Free to play titles are pretty much the foolproof piracy solution though, there's no point in copying a game that is already available for free. it IS the ultimate DRM.
Not always, I'm sure someone will start to crack those games open, set up their own servers and sell whatever in game currency it uses at a reduced rate. The Android market is already flooded with copies and clones, it wouldn't shock me if someone started doing that soon...
I totally agree about ancient law makers being out of touch and too heavily influenced by the wrong kind of people that don't represent the average person. I can only hope that more of them are forced out and replaced by people who aren't walking husks of history.
That's absolutely right. The experience has more meaning when you can share the art you enjoy with others so that they can come to love it as much as you do. If you've ever felt excitement over showing a friend or relative something you thought was just incredible, you'll know what I'm saying is true. I see it all the time right here on Polycount in the P&P threads.
P&P are the copyright holders sharing their work
As far as video games, Project Zomboid is an example of the effects of piracy in this new era of connectivity - not lost sales but a drain on resources:
"However, these auto updating versions of the game could screw us completely. We have a cloud based distribution model, where the files are copied all over the world and are served to players on request, which means we are charged money for people downloading the game."
As far as video games, Project Zomboid is an example of the effects of piracy in this new era of connectivity - not lost sales but a drain on resources:
"However, these auto updating versions of the game could screw us completely. We have a cloud based distribution model, where the files are copied all over the world and are served to players on request, which means we are charged money for people downloading the game."
I was referring to the viral effects of sharing content, whether it was your copyright or another person's.
Zomboid's problem isn't really piracy, but people using bandwidth that costs them money, but not contributing to paying for those costs. Really, if they wanted to, they could just try charging for bandwidth, then people who didn't buy wouldn't be draining resources without at least paying for the costs they generate.
so you're on the side of the telecom giants? gate the internet and charge the end user for bandwidth? Never would of expected that.
What? No. Nothing like that. Just set up a subscription system where people pay for access to the cloud service which pays for the bandwidth costs so pirate copies aren't leeching Zomboid and costing them money.
What? No. Nothing like that. Just set up a subscription system where people pay for access to the cloud service which pays for the bandwidth costs so pirate copies aren't leeching Zomboid and costing them money.
Exactly, the zomboid creators didn't mind the piracy, they can't do anything about that, but then someone crafty built in an auto-updater into the pirate-releases that would pull every new update from zomboids servers, no revenue, but they'd still have to pay for all that bandwidth.
It's not an example of how piracy hurts the industry (as this hole will be plugged), it's more of a better example on that pirates don't do it for any cause.
It's not an example of how piracy hurts the industry (as this hole will be plugged), it's more of a better example on that pirates don't do it for any cause.
That's a complete non sequitur. You're drawing conclusions where none exists. Leeching bandwidth from a game company doesn't prove that pirates have no cause, it doesn't show that they do either. What it proves is that people will do with content what they want to do, so you better integrate your business into that. If Zomboid wants to be effective in the market facing the reality of file sharing, they're going to have to figure out how to monetize the things people do with the content they're creating for them. What you're saying is just an ad hominem attack against a group of people to legitimize your negative position against them. You're trying to magnify their out-group status by casting more negative opinion on them, possibly to justify any and all subjugation actioned against them.
But we're not discussing Zomboid here, we're discussing this abortion of a bill that threatens to ignite a war between the public that wants to enjoy their content on their own terms and the big media corporations that want to extract revenue by restricting what you do with content to a narrow range of models that fall apart as soon as you add the internet into the equation. This whole system that was started by Disney has been on a downward spiral from the beginning because it tried to do what wasn't really possible in the first place and shouldn't be done at all, which is restricting content. It's a mistake to let the media corps have their hands in this facet of legislation because it's dangerous to have the people the law directly applies to, choosing how the law will regulate them. It's rotten with bias and regulatory capture.
If Zomboid wants to be effective in the market facing the reality of file sharing, they're going to have to figure out how to monetize the things people do with the content they're creating for them.
That wasn't the point, it was that they didn't expect pirates to go that far when the game was already fully out on the torrent networks, they weren't going to fight piracy, they just didn't expect it to intrude on their home step.
However, this fits in nicely with the discussion, since the crowd wanting there to be no intellectual property is as extreme as the people now wanting to go as far as they do with this bill.
There has been a nice balance, corporations are allowing people to use their content in creative ways, people post lets plays that aren't all taken down, other companies even encourage this behavior of creativity.
But then there's the people that just go the full on way of streaming entire content without any intention to be creative or "mix it up", the industry eventually pushes back.
hmm the industry will grumble on about it's customers being pirates for ever, even before the Internet the music industry was being a bitch about people mixing and reproducing LP's on cassette tapes and sharing them and that was at a huge quality loss.
and like with most fights, there are usually douche bags on both sides of the fight, the industry wants to restrict use way too much, than there are the assholes who pirate everything and anything and say media and art should be free, when they don't got a fucking clue how much it costs to produce a movie or album and how much people make a living off it.
That wasn't the point, it was that they didn't expect pirates to go that far when the game was already fully out on the torrent networks, they weren't going to fight piracy, they just didn't expect it to intrude on their home step.
However, this fits in nicely with the discussion, since the crowd wanting there to be no intellectual property is as extreme as the people now wanting to go as far as they do with this bill.
There has been a nice balance, corporations are allowing people to use their content in creative ways, people post lets plays that aren't all taken down, other companies even encourage this behavior of creativity.
But then there's the people that just go the full on way of streaming entire content without any intention to be creative or "mix it up", the industry eventually pushes back.
I don't see how there can be a balance in this day and age. Copyright wasn't designed, and was never intended, to be a business model. It was meant to serve as an incentive to encourage authors to create more works for the opportunity to profit it from it so that more works would be available in the public domain. It wasn't created for authors, it was created for the benefit of everyone else. The public domain was the end game that copyright was meant to fulfill. It wasn't meant to protect anyone's jobs, income, or property. If nothing else, copyright needs to be rolled back to what it was before Disney extended it to near limitless time spans and these ridiculous laws they're lobbying for need to stop. It's been twisted into a system bent on making people rich instead of enriching our culture through constant remixing of older works.
14 years to exploit your works for an opportunity to profit is more than fair considering most works have a profitable lifespan of less than a decade. These works need to go to the public domain within a portion of a lifetime rather than never. Regardless, this isn't going to quell the file sharing culture of the internet. So, it behooves the industry to figure out a peaceful way to deal with it and not beat people down with stupid laws that people have lost all respect for. Had the 14 year limit been upheld, everything from 97' and before would be open to the public to use for a great many things that haven't even been thought of yet. Shorter copyright terms would encourage authors to create more works to replace the soon to expire revenue streams of older works with new works. It keeps them busy creating instead of chasing down every grandmother and child to shake them down for extortion money.
Replies
I totally agree about ancient law makers being out of touch and too heavily influenced by the wrong kind of people that don't represent the average person. I can only hope that more of them are forced out and replaced by people who aren't walking husks of history.
P&P are the copyright holders sharing their work
As far as video games, Project Zomboid is an example of the effects of piracy in this new era of connectivity - not lost sales but a drain on resources:
project zomboid taken down due to piracy
"However, these auto updating versions of the game could screw us completely. We have a cloud based distribution model, where the files are copied all over the world and are served to players on request, which means we are charged money for people downloading the game."
I was referring to the viral effects of sharing content, whether it was your copyright or another person's.
Zomboid's problem isn't really piracy, but people using bandwidth that costs them money, but not contributing to paying for those costs. Really, if they wanted to, they could just try charging for bandwidth, then people who didn't buy wouldn't be draining resources without at least paying for the costs they generate.
What? No. Nothing like that. Just set up a subscription system where people pay for access to the cloud service which pays for the bandwidth costs so pirate copies aren't leeching Zomboid and costing them money.
Exactly, the zomboid creators didn't mind the piracy, they can't do anything about that, but then someone crafty built in an auto-updater into the pirate-releases that would pull every new update from zomboids servers, no revenue, but they'd still have to pay for all that bandwidth.
It's not an example of how piracy hurts the industry (as this hole will be plugged), it's more of a better example on that pirates don't do it for any cause.
That's a complete non sequitur. You're drawing conclusions where none exists. Leeching bandwidth from a game company doesn't prove that pirates have no cause, it doesn't show that they do either. What it proves is that people will do with content what they want to do, so you better integrate your business into that. If Zomboid wants to be effective in the market facing the reality of file sharing, they're going to have to figure out how to monetize the things people do with the content they're creating for them. What you're saying is just an ad hominem attack against a group of people to legitimize your negative position against them. You're trying to magnify their out-group status by casting more negative opinion on them, possibly to justify any and all subjugation actioned against them.
But we're not discussing Zomboid here, we're discussing this abortion of a bill that threatens to ignite a war between the public that wants to enjoy their content on their own terms and the big media corporations that want to extract revenue by restricting what you do with content to a narrow range of models that fall apart as soon as you add the internet into the equation. This whole system that was started by Disney has been on a downward spiral from the beginning because it tried to do what wasn't really possible in the first place and shouldn't be done at all, which is restricting content. It's a mistake to let the media corps have their hands in this facet of legislation because it's dangerous to have the people the law directly applies to, choosing how the law will regulate them. It's rotten with bias and regulatory capture.
That wasn't the point, it was that they didn't expect pirates to go that far when the game was already fully out on the torrent networks, they weren't going to fight piracy, they just didn't expect it to intrude on their home step.
However, this fits in nicely with the discussion, since the crowd wanting there to be no intellectual property is as extreme as the people now wanting to go as far as they do with this bill.
There has been a nice balance, corporations are allowing people to use their content in creative ways, people post lets plays that aren't all taken down, other companies even encourage this behavior of creativity.
But then there's the people that just go the full on way of streaming entire content without any intention to be creative or "mix it up", the industry eventually pushes back.
and like with most fights, there are usually douche bags on both sides of the fight, the industry wants to restrict use way too much, than there are the assholes who pirate everything and anything and say media and art should be free, when they don't got a fucking clue how much it costs to produce a movie or album and how much people make a living off it.
I don't see how there can be a balance in this day and age. Copyright wasn't designed, and was never intended, to be a business model. It was meant to serve as an incentive to encourage authors to create more works for the opportunity to profit it from it so that more works would be available in the public domain. It wasn't created for authors, it was created for the benefit of everyone else. The public domain was the end game that copyright was meant to fulfill. It wasn't meant to protect anyone's jobs, income, or property. If nothing else, copyright needs to be rolled back to what it was before Disney extended it to near limitless time spans and these ridiculous laws they're lobbying for need to stop. It's been twisted into a system bent on making people rich instead of enriching our culture through constant remixing of older works.
14 years to exploit your works for an opportunity to profit is more than fair considering most works have a profitable lifespan of less than a decade. These works need to go to the public domain within a portion of a lifetime rather than never. Regardless, this isn't going to quell the file sharing culture of the internet. So, it behooves the industry to figure out a peaceful way to deal with it and not beat people down with stupid laws that people have lost all respect for. Had the 14 year limit been upheld, everything from 97' and before would be open to the public to use for a great many things that haven't even been thought of yet. Shorter copyright terms would encourage authors to create more works to replace the soon to expire revenue streams of older works with new works. It keeps them busy creating instead of chasing down every grandmother and child to shake them down for extortion money.
Good idea, lets start up our own internewbs!
(Image courtesy of Matthew Klees, "I Klees'ed it!")