Copyright, IP, and infringement. Oh my!
polycounter lvl 6
I wanted to open a thread that tries to get at the core of the issue of copyright and infringement. Not the moral or ethical issues, but the technical reality of it (i.e. copying and sharing is easy). I also wanted to ask others to share their thoughts on how we can settle this dispute about whom is entitled to what in the information age.
I wanted to start by pointing out the history of copyright and its roots. So I've listed a few interesting links that discuss it:
http://torrentfreak.com/nothing-new-under-the-copyright-eclipsed-sun-110218/
http://questioncopyright.org/promise
http://questioncopyright.org/redefining_property
The first two links are basically the same information, but I thought both offer some interesting points. The second compares our attachment to the concept of property, how it relates to the concept of intellectual property, and the parallels between the supporting arguments for the two.
So, I guess the first step is to identify the problem and establish the facts. Well, since there is essentially two sides to this, the best approach is to detail how both sides of the argument currently identify the problem. First, the publishers' and creators' side.
The content creators' side of the issue has been that of the owner of works. They spend countless hours and millions of dollars creating works that the public enjoys. They have needs, such as food and shelter. There is no debate in that. They also claim ownership of that which they create. So when people found ways to acquire works that didn't compensate the creators, the creators of content took it as a threat to their livelihood. They take this complaint to the powers that be. They say that this alternate form of reproduction and distribution is taking away their income and making it impossible to earn a living. Those that infringe are taking something that doesn't belong to them and not paying for it. They also claim that there is no justification for any form of infringement. The biggest complaint of all is that their property is being stolen.
The consumers of the content (herein called "fans"), have a different issue. They like to enjoy the content that is available. They want to be able to enjoy the works that have been created as they see fit. They are the people that ultimately fund every artistic project out there. After all, without people willing to financially support works, they would only be made by those that would do it for free as a hobby, not a profession. Fans want to be able to share their experience of their beloved works with others because it increases the value of the experience when shared. They don't see the harm in sharing the things that enhance their lives emotionally or spiritually. Others do it because they want an extra copy for their own use. Some just want to have it right now regardless of payment, either to buy it later or not at all. There are even those that infringe because they get a thrill out of the simple fact that they got away with something they weren't meant to have. One problem, in the eyes of the fans, is that they don't have enough freedom to fully experience their favorite works due to the limitations imposed by the creators. They mirror the creators opinion that they aren't being treated fairly.
The industry proclaimed the end was coming for the music business when the first record players became available, as did they claim the end of movies when the TV came to be. And radio. And VCR's. And tape recorders. And CD-R. Now the industry cries out that the internet will be the catalyst for the end of art. I'm not a historian, but I see a pattern. Technology has changed how we consume art over the decades, but it hasn't spelled the end for any of it.
Those are generally the perspectives of the creators and the fans as far as my experiences can tell. Before this post gets too long, I'm just going to throw it out to you:
What do you think is the most equitable solution to the problem? Copyright law doesn't make these things any less copyable. Sharing information is in human nature and the internet is designed with sharing as its core component, in which millions of humans are participating. So how do we nullify the negative effects of copying while preserving their potential benefits to fans and creators? We can't make them accept the industry's preferred model, so what will they accept? What will provide the opportunities and incentives for fans to contribute so that people who make art for a living can live?
Before someone brings it up, this is not to advocate for infringement (a.k.a. piracy) in any way. Infringement is not a viable model for anyone.
I wanted to start by pointing out the history of copyright and its roots. So I've listed a few interesting links that discuss it:
http://torrentfreak.com/nothing-new-under-the-copyright-eclipsed-sun-110218/
http://questioncopyright.org/promise
http://questioncopyright.org/redefining_property
The first two links are basically the same information, but I thought both offer some interesting points. The second compares our attachment to the concept of property, how it relates to the concept of intellectual property, and the parallels between the supporting arguments for the two.
So, I guess the first step is to identify the problem and establish the facts. Well, since there is essentially two sides to this, the best approach is to detail how both sides of the argument currently identify the problem. First, the publishers' and creators' side.
The content creators' side of the issue has been that of the owner of works. They spend countless hours and millions of dollars creating works that the public enjoys. They have needs, such as food and shelter. There is no debate in that. They also claim ownership of that which they create. So when people found ways to acquire works that didn't compensate the creators, the creators of content took it as a threat to their livelihood. They take this complaint to the powers that be. They say that this alternate form of reproduction and distribution is taking away their income and making it impossible to earn a living. Those that infringe are taking something that doesn't belong to them and not paying for it. They also claim that there is no justification for any form of infringement. The biggest complaint of all is that their property is being stolen.
The consumers of the content (herein called "fans"), have a different issue. They like to enjoy the content that is available. They want to be able to enjoy the works that have been created as they see fit. They are the people that ultimately fund every artistic project out there. After all, without people willing to financially support works, they would only be made by those that would do it for free as a hobby, not a profession. Fans want to be able to share their experience of their beloved works with others because it increases the value of the experience when shared. They don't see the harm in sharing the things that enhance their lives emotionally or spiritually. Others do it because they want an extra copy for their own use. Some just want to have it right now regardless of payment, either to buy it later or not at all. There are even those that infringe because they get a thrill out of the simple fact that they got away with something they weren't meant to have. One problem, in the eyes of the fans, is that they don't have enough freedom to fully experience their favorite works due to the limitations imposed by the creators. They mirror the creators opinion that they aren't being treated fairly.
The industry proclaimed the end was coming for the music business when the first record players became available, as did they claim the end of movies when the TV came to be. And radio. And VCR's. And tape recorders. And CD-R. Now the industry cries out that the internet will be the catalyst for the end of art. I'm not a historian, but I see a pattern. Technology has changed how we consume art over the decades, but it hasn't spelled the end for any of it.
Those are generally the perspectives of the creators and the fans as far as my experiences can tell. Before this post gets too long, I'm just going to throw it out to you:
What do you think is the most equitable solution to the problem? Copyright law doesn't make these things any less copyable. Sharing information is in human nature and the internet is designed with sharing as its core component, in which millions of humans are participating. So how do we nullify the negative effects of copying while preserving their potential benefits to fans and creators? We can't make them accept the industry's preferred model, so what will they accept? What will provide the opportunities and incentives for fans to contribute so that people who make art for a living can live?
Before someone brings it up, this is not to advocate for infringement (a.k.a. piracy) in any way. Infringement is not a viable model for anyone.
This discussion has been closed.
Replies
Quite interesting how the op keeps insisting they are ok with this even after I post the agreement set forth by Microsoft.
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80980
what you cant see, jessie, is that the powers that be are incomprehensible power fiends who want nothing more than for you to be a ATM machine for themselves with no dollar limit just money after money coming out of your own wallet. how many times did sega ask me to buy sonic the hedgehog for example, hm i probably had bought it on 7 different platforms before i said enough is enough!,
i know the creators always intended sonic and his realm and his friends to be enjoyed by all, (this is reflected in the sonic games themselves, dr eggman (the original japanese name for dr robotnik) representing evil corporations enslaving the normal folk, and sonic representing heroes who are willing to stand up to the evil corporations) but sega went down the route of evil and so now when they ask for even MORE money when I want to play the newest sonic on my Nintendo Wii or Nintendo DS, i use my technical skills to upload it onto a cartridge or dvd-rom RW and play it myself,
im just a fan, and i deserve to be treated with respect, by doing this, it sends a message to the corporations to update their draconin sales models and will force them into the this new millenium (Hello?! were past 2000 now folks) if enough people like greevar and i continue are silent protests we will eventually be given a copyright law that does out with the old, the corporations like M$ and activision will be happy when its all over, cause they will see that it was actually more lucratively profitable for themselves,
or you can just keep being sheeple and fall by the wayside, im not stopping for nothing!
Yeah, not smart. They should take a hint and just come up with their own universe. They could easily carbon copy Halo without actually any obvious usage of Halo content. Hell, the basics are all you need. Power armored solider fighting against a technologically superior alien enemy on a ancient alien relic of unknown origin. There you go. It sounds like Halo, but isn't similar enough for anyone to reasonably claim infringement. Actually, they could do it as a parody like Duty Calls, but more substantial in depth. It would be fun to see someone take an irreverent poke at the Halo series.
What? I don't agree with anything you just said. That's completely the wrong attitude. Furthermore, we don't need to change copyright to change to a better model. It would make things easier if the term was shorter and the rights not automatic upon creation, but we're creative people that can work around that.
this
@FensterMayhew: If something involves work somebody invested into it it has a value. Even if it only is 'information'. Thats the way money works. Its information about how valuable something is.
You want something? work and earn money. Yes money. Thats the way our society VALUES labour. All that recent 'release your art/work/information for free' mindset gets on my nerves. You want it? EARN IT.
I didn't say it was fine, because it's not. I said it was inevitable and laws aren't able stop it. All existing infringement deterrence measures have only solidified people's desire to resist compliance. If you treat someone like a criminal long enough, they just say "To hell with it. I'll be a criminal".
I'm not saying "let's just allow people to download without the creators getting paid for their work". I'm saying that we should find other ways to make it more appealing for them to pay for it or alternative revenue streams. They found a way for TV and radio. There's bound to be something that will work for the internet.
*creators can't protect their work*
*Walt Disney's tormented soul bursts forth from Hell, laughing, black smoke pouring from his twisted mouth, eyes glowing a ghostly violet, arms outstretched over head, hands shaking with maniacal glee, he bellows, "The time of my return has finally come. Look on me, you creators of works, and despair!" His voice roars with all of the torments of Hell, "NOW ALL OF YOUR STORIES BELONG TO MEEEE!!!"*
*make shit worse for everyone but the corporations*
That's called parody and copyright will permit that as long as it passes the fair use test. But I thought the current version of Sonic was homo-erotic?
Good god, i cant remember the last time i've yelled at my monitor that much.
an alternative system has been found, it's treating games as a service that you subscribe to rather than a product.
Well, I'm not trying to argue. I'm trying to find out what people think will fix this chasm between the people who want to be paid for their work and the people that want the works, but aren't paying for it. I think it's a matter of finding the right incentives or conveniences for a majority of people who infringe. I don't think the pervasive attitude of "Just buy the games assholes!" is going to accomplish anything.
Well, that's one possible solution. It's not the universal solution that will work for everything, which I also don't believes exists. I do believe that there is a model for each unique set of circumstances that will work. I'm asking people what those might be and what they might look like.
how to react to an IP hindering your progression:
There are gray areas and not all files shared are "teh illeglez" but the majority of idiots who pirate should be paying for the content they consume. Especially if they want there to be an industry that they can apply to for a job... If you're looking to drum up support for piracy this probably isn't a good place to find sympathetic shoulders to cry on.
If you're looking for alternative ways to combat the ill effects of piracy then a bunch of model jockeys and students probably aren't going to give you the answers you seek.
Does anyone ever get the feeling when we rehash these discussions on a semester or quarterly basis that we're just writing papers for students?
I agree that not every download is a loss, but some are. What I want to discuss is how we get those other people, who aren't buying, to support the people who create the games they play.
I agree with you for the most part, but I don't think we'll get people to buy the cake if we piss on it to deter loss.
That's all well and good, but what about single player experiences and offline games? How can these be profitable regardless of infringement and file sharing?
I used to go to Arcades and music stores as a kid, they've all but disappeared as well.
Nice little illustration.
Most of them don't care. They get it for free because ....well they can. When you tell them "Hey the people who made that game need to eat and send there kids to school", they simply won't care because they are lame. The world is full of lamers.
I buy my games and music because its the right thing to do. People put hard work behind these pieces of entertainment and they are entitled to its rewards. Even if that means simply keeping your job because just enough people bought the game you worked on.
The gaming industry is a business not a charity. Give or take a few unique cases
Did you enjoy the dildocorn? It's without any copyrights so far.
am creating game based on your dildocorn.
(i personally wouldn't touch any game with a subscription system - reminds me too much of a gym membership... uggh)
but another example, (sorry to bring up again :P ) is League of legends.
the game is completely free.
forum polls (inaccurate to say the least) suggest that 50% or more of its users will never pay a dime for the game. but 26% pay more than 80$.
people spend money of characters, skins, and other goodies
they sold half the company for something like 400 mil. so there must be money in it :P
and to solve everyones problems
1. no pirating (its FREE)
2. the game is always being changed, and improved, and new shit added. = always new things to buy for players = re playable over and over, and the shit that doesn't work gets fixed
3. better job security - working on a game that continuously makes $$ and is continuously being worked on - no layoffs (knock on wood)
4. when it comes to money - its not a one trick pony. a year after release its still making money. where as other games you go to eb and you can find some for 15$. It's only picking up momentum.
(note: this is all ignorant, naive speculation on my part.)
its a win win for everyone. now there just has to be a way to apply this/something similar to other genres.
-server based subscrition/micropayment games (OnLive/WoW/etc.)
-value added DRM (Steam)
-never show it to anyone
-Kickstarter
Somewhat effective ways to enforce copyright without pissing people off:
-large capacity disk based media and special hardware (Xbox, etc)
-Begging (Humble Indie Bundle)
-special peripherals (Kinect, Guitar Hero)
-emphasized online play (Modern Warfare 2, Bioshock 2)
-hardware dongle (steel beasts, X plane?)
Not very effective ways of enforcing copyright that don't piss people off:
-code wheels, manual look-up (Monkey Island, Master of Orion)
-key codes
Not very effective ways of enforcing copyright that also piss people off:
-moral arguments (people on the internet)
-suing people (record industry)
-malware DRM (Ubisoft, et al)
-limited copy installs (iTunes)
-stupid file formats (iTunes)
-hardware bricking (iPod)
-constant internet required (Ubisoft)
I may have missed some options.
Too many publishers spend substantial time and effort alienating a portion of their core demographic, making them feel like potential pirates rather than customers. Jumping threw hoops of DRM to prove that we aren't committing a crime is never a good first experience.
Piracy is a losing battle. It's costly to fight it and there is no proof of it actually being effective enough in improving sales to even offset the licensing or development of said DRM methods. Assassin's Creed 2 was heralded as a great success in anti-piracy measures yet it wouldn't be a reach to understand that many PC gamers didn't want to promote such a heavy-handed DRM method, thus waiting for it to be cracked or avoiding it altogether.
Instead of focusing on how to stop people from pirating the game, they could try focusing on how to get potential customers to purchase the game. Give some incentive, whether by means of in-game online communities, additional content or a central game hub like Steam.
Embracing the customer will go further than fighting the pirates as only one of these can be accomplished.
That's precisely what I'm trying to solve. What can we do to turn those people into customers and contributors? For the online, the most common solution is to make it free to play and sell digital goods to players within the game. But what about the offline players? What about the TES and Force Unleashed type of players. Is there a way to snare those people into investing their money into that sort of game even with the existence of file sharing?
Here's a thought: What if people could buy custom made gear for their game? Not simply DLC, but pay the art team to create a sweet weapon, armor, outfit, or mini quest/dungeon for their player? The way they do it is by voting on concepts with their money. You put up concept art for a particular piece with a set budget to build that asset. They bid (like an auction) money on the ones they like and the assets to reach the goal by the deadline gets made. This wouldn't be the sole or even the main revenue source, but it could bring in revenue. It would work similarly to the Free to play model, but more compatible for offline play. If you don't meet their budget requirements, they just simply don't make it. I like this because the people who make the stuff would be paid for everything they make. And as for "piracy"? Hell, who cares? They already got paid when they made it.
Sorry that this is getting long. I tend to ramble when ideas come to me.
It is currently protected under copyright. You created and published it. Therefore, it's copyrighted. The only missing component is registration of your copyright to aid you in any infringement claims against another party.
To which Hawken replied:
So develop your game as normal with your own money or money from investors/publishers but don't release it until the bills (and more) are paid. After that if it gets pirated it doesn't really matter all that much, or bought then you make extra profit.
I think the only caveat being you need to make a good game worth buying. Shovelware won't cut it.
EDIT:
Oh almost forgot. All of the above with zero DRM, because by the time people get access to the game the bills are paid and profit made so why bother with DRM at that point.
Honestly I think these times are waaaay over by now - at least in some parts of the world with good network access and the appropriate license systems. I dont think the perfect balance has been found just yet, but its getting very close already!
Instead of relying on jargon or IP theory semantics, I'll simply give you my breakdown when it comes to my personal "entertainment needs". Most of these systems rely on virtualisation and a small service fee, and are totally reliable already.
MUSIC
I do not buy any CDs anymore (except for gifts to friends, and some very few special edition boxes/digipacks that I want to own for my own extra satisfaction, or because I have the possibility to purchase straight from the artist at a gig or online). But guess what, I do not pirate either, and I do not use Itunes or Amazon digital, because the thought of "buying" virtual music tracks with restrictive DRM isn't appealing to me.
Instead, I simply pay a monthly 10$ fee to Spotify, giving me instant steaming access to a massive music library, from any computer connected to the internet. It can also play my local music files from drive. Awesome service, costs me less than buying physical CDs, and I am happy to cover server maintenance and license fees (hoping that, somehow, a fraction of it goes back to the artists. I didn't go as far as researching this, but regardless, its a valid system at its core). All in one, its even smoother that torrenting! I get the music faster and I cannot possibly loose my library. How awesome is that!
TV & MOVIES
Hulu and Netflix streaming. Small monthly fee. Again, a fraction of the fee can easily go back to the content creators. For high quality movies I go for physical BluRays - I purchase maybe half a dozen of them a year. I am totally fine with buying them physically (cheaper than retail, from Amazon) since it is HQ stuff that I wouldn't want to stream anyways, and honestly, torrenting a multiple GB .MKV is just not practical and a waste of time.
GAMES
Steam, XBLA, PSN, BattleDotNet. Again, no "stealing" in any form possible. And for high quality single player games, same as Bluray - I am fine with purchasing them physically for technical reasons. High quality has a cost, and huge downloads are annoying, so, disc it is.
So all in one I feel like all the solutions are here already, it is just a matter of polishing them and getting used to them.
2 things tho :
- Non-stream digital content should be easy to re-download, at no extra fee, and should be useable offline whenever the connection is down ;
- Physical copies should still be available for high-end content (but could be shipped to the customer, without the need for brick and mortar stores)
I think we have all the structures to make it all work! And it makes most of the "property" discussion obsolete. Plus, virtualisation saves space... Whoever gets a kick out of "displaying" shelves full of DVDs or games is just an attention whore anyways!
Now of course the system can always be abused, but I feel like any busy individual with a full schedule has no time for lengthy torrents anyways. So yeah, in short : online authentification is the answer, and its here already. Yay!
I like that idea and I have been advocating that type of model. My thoughts were that the developers would make it known how much they need to make the game and show that as a goal. That's good and it gives people a target to shoot for. What's more is I was thinking of adding perks to higher levels of contribution.
My favorite perk idea was a "host your own release party" where the dev team invites you and several of your friends to have a release party where you get early signed copies of the game and you can play it a day before the game goes live to the public. The usual suspects of a party are there such as pizza and drinks, but you get to meet the dev team and play the game with them. This would require a significant financial contribution, but I think if you have some well-to-do friends, you could put together enough funds or it could be part of a giveaway contest where each contribution of a certain amount would give you another entry in the drawing. If you can offer cool perks that don't cost much to provide, but make people give you money, you could improve your reputation and stability for the studio.
http://www.8bitfunding.com/
These guys just started up a few weeks ago, but already have several projects that have met their goal. They're like Kickstarter, but just for games.
The other thing I've seen that I think is great is what www.interstellarmarines.com has been doing with their AAA indie initiative. They involve the community and build interest in their game by giving away mini games that are tech and game play demos of the full game. Paying fans get special priority access to development progress of the game. It removes the dependency on publishers so the studio is more focused on giving the fans the game they want rather than the game the publisher wants to sell. It turns their business to a customer centered perspective, which I think is what's going to set the winners apart from the riff-raff.
I think every indie game team is free to put together an original appropriate business model if they feel like it, just like the examples stated above. But when it comes to a new 'standard' in media distribution, again, online authentification is the way to go and pretty much solves everything. Yay!
I'm not really interested in getting very involved in this discussion, but I do want to say I second Pior's thoughts by and large. The various systems we already have may not be perfect - a few annoyances here and there, but the balance is there for those who would seek it, and I think it's only a matter of time before it becomes commonplace.
Pirating hasn't even crossed my mind for so many years, the most I see of torrent sites is actually what people post up in news articles in places like this or other art forums. I've found a reliable system for handling all my sources of entertainment, and I'm really not finding it difficult at all to maintain - even on my (incredibly small) budget.
Online authentication? As in being online while playing or online to authorize the software? Either way, I think you'll find that your fans will feel like you're shoving a leash up their ass (thank you Demolition Man for that imagery!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zhe85spsw&feature=player_detailpage#t=64s
If you're using measures to force people to either pay or not play at all, you'll just end up putting off a bunch of people that might have given you money. You want people to feel like you want them to play their game, but digital restrictions just make them think you want their money.
I'll say this quick because it's late. Part of the reason I'm talking about solutions to this is because the publishing giants are pushing for more and more restrictive protections harsher penalties that try to hold on to obsolete models that were dependent on distribution control they no longer have. I want to be able to have cheap, fast, and convenient access to my entertainment uninhibited by pay walls that the big guys used to love.
(I am not saying that Steam is the ultimate solution - but as far as seeking answers goes, well here is one! And then you got Onlive, another system altogether but quite viable too for low-end content...)
Stirs the pot.
Very true, I guess civilization will be the poorer for not seeing the works of dildocorn live out.
They could always make the dildocorn have two dildo-horns and have a robot ride it instead, and it would be considered new.
Also, I haven't registered the word "dildocorn" so it is in fact without copyright.
people just cannot use my the exact likeness of my particular dildocorn.
Go back to my drawing, see the side-route.
Well thats a strange place to hang your purse... Someone wanna help her out?
Currently they've kind of tacked on some extra features and set up minimal ways to deliver stuff but they're far behind the curve and its mostly due to hardware limitations. "lets build a faster ps2 and xbox, oh crap what just happened... alright, we'll do some motion sensing to get back the market share that N stole, while we figure out how to move forward"
As for the pay walls that companies erect. If they're the first, someone normally comes a long and provides a better service, for cheaper prices.
I totally agree that the only real way to convert pirates, isn't to hug them and hope they see reason, a guilt trip might work on a few put not enough. The answer isn't to burn paying customers with pokers while yelling "piracy NO!! BAD!"
People like electricity follow the path of least resistance. So far the industry has tried to put more resistors on the path to piracy and in doing so pissed off a lot of paying customers and fans. Instead we need to make the path to purchasing like a slip N slide greased with butter.
How do we do that, like Pior pointed out online authorization and probably a price drop back to $50-55. If people go after used games like sugar on an ant hill then they'll probably be all over a cheaper delivery method.
To get around the people that crave physical meida, enable the systems to burn backup or offline discs or allow traditional brick and mortar stores to sell physical copies. Now your library is always available and you spent a Saturday backing it up to hang on your trophy wall, congrats. If you're worried they'll become replicator machines there are ways around that with hardware locks and account authorization, yea it might open the door to piracy but you'll never stamp it out 100% but with a thoughtful hardware design it can go a long way in giving people a path of least resistance.
Yes, I have. Steam is doing a great job so far. They offer a lot of conveniences that file sharing doesn't. I purchased "Magicka" partly because it was on Steam. It's a great game btw.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dustinmellen