The Needles: Crash Course in IP Enforcement Strategy

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.