You're right, IPs don't depreciate the same as other non consumable goods. They depreciate much more rapidly. For example, my house has increased in value over the last 10 years, but has starcraft? No. Games, like movies and cds lose a good amount of their value relatively quickly. But just because it loses value so quickly doesn't mean the creators deserve to be payed multiple times for the same license (since that is all you are paying for when you buy a game).
Okay, you seem confused. I say depreciation, you talk about appreciation, then kinda ramble on a bit.

Houses, cars, whatever, their ability to function reduces through time and use without maintenance. Digital information does not lose functionality through time/use, and requires no maintenance to restore or maintain functionality. Thus digital information has the same value the day it's created as ten years later. Its not consumable either, so it exists outside any sort of established "value" system. Which means it's value is either static or nil.
To an extent you are right, the first sale doctrine is about consumer rights, but it does have a few valid points, namely that when the video game is sold, the producer's no longer hold the right to any of the money that comes with any of the subsequent sales. By your logic, every time a painting is sold, the painter deserves a cut of the sale, since it is his IP that is being sold. And even though you and I may not like it, the government does recognize a corporation as a person, so they have every right to buy the game at whatever price you'll sell it for, and sell it for whatever someone else will buy it for. That's how our economy works.
Once... again, we're not talking about singular individuals or singular items transferring ownership over the course of it's existence. Not to mention, maintaining a painting costs.
...no it isn't. It's economics. People buy and sell at levels they deem worth it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a scam.
They're tricking people into, between the retailer's value of the trade-in and the sticker price of the used copy, paying at least 170% of the value of a new copy. Thats pretty much a longer version of the pigeon drop. (look it up)
Maybe where you live, but where I live, I can think of 5 places to sell used games (only two of which are in a mall) but there are at least 6 different places to sell used music and movies, and there are 3 or 4 of them in the malls (and one of the malls has two different places that do that)
Cool story bro. Wheres the documented evidence of "used music" experiencing record expansion and profits? Oh wait...
How does that involve distributors? They don't distribute them around, they buy the item from people and sell them at the same store.
How is a retailer not a distributor, again? Considering thats the primary function of retail...
Since that NEVER happens with any other type of media.
Except thats the extent of the independent "used game" market.
...and piracy isn't? Wow... that is by far one of the dumbest arguments for piracy I have ever heard. At least if you buy the game used, you show that you are willing to pay for the game, just not at the initial retail price, but with piracy, you not only say fuck you to the people responsible for creating the content, but it also tells them that their work was meaningless and that you feel entitled to play the game anyway.

So yeah, I may not be directly helping out the industry when I buy used games, but at least I'm not contributing to the scourge of DRM.
So... who does buying used show anything? Certainly not the publishers or developers, as beyond the massive growth of parasitic retail chains, they see no money, sales data, or evidence you bought a used copy at all. The only people who see anything when one buys used are the sellers. Thus, it only benefits the sellers.

Also, you do kinda need proof of damages before you can argue piracy is a "fuck you" to anyone. Which there isn't, beyond pure rhetoric. So... you can't.
 

Veylon

New member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
You're also making the same assumption the document in question discredits. The idea that every downloaded copy is a lost sale. Pirates don't download one or two things, they download everything that interests them.
Actually, I'm claiming that every downloaded copy is some miniscule fraction of a lost sale. One in ten thousand or a million. Really, the game/movie/music companies are doing themselves an enormous disservice by screeching and whining and carrying on about "lost" money that they never had in the first place.

As for the Assassin's Creed 2 example, you're dead on. In addition, people are willing to wait for the DRM to be cracked. Why spend $60 now when you can get it free in a few weeks? Ubisoft's scheme was shortsighted, insulting, wasteful, and ultimately useless.

Cynical skeptic said:
Of course, if piracy were to suddenly end, pirates would actually buy less. Due to the current climate of "review creep" and marketing packages, pretty much every game/movie gets the same amount of press. Making it all but impossible to actually tell if something is good or not.
Pirates are not limited to the press for their information. For instance, they can come here and ask whether game X is worth getting. I do blame the corporations on this, it's hard to ask someone to part with fifty of their hard-earned dollars for game that doesn't have a demo. I regard demoing as a legitimate reason for pirating because the industry has failed it's customers so abysmally in this area.

Cynical skeptic said:
Also, I was refreshing my memory a bit to produce a real counter point to your Dicken's exmaple, but apparently it was an ass-pull. So no point, right?
I deliberately brought up Dickens because he helped pioneer copyrighting. Back then, it was the corporations who were the pirates and the individuals who had their sales stolen.
 

Squigie

New member
Nov 20, 2009
39
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
[Piracy is a victimless crime, while selling used games is like murdering sweet little children with a sack full of dead kittens.]
Ok, you've got a massive hate on for Gamestop. That doesn't make what they are doing illegal or especially wrong, and it definitely doesn't make teh torrentz a better option. Gamestop's practices are unhealthy for the industry, but they are mostly just exploiting the relative per unit expense and specifically intended disposability of games.

Are you arguing that, say, the demand for Disgaea in the used games market did not prompt Atlus to order another run of copies? Whether or not specific numbers are publicly available that data does get around, and it does influence business decisions. If you, like many others, object that strongly, than either seek out alternatives online or do without and write the publisher.
 

Fensfield

New member
Nov 4, 2009
421
0
0
Oh well, at least it's possible this'll start to put pressure on MMO private servers again. Now /those/ are damaging forms of piracy.. (well, bar a few very small ones).
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
Fensfield said:
Oh well, at least it's possible this'll start to put pressure on MMO private servers again. Now /those/ are damaging forms of piracy.. (well, bar a few very small ones).
Bollox private servers are damaging to two things, Jack and shit, and Jack left town. A small percent of gamers even know what private servers are, and a smaller percent of that have the knowhow to find and connect and a miniscule percent of that of that are interested in playing on them vs the legit servers.

Private servers are used by such a small small % of the market everyone might as well ignore them. If anything it keeps players who might have just quit in the game so there is a chance they may one day come back.

Private servers are not and will never be competition to hosted content servers. Now if the publisher keep pulling bullshit like removing LAN play then charging a subscription for multiplayer that anti-gamer business model might be threatened by private servers. Because I know I would never pay nor ask permission from anyone to play a game with a friend of mine when we are in the same room.

I will not purchase starcraft 2 until there is reliable private bnet server I can host locally. Removing LAN is just utter crap considering how easy client server programming is nowadays with all the available libraries.
 

IbanezLaney

New member
Apr 4, 2010
26
0
0
Problem is that the rest of the world doesn't care about some greedy US medical company who is letting millions of people die in 3rd world countries due to a patient/ip.

Another issue that the US seems too ignorant to see is - If we have to accept laws made within US boundary's - It then must accept laws other country's make within their borders.

Iran is gonna have a field day with you guys.
The US will make an IP law - then Iran or China could make being fat illegal and the US would have to lock it's own fat citizens up. The US government is either completely stupid or ignorant for even considering this when you think it through to it's natural conclusion.

Last time the US got too pushy with a similar issue Australia dumped so much gold on the market that the US gold Reserves became worthless for many years. The US lost many billion $$$ instantly.
The US did't exactly tell it's citizens that a county of 15-18mil people at the time just pawned 400mil americans overnight and made their federal reserves worthless.
We could do this with every mineral there is and the US would be about as rich as Fiji at the end of it.
Was 10-15 years ago from memory and done as revenge over farming tariffs. From memory the US lied and said no tariffs allowed and then started paying it's own farmers tariffs to give itself an unfair advantage. The US simply can not be trusted on trade issues so why should anyone care about it's 'perceived' ip rights.
 

Samurai Goomba

New member
Oct 7, 2008
3,679
0
0
"How can people be convinced to stop engaging in a particular behavior if they see nothing wrong with that behavior in the first place?"

This right here is what I hate about government. It's not enough that the government believes in punishing a perceived crime, they have to educate (brainwash) people through rigorous advertisements and eventually peer pressure that government morality is correct morality.

Excuse me if my own personal morality says that copying a song or watching a video online instead of buying it is more morally "correct" than drinking a beer. Legality does not and should not equate with one's personal morality. If you are a person who bases your view of right and wrong on what is legal, I feel bad for you, because your moral views could change any day without warning based on whatever nonsense the officials dream up.

Eh, I'm gonna stop my ranting. It's just... America loooooves government morality. Anymore I feel like retching when somebody uses the word "Patriotic" because a) it essentially means nothing, or "something vaguely good you should agree with me about" and b) it's almost always followed with an obnoxious or stupid idea.
 

Loonerinoes

New member
Apr 9, 2009
889
0
0
An initiative of IP blocking you say? Like the 'great firewall of China' perhaps? Only yeah...of course. It would be used ONLY for the purpose of defending intellectual properties and the big monies that go with them. Heaven forbid that it might be used for something else, surely those at the top are responsible enough not to abuse this initiative.

...eh...

To quote Star Wars on this point seems most apt:

"The more you tighten your grip Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

And I don't see this as the Death Star to counter that argument as of yet at all. More like abstract promises and wishful thinking. A global government with globally followed and also *enforced* laws is the only way it could happen...and if you're ready for something like the abolishment of national identity just so that you can 1up the pirates well...you know another saying? "He who fights with monsters..."
 

Fensfield

New member
Nov 4, 2009
421
0
0
rembrandtqeinstein said:
Bollox private servers are damaging to two things, Jack and shit, and Jack left town. A small percent of gamers even know what private servers are, and a smaller percent of that have the knowhow to find and connect and a miniscule percent of that of that are interested in playing on them vs the legit servers.

Private servers are used by such a small small % of the market everyone might as well ignore them. If anything it keeps players who might have just quit in the game so there is a chance they may one day come back.

Private servers are not and will never be competition to hosted content servers. Now if the publisher keep pulling bullshit like removing LAN play then charging a subscription for multiplayer that anti-gamer business model might be threatened by private servers. Because I know I would never pay nor ask permission from anyone to play a game with a friend of mine when we are in the same room.

I will not purchase starcraft 2 until there is reliable private bnet server I can host locally. Removing LAN is just utter crap considering how easy client server programming is nowadays with all the available libraries.
You, sir, have never had much to do with Ragnarok Online. And are also for some reason remarkably touchy about the subject, if the language is anything to go by. To quote the common assertion:

"More people play Ragnarok Online than WoW. If you count the private servers."

Ragnarok is a shadow of what it was originally planned to be at this point in its lifetime. The incident where the Aegis engine was stolen (and the GravityKR development systems trashed in the process) blew an irreparable hole in the company that lead to their being bought out by Samsung, 3/4 of the original Dev' team quitting, the rebuilt game almost being screwed into the ground by an egocentric corporate executive, and what was originally supposed to be a worldwide group of simultaneously updating servers instead being a series of licensed versions updating at wildly different age-points and coveting each-other's communities. And yes, I know eAthena is a 'legal' emulation of Aegis, but the content put on the emulator Is illegal(not to mention stolen), and an eAthena Private Server is much the same as a pirate Aegis server once it's running, including in terms of playerbase undermining and subsequent smash-and-grab hacks on the core-servers to try and break the security on, and subsequently steal, new updates whenever Gravity tries to shore up the game's autopatcher, ala the Juno/Yuno DDOS incident.

Not many MMOs get hit by the PServer-maker crowd, it's true, but while the 'AAA' MMOs that are hit are generally able to maintain the vast proportion of their playerbase due to their complexity and difficulty of modification; older, or smaller MMOs generally suffer massive losses on potential earnings, especially ones with particularly easily manipulated designs like RO. World of Warcraft is a monolith, and /not/ the rule as far as MMORPG's go - the vast majority, when you take into account that most are smaller games, are delicate balancing acts between maintenance, ongoing development, security and profit, and older games like Ragnarok, probably the most PServer'd MMO of all time (seriously, there are multiple Top X00 lists for its private servers, they're positively an epidemic), are especially vulnerable to harm on the off-chance they Are hit.

Would it offend you less if I rephrased my previous suggestion to 'Perhaps this'll give Ragnarok Online a chance to protect itself?' Because while it is perhaps an arguable point with other PServer-suffering MMO games, true, Ragnarok has a serious, serious Private Server problem, and has already - to the shock of its community - lost the court battles wherein Gravity attempted to take legal action to defend their intellectual property.

Or were you just hijacking my post as a vehicle to whine about Starcraft 2? Poor form sir, poor form.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
Squigie said:
Cynical skeptic said:
[Piracy is a victimless crime, while selling used games is like murdering sweet little children with a sack full of dead kittens.]
Ok, you've got a massive hate on for Gamestop. That doesn't make what they are doing illegal or especially wrong, and it definitely doesn't make teh torrentz a better option. Gamestop's practices are unhealthy for the industry, but they are mostly just exploiting the relative per unit expense and specifically intended disposability of games.

Are you arguing that, say, the demand for Disgaea in the used games market did not prompt Atlus to order another run of copies? Whether or not specific numbers are publicly available that data does get around, and it does influence business decisions. If you, like many others, object that strongly, than either seek out alternatives online or do without and write the publisher.
Atlus is a translation house. They pick up japanese IPs the japanese don't view as marketable (thus, at bargain rates), translate them for minimal cost, and release them in english speaking markets for a small niche market of anime fans. The video gaming equivalent of mass production.

For a company to look at used sales (which get them absolutely zero money) as an indicator of the popularity of a game, they'd also have to look at piracy. Also, something those who defend the used game con like to forget, used copies don't exist without new copies.

As far as the gross hyperbole, theres no evidence piracy hurts, only evidence it helps. Theres evidence used games hurt. Clearest being that in a time of economic instability, the producers of content are hemorrhaging jobs and posting, at best, middling quarters, while the distributors experience record profit/growth. Acting like that isn't at least related (or causative) is plugging your ears going "NANANANOTLISTENINGNANANA."

Yes, according to the marketing blitz, piracy is the rape of dead babies. But marketing is simply corporate produced propaganda.
 

7ru7h

Avatar of The Laughing God
Jul 8, 2009
128
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
7ru7h said:
You're right, IPs don't depreciate the same as other non consumable goods. They depreciate much more rapidly. For example, my house has increased in value over the last 10 years, but has starcraft? No. Games, like movies and cds lose a good amount of their value relatively quickly. But just because it loses value so quickly doesn't mean the creators deserve to be payed multiple times for the same license (since that is all you are paying for when you buy a game).
Okay, you seem confused. I say depreciation, you talk about appreciation, then kinda ramble on a bit.

Houses, cars, whatever, their ability to function reduces through time and use without maintenance. Digital information does not lose functionality through time/use, and requires no maintenance to restore or maintain functionality. Thus digital information has the same value the day it's created as ten years later. Its not consumable either, so it exists outside any sort of established "value" system. Which means it's value is either static or nil.
Ok, I see what happened here. We are arguing about one topic, but framing it two different ways. You define value as the ability to function the way it was designed, so to an extent, you are right, digital products never lose their 'value'... unless they are DRMed (which removes some of the 'value' right from the start IMO) since there is the chance the DRM server will go offline or what have you, or if the digital product is no longer compatible with today's technology. I was defining value as a products worth, so I was also right, since digital media's worth plummets quickly into it's life cycle.

To an extent you are right, the first sale doctrine is about consumer rights, but it does have a few valid points, namely that when the video game is sold, the producer's no longer hold the right to any of the money that comes with any of the subsequent sales. By your logic, every time a painting is sold, the painter deserves a cut of the sale, since it is his IP that is being sold. And even though you and I may not like it, the government does recognize a corporation as a person, so they have every right to buy the game at whatever price you'll sell it for, and sell it for whatever someone else will buy it for. That's how our economy works.
Once... again, we're not talking about singular individuals or singular items transferring ownership over the course of it's existence. Not to mention, maintaining a painting costs.
Then what are we talking about?

...no it isn't. It's economics. People buy and sell at levels they deem worth it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a scam.
They're tricking people into, between the retailer's value of the trade-in and the sticker price of the used copy, paying at least 170% of the value of a new copy. Thats pretty much a longer version of the pigeon drop. (look it up)
How so? Are you including the money the seller "loses" off what was initially paid for the game?(Ex. I pay $50 for a game, and sell it for $15, I "lost" $85 or 170% of the cost of the good)

Maybe where you live, but where I live, I can think of 5 places to sell used games (only two of which are in a mall) but there are at least 6 different places to sell used music and movies, and there are 3 or 4 of them in the malls (and one of the malls has two different places that do that)
Cool story bro. Wheres the documented evidence of "used music" experiencing record expansion and profits? Oh wait...
You didn't ask for the evidence, you said that they weren't as prevalent, and all I was saying is that is not necessarily true.

How does that involve distributors? They don't distribute them around, they buy the item from people and sell them at the same store.
How is a retailer not a distributor, again? Considering thats the primary function of retail...
Ok, you've got me there...

Since that NEVER happens with any other type of media.
Except thats the extent of the independent "used game" market.Yes, the INDEPENDENT used game market, not the 'regular' used game market. And again, you can find the same thing in any other independent market

...and piracy isn't? Wow... that is by far one of the dumbest arguments for piracy I have ever heard. At least if you buy the game used, you show that you are willing to pay for the game, just not at the initial retail price, but with piracy, you not only say fuck you to the people responsible for creating the content, but it also tells them that their work was meaningless and that you feel entitled to play the game anyway.

So yeah, I may not be directly helping out the industry when I buy used games, but at least I'm not contributing to the scourge of DRM.
So... who does buying used show anything? Certainly not the publishers or developers, as beyond the massive growth of parasitic retail chains, they see no money, sales data, or evidence you bought a used copy at all. The only people who see anything when one buys used are the sellers. Thus, it only benefits the sellers.

Also, you do kinda need proof of damages before you can argue piracy is a "fuck you" to anyone. Which there isn't, beyond pure rhetoric. So... you can't.
Granted a lot of the info about piracy is retoric, you can't sit there and say to me that used game sales hurt the games industry since none of that money is going to devs, and then come right back and say that piracy is not hurting the devs since there is no money being payed to anyone, so the devs don't lose out on anything. At least with the used game market, you are paying for the game in some way.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
7ru7h said:
Okay, lets back up for a second. No line-by-line bullshit.

We're talking about massive retail chains and their used game business model.

They assign a trade-ins a value of around 10% of the suggested retail of a new copy and sell used copies at 90% of the suggested retail value of a new copy. What they want people to think is they're getting a "new" used copy for 20% off. When whats actually happening is between the retailer's value of the trade-in and the sticker price, they're paying around 180% of the value of a new copy. Thats why I say its a con. The more games someone trades in, the more they actually pay. This is effectively leeching sales from publishers/developers. The only way they could increase that profit margin is if they started selling cracked pirate copies. Forgetting its illegal, it still would only increase so much if they exerted effort to make them look as legitimate as possible (purchase and maintenance of high quality printers at all locations, local supplies of card stock, printer ink, blank cases, un-dyed dvd+r's, etc).

Because of this business model, a decent used game market is completely dead. Retailers limit their stock of unsellable games by dropping trade-in value to "pointless" levels and keeping one or two copies of games with high niche demand around for inflated prices. Going online, all you get is bullshit.

Now, since the idea that any pirated copy is a lost sale is extremely questionable (as the previous hypothetical of a large retail chain selling pirate copies at all of their locations would be met with the national guard rolling into their locations with fucking tanks). But used copies can only sell if A: new copies exist B: new copies are on the shelf C: used copies are cheaper than new copies. Which means you're actually supporting my argument. The idea that used copies indicate demand, but all the money is kept by the retail chain that sold them just further proves the idea its damaging. Its basically the anti-piracy marketing blitz backfiring, and confusing people into thinking "any purchase supports the content creators."

So, according to rhethoric, piracy damages, used sales support. But based on the evidence, piracy, at worst, does nothing, and used sales subvert the sale of new copies.
 

7ru7h

Avatar of The Laughing God
Jul 8, 2009
128
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
7ru7h said:
Okay, lets back up for a second. No line-by-line bullshit.

We're talking about massive retail chains and their used game business model.

They assign a trade-ins a value of around 10% of the suggested retail of a new copy and sell used copies at 90% of the suggested retail value of a new copy. What they want people to think is they're getting a "new" used copy for 20% off. When whats actually happening is between the retailer's value of the trade-in and the sticker price, they're paying around 180% of the value of a new copy. Thats why I say its a con. The more games someone trades in, the more they actually pay. This is effectively leeching sales from publishers/developers. The only way they could increase that profit margin is if they started selling cracked pirate copies. Forgetting its illegal, it still would only increase so much if they exerted effort to make them look as legitimate as possible (purchase and maintenance of high quality printers at all locations, local supplies of card stock, printer ink, blank cases, un-dyed dvd+r's, etc).

Because of this business model, a decent used game market is completely dead. Retailers limit their stock of unsellable games by dropping trade-in value to "pointless" levels and keeping one or two copies of games with high niche demand around for inflated prices. Going online, all you get is bullshit.

Now, since the idea that any pirated copy is a lost sale is extremely questionable (as the previous hypothetical of a large retail chain selling pirate copies at all of their locations would be met with the national guard rolling into their locations with fucking tanks). But used copies can only sell if new copies A: exist B: are on the shelf C: are cheaper than new copies. Which means you're actually supporting my argument. The idea that used copies indicate demand, but all the money is kept by the retail chain that sold them just further proves the idea its damaging. Its basically the anti-piracy marketing blitz backfiring, and confusing people into thinking "any purchase supports the content creators."
Thank you for clarifying your argument.

I really don't see how someone is really paying for 180% of the value of the game, unless you are including the money that they would lose upon selling the game back, but I think that could be an entire argument in itself.

(I completely agree with your second(fifth?) paragraph, so I'm just going to skip to the last one)

While I do agree with you on most of your points (that pirated copy != lost sale, used copies don't support the creators), I must say that there are a few things wrong with your argument. Namely, used copies can mean wonders for people who still own legacy consoles, and want to play "new" games. Without someplace like GameStop selling old N64 games, there would be no legal method for acquiring new titles to play on that console, effectively killing it.

I guess in the end it all boils down to personal preference when it comes to buying used vs piracy. Personally, I would go for the used game, only because it doesn't contribute to the overarching stereotype that gamers have an entitlement mentality.
 

DRD 1812

New member
Mar 1, 2010
27
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
7ru7h said:
All kinds of things.
What does the used game market have to do with piracy? Saying that the used game market is damaging to developers doesn't somehow make piracy alright by comparison.
 

boyvirgo666

New member
May 12, 2009
371
0
0
dastardly said:
From a legislative standpoint, this really just represents the government affirming that it groups INTELLECTUAL property under the same protections as PHYSICAL property. While enforcement is the biggest problem, this at least goes a LONG way toward removing the weak rationalizations currently used by pirates.

dududf said:
I'm not saying they have a right. I'm saying that the leverage they have could severely frig up a countries economy to all hell if they don't agree with something.
We didn't tie their economy up like that. They did. We're just looking to protect what is ours. What we are asking for DIRECTLY relates to the products they're getting from us. This is not bullying.

Bullying is using force, or the threat or implication of force, to change someone's behavior. Like if I said "Give me your wallet, or I'll hit you." The force is not connected at all to the behavior. This isn't that. This is more like saying "I will let you into my club if you wear this hat. If you do not wear this hat, I will not let you into my club." The consequence relates EXACTLY to the behavior.

Simply being in the advantageous position doesn't make it bullying--otherwise, EVERY law would simply be "bullying," since the state is in the position to enforce it and you're not equipped to stand up to the entire police force. It's a tricky distinction, but it's an important one. A couple more examples, to clarify my point:

DESIRED OUTCOME: You want a member of your bowling team to wear the team shirt.

BULLYING: "Wear the shirt, or I'll hit you in the face." Hitting in the face is not a logical consequence for not wearing the shirt--it is simply a threat of force meant to coerce a response.

LEVERAGING/ENFORCING POLICY: "Wear the team shirt, or you can't participate with the team." This creates a logical consequence and presents a choice. If they want to participate, they will have to comply unconditionally.
or in legal terms. its also called blackmail.
 

boyvirgo666

New member
May 12, 2009
371
0
0
Loonerinoes said:
An initiative of IP blocking you say? Like the 'great firewall of China' perhaps? Only yeah...of course. It would be used ONLY for the purpose of defending intellectual properties and the big monies that go with them. Heaven forbid that it might be used for something else, surely those at the top are responsible enough not to abuse this initiative.

...eh...

To quote Star Wars on this point seems most apt:

"The more you tighten your grip Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

And I don't see this as the Death Star to counter that argument as of yet at all. More like abstract promises and wishful thinking. A global government with globally followed and also *enforced* laws is the only way it could happen...and if you're ready for something like the abolishment of national identity just so that you can 1up the pirates well...you know another saying? "He who fights with monsters..."
i already thought of a solution to all of this. force the UN not the US to determine how IP and piracy will work. no more seperation of laws in different countries so they all agree on how to deal with it. because one country handling it one way wont work. it will just piss everyone off.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
7ru7h said:
the overarching stereotype that gamers have an entitlement mentality.
Well, all first world consumers have an "entitlement mentality." Its a byproduct of television. They want what they want to be free, convenient, and now. Then, if they like it enough, they'll fork over some money (usually in a completely random direction). For a long time, they got exactly in writing approved by judges (vhs timeshifting, back up copies, first sale doctrine, etc, etc, etc). Asking people to dump that mentality now is kinda... delusional.

Also, I do count the value of the trade-in towards that 180% figure. Its the same as, say, telling someone that $2 note they found is fake, then saying you'll give them a quarter for it. I realize most people don't really care, but thats what makes it a perfect con, as there will never be that moment of realization, "I just got took."
DRD 1812 said:
What does the used game market have to do with piracy? Saying that the used game market is damaging to developers doesn't somehow make piracy alright by comparison.
Until someone produces some evidence to the contrary, piracy is, at absolute worst, free advertising with a chance equal to the pirates personal opinion of the product of becoming a purchase and more free word-of-mouth advertising. But the people who are broke/dicks, would never have bought the product in the first place.

So its the difference between the aforementioned and a third party pocketing the money that by all rights should've gone to those responsible in any way shape or form for the creation of the content. Which retailers aren't, to be perfectly pedantic.

Ugh, christ, edit: As for what they have to with each other, they're almost identical from the perspective of content creators. Except until recently, the damages of one weren't quantifiable (that being used games + massive retail chains record profits/expansion).
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
boyvirgo666 said:
or in legal terms. its also called blackmail.
Oh, please.

Blackmail involves wrongdoing on the part of the person being blackmailed--they did something wrong/illegal/etc, and now you're threatening to expose them unless they meet a demand (usually money). Once again, the consequence (being exposed) doesn't match up with the behavior (paying you the money).

You were perhaps thinking "ransom?" That's where the other person STEALS something, and then demands money for its safe return--as you might be claiming we did with their economy. Problem: We didn't steal it.

This is more life, say, a friend who wants to borrow your car once in awhile. You say "Sure, every once in awhile, if you let me know." Then that friend comes up to you and says, "Dude, I told some people I'd drive them to the airport 4 hours away, I need your car."

You say, "Why did you tell them before asking me? I think the car is available, but if you're going that far, you need to get the oil changed on the way back. Otherwise, I can't let you take it right now." This is fair--we said they could borrow it IF... and they didn't obey the IF. It's not our fault they overextended empty promises depending on a car that didn't belong to them, and that now they don't want to keep their end of the first agreement.
 

Dhatz

New member
Aug 18, 2009
302
0
0
tehy keep inventing MORE and MORE intricate ways of wasting BIGGER and BIGGER amounts of money,time and people in all countries around the world it seems.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Samurai Goomba said:
This right here is what I hate about government. It's not enough that the government believes in punishing a perceived crime, they have to educate (brainwash) people through rigorous advertisements and eventually peer pressure that government morality is correct morality.

Excuse me if my own personal morality says that copying a song or watching a video online instead of buying it is more morally "correct" than drinking a beer. Legality does not and should not equate with one's personal morality. If you are a person who bases your view of right and wrong on what is legal, I feel bad for you, because your moral views could change any day without warning based on whatever nonsense the officials dream up.
But this isn't a question of morality, it's a question of harmful behaviour. Copyright infringement does damage. Pretending otherwise is just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting BLAHBLAHBLAH. People who insist on maintaining that "victimless crime" position, as I said in an earlier column, are the number-one obstacle to having a meaningful and productive conversation about piracy.

Copyright laws in currently society are hugely dysfunctional, there's no question. But working from the assumption that they should be scrapped entirely is just foolish and/or disingenuous. A lot of the reactions in this thread underline the problem faced by the US government - Effective IP enforcement must be an international effort, yet US attempts to make it happen come off looking like blatant imperialism - and I'm not inclined to believe that a "strategy" and a czar are the best approach to take, but some form of fair, effective copyright regime is both desirable and necessary.
 

Samurai Goomba

New member
Oct 7, 2008
3,679
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
Samurai Goomba said:
This right here is what I hate about government. It's not enough that the government believes in punishing a perceived crime, they have to educate (brainwash) people through rigorous advertisements and eventually peer pressure that government morality is correct morality.

Excuse me if my own personal morality says that copying a song or watching a video online instead of buying it is more morally "correct" than drinking a beer. Legality does not and should not equate with one's personal morality. If you are a person who bases your view of right and wrong on what is legal, I feel bad for you, because your moral views could change any day without warning based on whatever nonsense the officials dream up.
But this isn't a question of morality, it's a question of harmful behaviour. Copyright infringement does damage. Pretending otherwise is just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting BLAHBLAHBLAH. People who insist on maintaining that "victimless crime" position, as I said in an earlier column, are the number-one obstacle to having a meaningful and productive conversation about piracy.

Copyright laws in currently society are hugely dysfunctional, there's no question. But working from the assumption that they should be scrapped entirely is just foolish and/or disingenuous. A lot of the reactions in this thread underline the problem faced by the US government - Effective IP enforcement must be an international effort, yet US attempts to make it happen come off looking like blatant imperialism - and I'm not inclined to believe that a "strategy" and a czar are the best approach to take, but some form of fair, effective copyright regime is both desirable and necessary.
Sure, illegal copying does damage to the industry, but the big copyers, buyers and sellers of bootleg material aren't even in this country. They should go after the countries that have their economy propped up by bootleg sales before attacking Joe Pirate for copying a few games. It's a matter of perspective. If you want to stop damage to a country, do you arrest the guy with a machine gun or the fellow with the nuclear warhead?

The problem here is that gamers seem more than willing to give up any and all rights as consumers just because "piracy hurts the industry." Well yeah, it does, but there's no reason we can't ALSO sue Ubisoft when they provide a non-working product we paid money for. The government should look at the rights of both sellers AND buyers. In other words, they punish copyright violators, but they ALSO enact new laws to protect buyers from bait-and-switch and DRM that acts as spyware. Just 'cause there's a line in the EULA which you can only read AFTER buying and opening the package which says you must agree to whatever-that won't fly. I mean, you have to give them your money BEFORE you see the EULA. That's ridiculous. Your wallet is already agreeing to something you haven't even read. And once they get your money, you think they care whether you install the game or not? They have your money!

I don't know where you're getting the idea I want all copyright laws ever scrapped. I didn't explicitly ever state that. I don't mind laws so much as the "this is wrong BECAUSE it's illegal" rationalization of big government. I find it odd you would point out how damaging piracy is when I mentioned drinking, and how it is legal. I could find stats like that *snaps fingers* showing how very, very damaging drinking is and has been to our society. At least piracy doesn't usually kill people. I'm not against copyright laws as such, but I find it hypocritical that alcohol can remain legal while these other things are illegal. And much the way drinking can't be made illegal because it's too commonplace and ingrained in our society, I don't think piracy can ever be stopped for the same reasons.

And based on what I've seen so far, these anti-piracy enforcement campaigns seem to involve snatching up a couple of middle-class white boys and hitting them hard with prison sentences. Never mind taking down the guy copying the 1,000,000 bootleg copies of the latest movies for the Saudi Arabian bazaar. I don't know that we're really in disagreement with one another, I just have even less faith in the government's ability to do ANYTHING the right way.
 

FieryTrainwreck

New member
Apr 16, 2010
1,968
0
0
Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore.
This might have something to do with the fact that most of the chinese play, watch, and listen to all of our media for fucking free. Sort of the whole point of this initiative.

I do not understand why people continue to defend piracy.

Also, I'm deeply saddened that a technological revolution that should have united the lower and rapidly-vanishing middle classes of the entire world is being used almost exclusively to steal shit movies and music. In our own idiot language: The Internet - We're doing it wrong.

Edit: aaaand do people honestly believe the US will ever go bankrupt under the current economic system? It's a complete farce that we make up as we go along, and we've got everyone else in the world playing along with us. You think China or Europe is going to suddenly decide they don't want any part of a system that continually enriches the top 2% while shitting on the rest of the world? Not as long as greedy people are in charge of most major markets around the world.

And strangely enough, non-greedy people tend not to land in those positions.
 

hyperdrachen

New member
Jan 1, 2008
468
0
0
There is no more evid
Cynical skeptic said:
7ru7h said:
So, according to rhethoric, piracy damages, used sales support. But based on the evidence, piracy, at worst, does nothing, and used sales subvert the sale of new copies.
There is no more evidence to support that a used sale is a lost new sale than there is to support that piracy is a lost sale. Let me start by saying i generally despise what gamestops used game blitzkriege has done to the developers ability to profit off of thier games. However used games are cheaper, even if it is a small percentage. You do not have the data to prove that was a lost new sale. There are people who always trade in thier old games and always buy used copies. They want Game X for $55 dollars, but that does not prove they would have payed 60. The fact that they did in fact buy a used one might suggest that they are willing to part with money for games but it does not indicate that they would have bought a new copy in the absence of a used one. For all you know they would have pirated it instead.

Piracy and Used game sales afford the consumer a luxury that I don't think they deserve. They can recieve the product that a creator valued at 60 dollars retail, for an arbitrary amount determined by somone who had absolutley nothing to do with the work that went into the game.

Companies put out things I think are overpriced all the time, 400 dollar phones, 3k TVs. I express my lack of interest in that value proposition by not buying the product. I don't think used game sales should be illegal since I feal my rightfully purchased copy is mine to do with as I please. However, it is detrimental to the creator, and while hard data on bootleg copies = lost sales is essentially impossible to nail down, it is overly generous to assume no pirate was a potential customer. When PC game piracy was small groups of people on obscure web-sites PC games saw higher purchase/pirate ratios. But as friends told friends people who used to pay for games or wait for thier birthday eventually found themselves on torrents.

Piracy is mindnumbingly accessible these days. The cost of video games have not inflated anywhere near pace with the cost of cigarettes. But you can't pirate cigarettes. Which is exactly my point. People pirate and buy used copies because they can. Many of these people were customers before they were pirates. It doesn't help that so many people buy into the "The ignorant buy, the informed and intelligent pirate" schtick. I'm not ignorant for engaging in what I determine a fair trade between me and a creator. I enjoy the content, they spent thier time to create it, I feal an exchange of money for services is due. It's called a sense of fairness, and ethics, that expand beyond "what's most advantagous for me".

OT: This is a complex issue, especially from enforcement standpoints and I don't really think our Gov. is nimble enough to navigate it properly. Best approach is to direct your enforcement at the distributers and crackers. The end user pirates aren't an issue if the availability is gone. Trade restrictions on countries that allow your countries IPs to be misused, completely fair game. I see people crying about the lost revenue in jobs of that country. No tears for the lost revenue and jobs from the rampant piracy? But laws are written in ink and lack the grace to manuever through the complexity of the world. I doubt these laws will be enforced outside specific victims seeking action. I don't think the FBI is gonna have some guy that trolls forums to see if anyones pirating Assassins Creed 3. More likely Ubisoft will first approach the FBI with a complaint. So I don't really see this being a big hammer dropping on the broke ass Chinese with R4s in thier DS. Instead fining and shutting down web sites broadly advertising theyre working on violating the copyright on big budget games, movies, so on so forth.
 

hyperdrachen

New member
Jan 1, 2008
468
0
0
FieryTrainwreck said:
Edit: aaaand do people honestly believe the US will ever go bankrupt under the current economic system? It's a complete farce that we make up as we go along, and we've got everyone else in the world playing along with us. You think China or Europe is going to suddenly decide they don't want any part of a system that continually enriches the top 2% while shitting on the rest of the world? Not as long as greedy people are in charge of most major markets around the world.

And strangely enough, non-greedy people tend not to land in those positions.
Well said, of course it's no coincidence that people with a sense of fair play don't land economicly controlling jobs. The few that have the mix of ambition/greedlessness required to become such a person run the risk of having the greed set in once they have the position. I'd guess alot of people start with the best intentions only to end up scared they'll lose thier power so they horde it as much as possible. Greed is quite litterally a weekness, not just in the character sense, but that it litterally limits what you are capable of.
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
hyperdrachen said:
Used sales do no damage. Transfer of ownership is a right, not a privilege. What does damage is pricing a product more than the market will bear.

100-3000% increases in sales volume during Steam sales events have made it *CRYSTAL* clear that far more people are willing to buy at a lower price point, but software developers and publishers are looking for the easy buck - the game that people will buy regardless of price point, because they've "gotta have it." They're also looking for the suckers - the people that have to buy a game on day one, and aren't willing to wait a month for a price drop. Notice that a $60 game will drop to $40 in the span of a month, but a $20 game will often continue selling well for a year at the same price point.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Samurai Goomba said:
Sure, illegal copying does damage to the industry, but the big copyers, buyers and sellers of bootleg material aren't even in this country. They should go after the countries that have their economy propped up by bootleg sales before attacking Joe Pirate for copying a few games. It's a matter of perspective. If you want to stop damage to a country, do you arrest the guy with a machine gun or the fellow with the nuclear warhead?
I detest the insulting and facile argument, "If you'd read what I wrote..." but you might want to check out the strategy document (or the column about it) a little more closely. To quote the final paragraph on the first page:

"The strategy also lays out the need to 'combat foreign-based and foreign-controlled websites that infringe American intellectual property rights.'"

I'd also suggest that your analogy of flawed. Through all the wars and the tens of millions of deaths they caused over the course of the 20th century, nuclear weapons have been used twice, both in the same conflict, with most estimates pointing at less than 200,000 resulting deaths. Clearly, it's the men with the machine guns who pose the infinitely greater threat.

And taking it even further, drinking is not inherently dangerous. Drinking until you puke, drinking and driving, getting drunk and trying to juggle chainsaws, yes, that's dangerous, and your finger-snapping stats would no doubt reflect that. And so those are the behaviours that we attempt to regulate. But drinking? I'll come up with stats just as quickly demonstrating that moderate alcohol intake has numerous health benefits.

Getting back to the original topic, I think you're a little too ready to jump on the "my rights!" bandwagon without taking the time to make yourself fully aware of what this is actually about.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
hyperdrachen said:
Except, there is evidence. I mean, if anyone involved in software/movie/music piracy were living in diamond castles and enjoying daily cocaine fueled frolics through their harems, it'd be impossible to argue piracy does no damage. But theres never been a large sale 'bust' with the headline "piracy magnate cornered in Yugoslavia, millions in assets and pirated materials seized." At least not in the last couple hundred years.

But thats exactly whats happening with large corporations employing the used game model. Massive amounts of money is being leeched from the entities responsible for creation by entities responsible for distribution. This has always been the case, as retail has never, in it's entire history, operated on any level beyond insisting the only way a producer can reach a consumer is through it. Its just getting somewhat absurd now, by manipulating a legal loophole that mistakenly grants massive corporations "first sale" rights.

Speaking of, you made a common error in attempting to support used sales. You, like pretty much everyone else on your side, confused your rights with the rights of massive corporations. Yes, you bought the product, you should be able to do anything you want with it. You should be able to put it on ebay/amazon/whatever for whatever price you want and then you should get all the proceeds from the sale. Nothing wrong with that. But thats not whats happening.

Whats happening is massive corporations are taking something with a static (or nil) value, assigning an arbitrary "buy" value to it then multiplying by ten to get the "sell" value. yes yes, Buy low, sell high, etc. Except they're subverting the actual value of the product for profit. They're pocketing all proceeds. They're doing it on a large enough scale to significantly impact the marketability of the products in question. They're also holding all the cards.

Publishers and such can't compete with used sales. If they drop the price of new copies, used sales retailers match. If they drop it too low, retailers refuse to carry the products at all. They can't take this to court, as used sale retailers (obviously) have enough money to fight any decision, and would spend every dime, as they'd be defending their very existence. etc, etc, etc, etc.

Now, trying to argue theres no evidence used sales are new sales is simply crap. The used sale business model not only needs new copies, they need them on the shelves for the higher price point. Its the only reason 'used sales' work at all. Arguing some people "always do that" just further proves my point. That its a con, and they're being conned, and one is is telling them, "you know between the actual value of that trade-in and the sticker price of that used copy, you're actually paying around 70% more than you would for a new copy."

Hate that this needs to be injected in every piracy debate, but its just absurd that piracy is getting federal funding and task forces, while used sales are somehow the god given right of retailers when they're functionally identical.
 

hyperdrachen

New member
Jan 1, 2008
468
0
0
Y
RvLeshrac said:
hyperdrachen said:
Used sales do no damage. Transfer of ownership is a right, not a privilege. What does damage is pricing a product more than the market will bear.

100-3000% increases in sales volume during Steam sales events have made it *CRYSTAL* clear that far more people are willing to buy at a lower price point, but software developers and publishers are looking for the easy buck - the game that people will buy regardless of price point, because they've "gotta have it." They're also looking for the suckers - the people that have to buy a game on day one, and aren't willing to wait a month for a price drop. Notice that a $60 game will drop to $40 in the span of a month, but a $20 game will often continue selling well for a year at the same price point.
Used gamesales do damamge a developers revenue from a game, stating the fact that you have the right to do so is strawmanning that part of my argument. The game is sold twice the dev is paid once. That's pretty plain. It's not illegal, nor do i think it should be.

Most games do not price drop a month out on consoles, not new copies, what you might find at your suggested price point a month later is a used copy, which some "sucker" had to buy first and trade in, to make available. Yes I believe publishers need to take a long hard look at steams success. Yes I believe the 40 dollar new game is in order. Good ways to express that fact are, not buying the game, or waiting for it to drop to your appealing price point.

The used game purchase is also valid but again the damage to the actual creators bottom line is real, especially true in common practice. Gamestop sells used games for $55. If you buy a discount card from them every year, they'll knock it down to $50. Are you really unwilling/unable to front that extra 5 to 10 bucks so that the people behind the product can see the benifits of your desire for it? If your buying these used copies direct from user you'll prolly see a more signifigant savings, say ebay or amazon. This part of the market is too variable to really talk about pricewise and too small for me to worry about damaging devs. The real problem is that the big chains intentionally shortstock thier shelves so that used games are commonly the only copies available after the first two weeks or so. That's one reason they push for pre-orders so hard. They want to order enough new for the guy determined to buy new(me) and 0 extra. The entire model is setup to minimize money that goes to the original publishers/devs, and maximize gamestops profit. I choose not to support that model.

Here's the bitter sting of reality. If publishers drop the average game to the 40 dollar price point, gamestop can sell used ones at 35. So while the volume sales proof of concept is great on steam, where you're rights to a game cannot be transfered, it doesnt work so great on the physical copy which as you obviously know, is completely legal to transfer. The 40 dollar rereleases of these games work for the most part but mind you this is after the heat dies down, and I've seen used copies of price drop version for 20 bucks.


I personally don't buy alot of games, the ones I buy I think are damn good value propositions at 60 bucks usually. Mass Effect 1-2, Forza 3, Gears, Most Halo Games(Odst woulda been fine for 40 so not included in that list). I have easily logged 50 hours or more out of all the games I listed, 50 hours of being highly entertained, not like in an MMO when i'm putting up with 50 hours to get the candy I want. As soon as a console game stops being fun I stop playing it. Games drop in price because after your primary audience/biggest fans have bought the game at full price, you recoupe dev costs and sock away some initial profit, any additional sales are candy.

The lower price point game is a proven concept, the problem is it was proven on digital distribution. Make no mistake, I loves me some digital distro. If i could I would buy every game from steam or a similair service. But countering an argument that used game sales don't damage creator revenue, with a "no it doesnt" and steam as an example doesn't work. The creators get a cut of every copy sold on steam. For every used sale of physical copies they write a big 0 in thier book.

As a consumer you have the right to choose when a product appeals to you for its price. But you do not have the right to aquire somone elses Intellectual property for free, this is my argument against piracy. You correct me in that transfer of ownership is a right on used game sales, and not privilage. I'll refine my view on used game sales.

I think as an individual you should have the right to sell your used copy of a game, perhaps in the future even your digital rights to a game. I think it would be a good idea for creators to alter thier distribution agreements with retailers. How about this.

In order to be liscensed to purchase new games wholesale you have to agree not to resell used copies of games from publishers you have this agreement with. Problem solved right? The everyman keeps his freedom, and Gamestop(The Game Stops Here!) has to concede to some buisness rules to continue enjoying the profitability that comes with gaming's popularity. Then since retailers can no longer double dip on single copies of the game, you might actually see volume sales on physical copies that could support the lower price paradigm. I think the biggest problem with this plan is that consoles don't yet have the digital distro availability on new releases to circumvent the brick and mortor retailers until they give in to the agreement.

Finally, I know I've beat this horse, but it is apparently not yet dead, so the beatings continue. People who pay for new copies of a game, at a price they feal it's worth are not:

Stupid, ignorant, suckers, dumbasses, gullible... Or any other word that makes you feal smarter than people with valid cases for considering the effect on the people that make a living off thier prefered liesure time activities. People pirate and buy used copies for many reasons. Some because they truley cannot afford the products, I'd estimate this is the smallest percentage. Some because they feal the vanilla price is too expensive, acceptable on the used sale, suspiciously smells like bullshit on the pirated copy. Because they can get away with it(piracy). Because they'd like to support the jobs at game retailers just as much as they'd like to support the jobs at developers.

However if your reason for doing so is any fealing of intellectual superiority you are...
1-Wrong
2-An Asshole

Good news is, realization of item 1 can help fix item 2.
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
hyperdrachen said:
Y
RvLeshrac said:
hyperdrachen said:
*snip*
*snip*
My point is that saying "Used sales do damage" is like saying the sun and wind harm energy companies. No matter how much you want to keep repeating it, it simply isn't true.

If games, *REGARDLESS* of platform, were priced lower at launch, they would see more day-one, first-hand sales. Every day-one, first-hand sale means one less Used sale, which means dramatically lower prices, which means lower trade-in values, which means people are less likely to trade in titles. Used sales and day-one sales are not independent ecosystems.

The lower price point had to be proven via digital distribution because the retail chains and publishers have refused to attempt it.

Paying what you feel something is worth makes you no less a sucker than someone who loses millions buying overpriced land. It might make you feel a little better, but doesn't make your investment any more intelligent.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
RvLeshrac said:
My point is that saying "Used sales do damage" is like saying the sun and wind harm energy companies. No matter how much you want to keep repeating it, it simply isn't true.
Actually thats backwards, at best. Used sales would be commodity based energy threatening the entire planet (industry) while squelching out any sort of alternatives. Not to sound like a tree hugggin hippy fagit, or nuthin.

Also, Its not that publishers have refused to lower the suggested retail (which retailers are well within their rights to completely ignore, getting them even more money), its that lower price points can only work on digital platforms because if new physical copies were priced lower, used sale retailers would just match the reduction on used copies and trade-ins. So more new copies sell, resulting in the same amount of money for more units, and the used game model is completely unaffected in multiple ways.

The worst part about all of this is way back before the large chains bought out every single one of the mom&pop video game shops, the mom&pops used the proceeds generated from their used game models to knock a few bucks off the cost of new copies. But now the retail chains just pocket every dime and act like thats just the way things go.
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
RvLeshrac said:
My point is that saying "Used sales do damage" is like saying the sun and wind harm energy companies. No matter how much you want to keep repeating it, it simply isn't true.
Actually thats backwards, at best. Used sales would be commodity based energy threatening the entire planet (industry) while squelching out any sort of alternatives. Not to sound like a tree hugggin hippy fagit, or nuthin.

Also, Its not that publishers have refused to lower the suggested retail (which retailers are well within their rights to completely ignore, getting them even more money), its that lower price points can only work on digital platforms because if new physical copies were priced lower, used sale retailers would just match the reduction on used copies and trade-ins. So more new copies sell, resulting in the same amount of money for more units, and the used game model is completely unaffected in multiple ways.

The worst part about all of this is way back before the large chains bought out every single one of the mom&pop video game shops, the mom&pops used the proceeds generated from their used game models to knock a few bucks off the cost of new copies. But now the retail chains just pocket every dime and act like thats just the way things go.
Ah, but used sales aren't squelching alternatives. Selling used $property has existed for longer than the game publishers.

The problem with your stating that used sellers would simply "match the reduction" is that used game buyback prices are already so low that people typically think twice before trading in games. Also note that people are willing to buy a used game, which may contain nothing but the game disc, for a mere $5 discount. That should be more than enough information to tell you that people are *hungry* for lower-priced games.

Used CD sales didn't hurt the recording industry, and once New CD prices finally dropped to the *right* level, used CD stores went out of business in droves.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
RvLeshrac said:
Well, for starters, the problem with comparing the video game industry to any other business is its unlike any other business. From the costs of initial production, reproduction, raw materials, man-hours, nothing matches up to any other model. I could write a book on every way any comparison to any industry is flat out wrong, but doing so would be banging my face against a brick wall. So I'll go for genericisms, rather than post three novels worth of information you'll lack the attention span to even read.

The sale of used [anything that isn't video games] is based around the fact the item in question won't function as well as a new version. The expected performance/lifetime is lower/shorter, and the cost adjusted proportionally.

With video games, no one beyond tactile obsessives gives a shit about only getting the disc. As the disc is all that matters. It will function as well as a new copy or it simply isn't accepted as a trade-in. Since the functionality of a used copy is identical to a new copy, pricing of used games reflects only the price of new games. Used game pricing's only concern is to compete with new copies. If the price of new copies drops, the price of used copies matches, all the way down until retailers refuse to buy new copies at all. A negotiating point publishers are forced to avoid. No one who "trades in" thinks twice, as once they're finished with a game, it has no value to them. Something the retailers exploit the shit out of in their corrupt business model.

Music... The video game industry has nothing comparable to concerts, which are the primary source of revenue on all levels of the music industry. Even thinking about music on in this argument is wholesale ignorance, as the video game industry has no choice but to subsist entirely on home sales. ALBUM sale prices dropping had nothing to do with used sale or piracy, and everything to do with the fact music never, in it's entire history, ever made money from album sales. But thats not a big problem, as concerts can't be duplicated. They can be filmed or recorded, but its nothing compared to actually being there... and it never will be.

This was a pretty long post, still. Even though all you said is "ur wrong" and repeated yourself. Hopefully I've expanded enough to where you'll actually have to think of a new argument before posting again.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
Well, it took them two weeks but the moderation staff finally went for purest hypocrisy on this subject.

That post is over three weeks old and doesn't advocate anything beyond ABANDONWARE. Like downloading a rom of a nes cartridge in lieu of paying some dick $200 for it, or spending that much in gas driving around to every flea market in the state.

Even with retail chains doing everything they can to cut the publisher out of the video game market (allowing only just enough new copies to keep the revolving door used game business model running) its still really, really hard to not find a new copy of anything released within a few years.

But thats not going to be the case a few years from now. If things don't change, console versions of somewhat low profile (but still really good) games like singularity and metro 2033 simply aren't going to exist in any form beyond used copies. Further strangling the life out of the video game industry.

But don't think publishers and console manufactorers are asleep on this. They're constantly testing and fielding methods to lock copies of console games to the first console that runs them. Its not like they have a choice either. The abuse of the first sale doctrine by massive retail chains is simply crippling the a business model that must rely exclusively on home sales. Music makes most of it's money from concerts, film makes most of it's money from cinema, video games have nothing even resembling either.
 

Danzaivar

New member
Jul 13, 2004
1,967
0
0
Does this extend to second hand sales of stuff? Assuming pirates are cheap-skates (Which is a reasonable assumption considering they, you know, pirate stuff) then they'll just go for the next cheapest option, which won't be to buy a brand new copy. IP holders still don't benefit.

I personally think there should be something out there to make stuff more easily accessable to encourage people not to pirate (I.E. Downloading SNES ROM's of games which haven't been made in over a decade and won't ever reach the Wii store, at a small price that benefits the IP holder), but tbh you'd have to be stupid to not think this stuff was gonna head this way. GG Land of the free :p