The Needles: Crash Course in IP Enforcement Strategy

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.
 

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.