Yet, morrowind was made by a games studio with several games behind them, in the games industry, it wasn't indie in any way, we wouldn't have skyrim coming soon if it weren't for the production budgets of high end titles.
There is an abundance of great games we would never have if it weren't for high budgets.
High budgets for art-teams is awesome, it's what gives us jobs here, it's the very reason this community exists.
I want to play every obscure indie title as much as I want to fill my need for high-end polished high budget titles.
How can you say that with any certainty? What evidence is there that says without a reasonable doubt that high quality games wouldn't exist without big budgets? I've seen games by both ends of the spectrum that are AAA quality and there is also a glut of big budget games that just stink like last year's gym socks. I truly think it's the people and ideas behind a game that makes it great, not it's budget. Transformers was a massively high-budget movie and both of them are generally considered to be absolute tripe.
High budgets do not equate to high quality nor is a prerequisite. They just have better marketing teams.
Ya know you could apply this to most of your posts Greevar. Most of which display an amount of naivety and idealism about the "way things work" or should work. Get some experience, get some perspective.
Ya know you could apply this to most of your posts Greevar. Most of which display an amount of naivety and idealism about the "way things work" or should work. Get some experience, get some perspective.
Correlation does not equal causation. To say that big budget games are of higher quality because they have a big budgets is no more valid than saying that violent games make children violent. That's why I doubt eld's assertion. It's far more logical that the big budget teams that produce great games are capable of doing so because they were able to acquire top notch developers for their team. Money is like any other tool, it's not the quality or quantity of it. It's the skill of the people who use it. You could argue that big budgets draw in more talented developers, but that's just one motivation that brings people to a project. There are equally talented people working in the lower budget studios. That doesn't mean that their game will be inferior compared to EA or Activision's minions.
aesir:
I didn't say that. You're taking my words and putting unintended meaning to it. Of course bigger budgets allow for more people to work on a project, but does that correlate to higher quality either? It can, to a degree, improve quality, but not if you have a team of mediocre devs. More hands mostly makes the grunt work go faster. And marketing does make a big difference on the retail success of a game. There are steaming piles of crap that sell well because they got enough rubes to see the ads.
It's kind of sad to see professional game developers equate high quality with big budgets. I think any film maker that said something like that would get laughed out of the room.
The problem with the comic is that it's comparing a bird singing (which is a naturally occuring creature that no one had to create) to a videogame or song that very many high-skilled people had to create.
To make it equivalent it would have to be a person sneaking into a concert hall to listen to an opera for free.
A bird is going to sing whether people listen, pay for tickets, or not. Videogames and music is not going to get made (at the same frequency, quality, and complexity) without some form of financial support enabling people to pursue it full time, therefore being able to master that craft to a level a part time person who has to support themselves with another paying job would.
Not that I'm disagreeing with what you said, cause I think you're right.
But that's not exactly what that cartoon was trying to say. Even within the realm of that cartoon, the guy would have to do some actual work to get the bird's song into a format where people can experience it widely. He'd have to learn to play an instrument, get the budget to record himself, etc etc. The bird itself was more to symbolize the inspiration artists get from nature.
The point they were trying to make was, that once all of that is said and done, for how long does the first person own that idea exclusively? Further, it was making the point that the only way to keep things the way they are, is by putting people in prison.
Basically, it always starts out as an artist doing something. But then it quickly turns into the suits that are "above" the artist trying to squeeze out cash for as long as possible, even if it means putting people in prison. Like in music for instance, the artists make the songs, they get paid, etc. But even decades later, the record companies will sue people for playing that song without a license. It's not even the artists anymore. It's some faceless person in a suit that's trying to maintain a profit for his master.
Right. What I'm saying is you are draw alot of conclusions based apon this same kind of logic. Especially when giving examples to support your arguments. The industry is not perfect, many issues related to piracy or publishing are complex issues that have pros and cons attached to them. So hey..lets learn and grow. Not start a revolution and take shots into the dark.
It's kind of sad to see professional game developers equate high quality with big budgets. I think any film maker that said something like that would get laughed out of the room.
Just like in film there are somethings that you just can't do with a tiny team and tiny budget. It's going to be hard to pull off Avatar on a budget that barely makes a down payment for a single camera.
You can still create awesome stuff on a small budget and a tiny team, its just that you can't create all types of awesome. Otherwise everyone would work that way, why hire 200+ people to create a MMO if you can do the same thing with 3 people and a iphone app budget...
How can you say that with any certainty? What evidence is there that says without a reasonable doubt that high quality games wouldn't exist without big budgets? I've seen games by both ends of the spectrum that are AAA quality and there is also a glut of big budget games that just stink like last year's gym socks. I truly think it's the people and ideas behind a game that makes it great, not it's budget. Transformers was a massively high-budget movie and both of them are generally considered to be absolute tripe.
High budgets do not equate to high quality nor is a prerequisite. They just have better marketing teams.
Please tell me where I ever said that high quality games required high budgets.
And why did you use morrowind as something to prove your point when it just disproved it.
It's kind of sad to see professional game developers equate high quality with big budgets. I think any film maker that said something like that would get laughed out of the room.
It doesn't. It requires talented people, but those often don't work for free, even the filmmakers knows this.
Greevar, every one one of your posts reads like a Bill Clinton, "that depends on what your definition of "is" is", quote. Semantic bullshit gets old real quick.
Basically, it always starts out as an artist doing something. But then it quickly turns into the suits that are "above" the artist trying to squeeze out cash for as long as possible, even if it means putting people in prison. Like in music for instance, the artists make the songs, they get paid, etc. But even decades later, the record companies will sue people for playing that song without a license. It's not even the artists anymore. It's some faceless person in a suit that's trying to maintain a profit for his master.
You're still just trying to attribute everything to "the man", even when we have indie studios without publishers out there.
You're still just trying to attribute everything to "the man", even when we have indie studios without publishers out there.
But it doesn't apply in that case.
It's not the indie studios/labels that are suing people, trying to put people behind bars. Apples and oranges man.
That cartoon was a critique of the way "the man", as you put it, does business. About how they pay some money to some artists, the artists make the product, and the high-aboves cash in on it for ages.
Indie labels/studios/productions aren't part of that criticism.
It's not the indie studios/labels that are suing people, trying to put people behind bars. Apples and oranges man.
That cartoon was a critique of the way "the man", as you put it, does business. About how they pay some money to some artists, the artists make the product, and the high-aboves cash in on it for ages.
Indie labels/studios/productions aren't part of that criticism.
It's not like these big labels win any money from suing people, they're just doing it as a scare tactic, since it's pretty fruitless to try to go after the small people.
Fear of consequence is the only thing stopping most casual piracy between this reality and one where piracy would be legalized.
What's everyone's problem? I have an opinion and when someone challenges it, I defend it. If having an unpopular opinion is grounds for putting me on ignore, then I guess I'm the king of the ignore list. I'm not going to start saying what you want to hear just because you think I'm wrong. I have many people disagreeing with my opinion and I don't have anyone on my ignore list.
I think some of you out there just want things to go back to the way it was and anyone that gives an opinion that doesn't support that is stupid, wrong, or doesn't know what they are talking about. You can't debate with me on any points of real merit, so you instead you try to trivialize my argument by accusing me of playing the semantics game or not knowing what I talk about because I don't work in the industry. Well let me tell you, the semantics game was started a long time before I entered the debate and I don't have to work in the barn to smell the bullshit. The terms, "stealing", "intellectual property", and "piracy" are semantic tools leveraged by those that want to maintain their monopolies on art because they're too scared or short-sighted to think of a way to make a living without copyright. Those terms are intended to confuse and misrepresent the truth. I'm just trying to expose their deceptive practices.
I'll be frank, I think copyright is the worst thing to happen to art in all of written history. It gets in the way of the creative freedom and encourages miserly attitudes towards sharing ideas. Honestly, I think copyright infringement is great. I hope it tears down the art business as we know it because it's terrible and needs to be restructured. For a bunch of creative people you sure do have a hard time imagining doing things differently or trying new ideas. Then somebody comes along and offers a differing opinion and you just dump on him. I'm trying to contribute to the discussion by getting people to question the norm. We're artists, we're supposed to question the norm. All I hear is that I'm wrong, you're right, and then you stick your fingers in your ears.
I see more and more as I read what people say about illegal file-sharing (a.k.a "piracy") and can't help but get the feeling that you just want to have 100% control and power to dictate to people how, where and when they can use the works you create. It's not your property. No matter how many times you say "intellectual property" it doesn't make it true. All works are the property of the public domain and that copyright law that was shoved down our throats was put there to give those with the power of distribution the ability to milk the creative talents out there for every bit they're worth and beat down anyone that wants to compete. Every business out there fights hard to create monopolies despite the fact that US law explicitly forbids it, because monopolies are immensely destructive.
When it comes to intangible art, you can get paid for making it, but you can forget about getting paid for what you've created. I say this over and over again, but nobody listens. Every other occupation sells their time and effort. Carpenters, plumbers, salespersons, and so on. They don't demand payment for work they've already done. They get paid for doing it. Art is a service, not a product. Treat it as such and you'll have a much easier time.
I've paid attention to history and I know what's going to happen to the business as you know it. Just like the cotton gin made slavery in the south obsolete and the automobile made the horse and buggy obsolete, so will the internet make artificial monopolies on the creation and distribution of ideas obsolete.
So go ahead, tell me how wrong I am, or how I know nothing of what I'm talking about. All of you naysayers are in denial. You think your plane is flying, but it's actually in free fall. You just haven't hit the ground yet.
The man? Calls for upheaval and rebellion? The sky is falling??
Don't mind the video, its a lighthearted poke at the mood that this discussion is tumbling further into.
Relax, take a chill pill, no need to start another fight over a discussion. Yes Greevar, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you gotta keep in mind to separate feelings from facts, cause it makes one hard pill to swallow.
I don't know how old/experienced you are, but if there is a majority who disagree with you, take it with a pinch of salt. Lord knows i'm always far from right, but at least I let things digest before snapping back and saying "don't try to hold me down man! I will never give in!"
It's been mentioned before, it's great that you tried to come up with solutions, and you should stick with that positive uplook instead of devolving into rebellious anger.
Creativity is stronger than ever, sharing of ideas is being done much more than ever, and this is in the same playground as IP and copyright laws.
I think you should put your effort into real IP troubles, like trademarking EDGE or VILLE, or patenting simple code or methods, copyrights are there for even the small guy from the very basic fact that it is applied the moment he creates something.
I think people get defensive from the very fact that you're attacking something that is essential to just about all of our careers. High-end big-staffed gameart is the first thing to go in the case of an abortation of IP and copyright laws.
Also, furniture nowdays are made in factories at low-cost, you're not paying just for the materials, you're also paying for the work put into it.
You have some half baked ideas that come from some simple missunderstanding of how things operate. It seems like you're operating from a position that all laws that are enacted are created by some authority that is trying to screw every last human over. Well buddy some times, we little guys get tired of being screwed over, get together, and create laws that work to protect us and our work.
1)
Copyright law is to protect an individuals rights and work from other people looking to make a profit off it. They can profit off of it, only when the original creator gives his/her consent. Its designed in such a way that only you have the right to sell and distribute what you create and no one else does. You're rights are not transferred to "teh man" automatically unless you specifically enter into an agreement that he/she can control your works, or you pass your work into the public domain knowingly.
What you're purposing is that anyone anywhere should be able to take any work, claim it as their own and profit off of it, even work they have not created or purchased the rights to.
2)
Art is art. It is not a product unless you specifically create it and distribute it as product. A game is a product that contains art. You're confusing quite a few things together and I think you should take some time to straighten it all out before you go off and ramble. Take that from someone who likes to go off and ramble...
3)
I see more and more as I read what people say about illegal file-sharing (a.k.a "piracy") and can't help but get the feeling that you just want to have 100% control and power to dictate to people how, where and when they can use the works you create.
Because under the law, those are the rights that are given to the creator. If you would like to rewrite those laws and obliterate those freedoms that are granted under it then be my guest, go ahead and try.
You will not be met with criticism from the top 2% that create nothing but who have acquired a big pile of rights over time. They will be on your side, they will be able to take whatever the hell they want and profit off of it without a peep from the artists themselves. If artists release it, it will be taken and profit will be made by anyone and everyone.
The unproductive 2% will love you, and probably throw you a parade and create a statue in your honor. They will have a much easier time making money off of creations they haven't created.
You will be rebuffed by the lowly artists who toil in their craft and love art. You will drive them to squirrel their work away and never show it to anyone because it will be taken and exploited while they work on more art. You won't see more open and free sharing of ideas, you'll see people horde it.
4)
If there is no way for an artist to make money off of what they sell and everyone can have at it, there is no incentive for people who like to create art, to create art for a living. It is only when people are fully protected and able to capitalize on their ideas will you see things open up. When people understand that it was the original artist.
These are YOUR rights and the laws are put in place to help you retain them. It's easy for someone to exploit your rights if you don't know what they are or how they operate. PLEASE take some time to read up and educate yourself. My fear is that we will have more artists like you that are raised with a misunderstanding of how things operate and work to destroy and dismantle all that the artists and creators that have come before us have worked hard to establish for us. Don't screw over future generations of artists with half baked ideas and talk of "revolution" just because its easier for you to tear it down and attempt to write something new, than it is to take the time to understand what was created previously.
5)
We shouldn't tear down things we don't understand, but instead work to understand them and make them better.
I see this all the time when artists are learning new software. Why doesn't XYZ work like ABC, is there a script that does ABC!? Well... if you crack open the help file and read you'll find why it doesn't operate that way and why a few million artists have agreed to arrange it in a particular way.
I'm not saying it isn't good to question things and to evaluate long held beliefs, standards and laws, but you need to fully understand them before you can begin to question or improve them. You don't come to an understanding of something by first destroying it and trying to recreate it.
How many times have you seen that tried, and how many times have you seen it fail? I personally have seen it enough times to know that if you want to change something you need to first find out what makes it tick, and then study it some more.
You have some half baked ideas that come from some simple missunderstanding of how things operate. It seems like you're operating from a position that all laws that are enacted are created by some authority that is trying to screw every last human over. Well buddy some times, we little guys get tired of being screwed over, get together, and create laws that work to protect us and our work.
1)
Copyright law is to protect an individuals rights and work from other people looking to make a profit off it. They can profit off of it, only when the original creator gives his/her consent. Its designed in such a way that only you have the right to sell and distribute what you create and no one else does. You're rights are not transferred to "teh man" automatically unless you specifically enter into an agreement that he/she can control your works, or you pass your work into the public domain knowingly.
What you're purposing is that anyone anywhere should be able to take any work, claim it as their own and profit off of it, even work they have not created or purchased the rights to.
2)
Art is art. It is not a product unless you specifically create it and distribute it as product. A game is a product that contains art. You're confusing quite a few things together and I think you should take some time to straighten it all out before you go off and ramble. Take that from someone who likes to go off and ramble...
3)
Because under the law, those are the rights that are given to the creator. If you would like to rewrite those laws and obliterate those freedoms that are granted under it then be my guest, go ahead and try.
You will not be met with criticism from the top 2% that create nothing but who have acquired a big pile of rights over time. They will be on your side, they will be able to take whatever the hell they want and profit off of it without a peep from the artists themselves. If artists release it, it will be taken and profit will be made by anyone and everyone.
The unproductive 2% will love you, and probably throw you a parade and create a statue in your honor. They will have a much easier time making money off of creations they haven't created.
You will be rebuffed by the lowly artists who toil in their craft and love art. You will drive them to squirrel their work away and never show it to anyone because it will be taken and exploited while they work on more art. You won't see more open and free sharing of ideas, you'll see people horde it.
4)
If there is no way for an artist to make money off of what they sell and everyone can have at it, there is no incentive for people who like to create art, to create art for a living. It is only when people are fully protected and able to capitalize on their ideas will you see things open up. When people understand that it was the original artist.
These are YOUR rights and the laws are put in place to help you retain them. It's easy for someone to exploit your rights if you don't know what they are or how they operate. PLEASE take some time to read up and educate yourself. My fear is that we will have more artists like you that are raised with a misunderstanding of how things operate and work to destroy and dismantle all that the artists and creators that have come before us have worked hard to establish for us. Don't screw over future generations of artists with half baked ideas and talk of "revolution" just because its easier for you to tear it down and attempt to write something new, than it is to take the time to understand what was created previously.
We shouldn't tear down things we don't understand, but instead work to understand them and make them better. I see this all the time when artists are learning new software. Why doesn't XYZ work like ABC, is there a script that does ABC!? Well... if you crack open the help file and read you'll find why it doesn't operate that way and why a few million artists have agreed to arrange it in a particular way.
I'm not saying it isn't good to question things and to evaluate long held beliefs, standards and laws, but you need to fully understand them before you can begin to question or improve them. You don't come to an understanding of something by first destroying it and trying to recreate it. How many times have you seen that tried, and how many times have you seen it fail? I personally have seen it enough times to know that if you want to change something you need to first find out what makes it tick, and then study it some more.
1) No, copyright was born out of censorship back when the printing press was new. They took the power to print books away from the public and imposed strict approval systems to prevent people from printing anything that might be seditious. Stationers were given the sole power to print books under the law. If you wanted to print a book, they were the only ones permitted to do it. This monopoly on information made them very rich and when parliament saw no reason to not let it expire, the stationers convinced them that it was necessary for authors to make a living. Copyright exists based on that lie and it was intended to protect the business model of those that do not create, but merely exploit works.
2) Art is a collection of expressed ideas. It is not a product until you fix it to a physical medium like stone sculpture or paint on canvas. A game is a collection of expressed ideas. It also has no true way to manifest itself physically, so it can never truly be a product. Thus, it always was, and is, the property of everyone.
3)Yes, the law does support your perceived right to control it, but that doesn't mean that it's the right way, or the best way. They are not freedoms, they are restrictions. When copyright is applied to works, rights are taken away from the public domain for the benefit of the artist/publisher. It's a huge misconception that it's needed to give incentive to artists to create. If you're trying to sell copies of work as your source of income, you're already working from a weakened position, because it can and will be copied. It can't be enjoyed without some degree of copying. There is no law you can pass that doesn't infringe on basic human rights that will stop copying.
"If there is no way for an artist to make money off of what they sell and everyone can have at it, there is no incentive for people who like to create art, to create art for a living."
That's a misleading statement that I hear all too often. Of course, if there was no way at all to make a living from art, nobody would do it for profit. But what you're claiming applies only if you assume that the only way to make money from art is by applying copyright to it. That's pretty unimaginative for an artist. I say this over and over again, but nobody takes heed of my suggestion: Get paid for doing the work like every other industry instead of selling the results of your work. Nobody can "pirate" your time, effort, and will. If nobody is willing to pay you to do it, they certainly aren't going to pay you after you've already done it. Yeah, I know, people buy games all the time. That's true, but it probably won't last forever. As those who share get older, they will raise a new generation that sees it the same way. Eventually, everyone will see sharing as the primary way to get art. You might say I'm dreaming, but I'm just seeing the writing on the wall.
5) I understand it just fine. I've been learning the business from those that have done it the old way, questioned its validity, and found it to be extremely flawed. It's a very one-sided system. The artist creates the art. The publisher pays the artist for the creation of that art and tries to sell the copies of it knowing full well that it will only work that way if there are laws that support it and they maintain sole power of distribution. The only way they can do it is by having a monopoly on the distribution and use of the works. Well, this is actually damaging to the core principles of copyright "to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences".
The scope of copyright has been expanded so much that ideas are tied up in monopolies so long that they can never be used to benefit the progress of art because they never fall to the public domain until long after the artist is dead and therefore, long before you get a chance to adapt their works into new ones. The art is tied up in nearly perpetual monopolies that doesn't serve anyone but those that wish to profit from it. It's bad for art, it's bad for artists, and it's bad for those that appreciate art.
Johny: How old are you? I'm sorry, that's none of my business nor is my age any of yours. Let's just say I'm a legal adult and I have a college education. I'm sure that's what you were really trying to get at with that question, "Do I even have any right of experience to speak on this?"
eld:
Yes it's stronger than ever despite copyright because of the wonderful open nature of the internet.
Instantaneous and automatic copyrights were a terrible idea that should never have been. It has guaranteed that nothing will enter the public domain until many, many decades after it's created.
Yes, they do get defensive about it for reasons I spoke on earlier about cognitive dissonance and irrational behavior. I may have forgotten about that when I spouted off on my rant.
I can't copy a chair though can I? I can get the technical spec on the construction of that chair and make my own with my own time and resources, but I can't replicate it ad infinitum without additional resources.
The terms, "stealing", "intellectual property", and "piracy" are semantic tools leveraged by those that want to maintain their monopolies on art because they're too scared or short-sighted to think of a way to make a living without copyright. Those terms are intended to confuse and misrepresent the truth. I'm just trying to expose their deceptive practices.
Actually, I've intentionally avoided focusing on those concepts and arguments. Given the nature of the video that prompted this thread, I've attempted to focus on this issue from a practical standpoint, not from a legal, ethical, or moral standpoint. The thrust of my argument is that large-scale file sharing is damaging to the game development industry as it currently stands. And yes, I do think it is dangerous to abolish copyright laws outright. That's anarchy you're talking about there.
I'll be frank, I think copyright is the worst thing to happen to art in all of written history. It gets in the way of the creative freedom and encourages miserly attitudes towards sharing ideas.
Pump the breaks there, son. Copyright law defends the rights of creative individuals. (as well as corporations) Thanks to copyright law I can show off my work anywhere I please, without having to worry about it being misappropriated, abused, or sold by anyone else. It's also important to point out that this does not limit the sharing of ideas in any way. Ideas can't be copyrighted. This is why you see so much blatant cloning in the games industry. You can copyright the art, and even the code used in producing a game. But you can't copyright the general structure of the game. Anyone can make their own version of your ideas, as long as their work is original.
We're artists, we're supposed to question the norm. All I hear is that I'm wrong, you're right, and then you stick your fingers in your ears.
What!? When did this happen? The last time I checked, being an "artist" was not synonymous with being rebellious. I've always thought of it as being someone who exercises their creativity. It is the act of creation through imagination that defines an artist. This has nothing to do with political ideology or conformity. Sounds like you've been buying a little too much into whatever "artistic" culture you've found yourself involved in.
I see more and more as I read what people say about illegal file-sharing (a.k.a "piracy") and can't help but get the feeling that you just want to have 100% control and power to dictate to people how, where and when they can use the works you create. It's not your property.
Why isn't it my property? If I created it, shouldn't I have some rights to it? After all, it wouldn't have existed if not for my efforts. If I destroy it rather than share it, I could easily deny everyone access to it. 100% control is impossible from the get-go, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have some control.
No matter how many times you say "intellectual property" it doesn't make it true. All works are the property of the public domain and that copyright law that was shoved down our throats was put there to give those with the power of distribution the ability to milk the creative talents out there for every bit they're worth and beat down anyone that wants to compete.
As I already pointed out, the law defends the small individuals as much as it does the large corporations. And it also gives the individuals something that they can use against the large corporations. If you take all that away, you take it away for both sides. And the large corporations have more and better lawyers. You think large corporations won't abuse the free-rights utopia you are espousing? Think about the consequences.
Art is a service, not a product. Treat it as such and you'll have a much easier time.
Wow, you're naive! If you spend a few years as a contract artist, you'd understand how silly this statement is. Artists charge for their work as if it is a service, (if they're smart) but the client is only ever interested in the finished product. But what you're railing against isn't art, its marketing. Intellectual properties are a function of branding, not craftsmanship. And branding can be treated as a product, not a service.
I've paid attention to history and I know what's going to happen to the business as you know it. Just like the cotton gin made slavery in the south obsolete and the automobile made the horse and buggy obsolete, so will the internet make artificial monopolies on the creation and distribution of ideas obsolete.
You're not a very good student of history. The invention of the cotton gin made slavery in the southern states viable, not obsolete. That invention is often credited as the cause for the slave culture established in the south, and indirectly leading to the United States Civil War. The cotton gin made it possible to separate the cotton from its seeds much faster, which made it possible to grow and harvest much more cotton at one time. This led to a strong demand for cheap labor, which led to wealthy southerners purchasing large plantations and staffing them with a large number of slaves. If the cotton gin hadn't been invented, slavery in the south would have probably died out naturally much sooner and with little to no bloodshed. Not a very good example.
Wow, greever, you're really going off the deep end now, I mean at this point your ramblings are not only factually incorrect, but extremely naive and would be very harmful to the art community as a whole if the law existed as you'd like it to.
Yes it's stronger than ever despite copyright because of the wonderful open nature of the internet.
I didn't even take piracy or copyright infringement into account, and I wouldn't even consider those taking any credit for creativity or advancements in entertainment such as games or music.
Opensource projects, collaborations, indie games, stories, mods, they're all working inside the "limitations" of copyright and IP laws, heck, they're even protected by IP laws and the likes.
Instantaneous and automatic copyrights were a terrible idea that should never have been. It has guaranteed that nothing will enter the public domain until many, many decades after it's created.
No, they're instantaneous for the very fact that the small guy could not ever be able to protect his work in any other way, lack automatic copyrights would not affect big corporations in the same way.
Yes, they do get defensive about it for reasons I spoke on earlier about cognitive dissonance and irrational behavior. I may have forgotten about that when I spouted off on my rant.
For the very fact that you want to share all these creative works that would not have existed if it weren't for IP laws and its protection, you're so willing to share all this work but you fail to see that there wouldn't be anything to share.
What would even be the incentive to develop new hardware if it wasn't for the ever growing games market.
I can't copy a chair though can I? I can get the technical spec on the construction of that chair and make my own with my own time and resources, but I can't replicate it ad infinitum without additional resources.
If you had a factory you could copy, oh wait, I forgot that this is being done already.
You're not a very good student of history. The invention of the cotton gin made slavery in the southern states viable, not obsolete. That invention is often credited as the cause for the slave culture established in the south, and indirectly leading to the United States Civil War. The cotton gin made it possible to separate the cotton from its seeds much faster, which made it possible to grow and harvest much more cotton at one time. This lead to a strong demand for cheap labor, which led to wealthy southerners purchasing large plantations and staffing them with a large number of slaves. If the cotton gin hadn't have been invented, slavery in the south would have probably died out naturally much sooner and with little to no bloodshed. Not a very good example.
Actually, the a large part of the idea behind using slave labor in the south was for the purpose of keeping out smaller competitors that couldn't afford slaves. The cotton gin gave them the ability to do more work with a smaller labor force. The civil war broke out because people were arguing the validity of slaves being property and the plantation owners didn't want to give up their monopoly on cotton.
"In the pre-bellum North, mechanical industrialization, especially of agriculture, reduced the economic incentive for slaveholding. Immigrant labor also changed the Northern economy, making slave systems less profitable. Northerners didn't abandon slavery because they were morally superior to Southerners, but because of economic and technological changes.
Just as farm machinery lowered costs and increased efficiency in agriculture, digital devices have lowered costs and increased efficiency in production and distribution of cultural works. Musicians, artists and authors are beginning to discover their works are more profitable shared through the internet, than distributed centrally. A few economists are pointing out that free sharing of cultural works increases profitability for artists and overall wealth. They avoid moral arguments, focusing on rational market incentives."
Less talky, more worky. That's why people don't respect you.
I was thinking the same thing, except I couldn't find any work. I was looking for a portfolio link or something so I'd know who I didn't want to work with
So, perhaps my specific point on the cotton gin may have been a poor choice, the fact remains that technology made slavery economically inferior.
You just proved that your statement is false. Innovations in technology made slavery advantageous to southern landholders. It made slaves inferior in terms of separating cotton, but it economically justified their widespread use in picking cotton. (the cotton gin didn't pick cotton, it just separated cotton much more efficiently) The agricultural nature of the southern states was what originally promoted the use of slaves. But it wasn't until the cotton gin that they started being purchased and used en masse.
It irks me that you are arguing so poorly. Take some pride in your efforts.
If you really wanted to use this example, you could have said that copyright law is like the cotton gin. You could point out that it fostered the kind of environment that led to the current big-publisher system. That would have been much more effective, and would have drawn a subtle comparison between major game publishers and slave owners.
Of course, then I could have turned right around and pointed out that software piracy and widespread file sharing are actually a much closer comparison to the cotton gin. After all, its software piracy and lack of security that led to the modern economic predominance of fixed hardware platforms like home consoles. PCs are much friendlier platforms for developers since they are all open. (and don't require licences) But widespread piracy and lack of security drove the rise of home consoles thanks to overwhelming developer support. This in turn made GameStop's business model viable. And this lead to an over-reliance on big-budget, heavily marketed titles and the dominance of the mega-publisher business model.
Less talky, more worky. That's why people don't respect you.
WTH? People don't respect me because I don't share their opinions. Nevertheless, this is going nowhere and I'm sick of being told off by people that just assume they are right. So yeah, I'll just get back to my art where I can make some headway.
Off topic: What's wrong with it? I think it's a pretty decent start. I didn't say it was done.
You just proved that your statement is false. Innovations in technology made slavery advantageous to southern landholders. It made slaves inferior in terms of separating cotton, but it economically justified their widespread use in picking cotton. (the cotton gin didn't pick cotton, it just separated cotton much more efficiently) The agricultural nature of the southern states was what originally promoted the use of slaves. But it wasn't until the cotton gin that they started being purchased and used en masse.
It irks me that you are arguing so poorly. Take some pride in your efforts.
If you really wanted to use this example, you could have said that copyright law is like the cotton gin. You could point out that it fostered the kind of environment that led to the current big-publisher system. That would have been much more effective, and would have drawn a subtle comparison between major game publishers and slave owners.
Of course, then I could have turned right around and pointed out that software piracy and widespread file sharing are actually a much closer comparison to the cotton gin. After all, its software piracy and lack of security that lead to the modern economic predominance of fixed hardware platforms like home consoles. PCs are much friendlier platforms for developers since they are all open. (and don't require licences) But widespread piracy and lack of security drove the rise of home consoles thanks to overwhelming developer support. This in turn made GameStop's business model viable. And this lead to an over-reliance on big-budget, heavily marketed titles and the dominance of the mega-publisher business model.
Yes, I was wrong on the specific example. I admit it. Did you think I was incapable of that? I have to plead mental impairment for the moment. I'm not feeling well and it's probably impeding coherent thought.
WTH? People don't respect me because I don't share their opinions. Nevertheless, this is going nowhere and I'm sick of being told off by people that just assume they are right. So yeah, I'll just get back to my art where I can make some headway.
Off topic: What's wrong with it? I think it's a pretty decent start. I didn't say it was done.
Well it's digital, you should think of switching careers, not much future in this one.
Well it's digital, you should think of switching careers, not much future in this one.
That's not true and I was never trying to say that. I still have confidence that the industry can survive without the conventional methods. They're just afraid that if they abandon what they have, that they can never go back. Nothing ventured, nothing gained I guess.
You are in an art community, not a political discussion board. How good you are at art strongly effects what people think of you here.
Here is the reality: my company helped in the release of a bunch of open source games, helped bring a new funding model to games, raises money for the EFF, and practices what it preaches with innovative initiatives like not using DRM and offering full refunds for people who buy our game. In addition to being part of all of that, I still had enough time to make a bunch of art last week and post up a video of it. People seemed to think the art was pretty good (although nowhere near the best people here on PC).
I don't even get that much respect here. I think you need to try harder, and that doesn't mean arguing more on the internet.
You are in an art community, not a political discussion board. How good you are at art strongly effects what people think of you here.
Here is the reality: my company helped in the release of a bunch of open source games, helped bring a new funding model to games, gives money to the EFF, and practices what it preaches with innovative initiatives like not using DRM and offering full refunds for people who buy our game. In addition to being part of all of that, I still had enough time to make a bunch of art last week and post up a video of it. People seemed to think the art was pretty good (although nowhere near the best people here on PC).
I don't even get that much respect here. I think you need to try harder, and that doesn't mean arguing more on the internet.
Ok, fair enough. I'm not unreasonable. I'm impressed with your efforts into trying new things. I applaud you.
After all, its software piracy and lack of security that led to the modern economic predominance of fixed hardware platforms like home consoles. PCs are much friendlier platforms for developers since they are all open. (and don't require licences) But widespread piracy and lack of security drove the rise of home consoles thanks to overwhelming developer support. This in turn made GameStop's business model viable. And this lead to an over-reliance on big-budget, heavily marketed titles and the dominance of the mega-publisher business model.
I'm not sure where the logic is there. On the one hand, you're saying that PCs are infested with piracy so much so that it drove developers into consoles. Which for the sake of argument I'll agree with, but I'm not sure I'm sold on the validity of that claim. But anyway, on the other hand you're also claiming that consoles thereby provide that security.
But what seems weird is that you're using this as an argument in defense of IP/Copyright laws? Which is why you mentioned piracy on the PC.
And yet, if all those laws were abolished tomorrow (for the sake of argument, not saying we'd want that), then wouldn't the opposite happen? What would stop someone from opening a shop with pirated 360 games? I think that would actually demolish the status-quo in consoles. Which would then in turn make the PC the logical system for developers, which brings me to my point here:
That the giants of our industry are actually on the PC. Blizzard for instance, the goliath of our industry, relies almost exclusively on PC gaming. And yet they don't seem to be affected by piracy (as much). The explanation given to this phenomena is usually that the nature of their games, being online multiplayer types, is what enables that. Which is precisely the point, one could argue that companies like Blizzard and CCP are actually ahead of the times, and ahead of piracy, which is why they're successful. Companies that rely on the protection the consoles provide, not so much so.
Which is when people bring up EA and the likes, with the myriad of sports clones. Which is exactly who legalized-piracy would hurt the most, "the man" if you will.
Again, not disagreeing with you that piracy is bad. But this just seems like backwards logic.
Greevar, you've flown off the deep end in your wild re-imagining of society, not just copyright law. I'm not sure why I'm even wasting my lunch to respond...
For those looking for the abridged version of this wall of text, see the orange bits.
1) No, copyright was born out of censorship back when the printing press was new.
I probably should of drawn a distinction between laws enacted in modern times by democratic governments that are run by the people instead of monarchies and dictatorships of the pre-industrial age. The laws you're quoting as oppressive censorship are not the laws that are in play today. They're not even a rough framework. I think you need to follow the rabbit trail a little farther than the 17th century...
2) Art is a collection of expressed ideas. It is not a product until you fix it to a physical medium like stone sculpture or paint on canvas. A game is a collection of expressed ideas. It also has no true way to manifest itself physically, so it can never truly be a product. Thus, it always was, and is, the property of everyone.
Art is more than ideas, it has physical form as does a computer and the information contained within it. Just because you can strip away some of the tangibility of art by digitizing it doesn't mean you can strip away its protection.
It might be very hard for you to hold in your hand or even see its bits and pieces with a microscope but it has a very real physical presence in the world. To interact with a game you must have physical hardware, it doesn't exist in an ethereal form that is intangible and therefore unregulated. The fact that you can copy and pass its around more easily then ever before means that it is needs to be protected more than ever rather than more freely and illegally shared.
3)When copyright is applied to works, rights are taken away from the public domain for the benefit of the artist/publisher. It's a huge misconception that it's needed to give incentive to artists to create.
Why and how do you justify giving rights and ownership to people who did NOT create it? How does anyone have the right to anything that is created before the person who created it? It is COMPLETELY backwards to think that the group will somehow pull together and out of charity or compassion create an environment for the creator to live where they don't need to be compensated or protected.
Creations should be passed into the public domain at the creators consent.
It's not the public's place to grant the rights of ownership to creators as it sees fit. That sets up a system where by artists are abused and denied ownership because some bureaucrat sees it unfit to grant an ownership license.
Given the logic you present, my key should fit in any locked door and the contents behind it should belong to whoever has the strength to take it from my hands. Under those circumstances art is something that isn't shared but something that is hidden from the public, If the public doesn't know about it, I can control it. someone might grow jealous and try to take it from me, so why should I share it. I should dig a moat around my home and start boiling oil in preparation for the coming hordes.
what you're claiming applies only if you assume that the only way to make money from art is by applying copyright to it. That's pretty unimaginative for an artist.
Why should an artist be distracted with having to come up with crazy and inventive ways to sell their art? Why distract from making art at all? Now you'll need masters in horse trading and doctorate in psychology just to trick people into giving a creator money for food? You'll easily end up in the same predicament that other "idea guys" are in.
Scientists spend more time writing up business proposals and securing grants and funding then they do working on scientific endeavors. Why force that on artists also? Why should we replace a system that allows artists to focus on art with a system that strips their rights away and gives their work to the public for free?
The person who pays for art wants finished art, why don't we create a system that allows people to create art and be compensated for it by selling it as product? Oh wait that's what we have now. Why do the rights of ownership first pass to the public then back to the artist after the public is finished with it?
I say this over and over again, but nobody takes heed of my suggestion: Get paid for doing the work like every other industry instead of selling the results of your work. Nobody can "pirate" your time, effort, and will.
I don't walk into a car dealership and commission a car to be made for the public to use. Why pay for time, effort and will, when the final product is free and public to use?
Likewise no one will pay an artist to create work that will belong to the public. You could wait until the artist creates it and take it for free since it becomes the property of the public. IF the car belongs to the public and not the person who paid for it, everyone has every right to take and use it however they want, even if that is counter to the interests of the person who originally commissioned it. If they aren't going to make it until I pay for it then its the same as paying for the final product after its created.
People will not put food on the creators table unless they withhold the creation in exchange for payment. As piracy has shown, people will take what they can get for free and not compensate the creator even in the slightest. Case in point, Ironlore. fantastic game, pirated to hell and back and the result was a studio that didn't survive. But wait, shouldn't the pirates provide Ironlore a way to keep moving forward? Perhaps send then cookies and chickens that they can cook over an open fire instead of money.
If people can get something for free, they'll take it.
You might believe that these people will magically open their hearts and wallets if you can only erase the laws that force them to compensate people for their work but it's never going to happen, ever. The only recourse any creator has is to withhold the final piece, until payment is rendered. If that is not tightly controlled any people copy and give it away, no one goes to the creator, no one sends the creator a check, or a chicken, or even a box of cookies.
The scope of copyright has been expanded so much that ideas are tied up in monopolies so long that they can never be used to benefit the progress of art because they never fall to the public domain until long after the artist is dead and therefore, long before you get a chance to adapt their works into new ones. The art is tied up in nearly perpetual monopolies that doesn't serve anyone but those that wish to profit from it. It's bad for art, it's bad for artists, and it's bad for those that appreciate art.
Protecting art for the lifetime of the artist is not an abuse and it's not stopping you from creating new art. It's stopping you from profiting off of another persons hard work. You want to make new art, fine, go make it. You want to profit off the work of another person, you'll need to wait a really long time until long after they're gone. Such is the price of being a non-creator and the incentive to create new things rather than simply profiteer off the work of others.
Why sell the finished product when you can sell the time and labor? I think there is a key different that needs to be made, when I hire a electrician to wire my house, they bill me by the hour and charge me for parts, but I'm paying for the final product a house that has electricity. They don't rip it all out pile it up in the middle of the street and let the public have at it.
There is a finite amount of time an artist can create art and bill for services, the rest of the time if they're lucky the price for their art will increase over time as their reputation grows. They may of sold some early paintings for a fraction of what they might go for later on. The price of their art should be allowed to appreciate to whatever people are willing to pay rather than locked at the price of time and materials.
The second you get the world to sign onto your radical ideas, I'm heading to the louvre with a handful of coins. I'll have them arrange them in a candy crane machine so I can get a little sport out of it. The creation belongs to the creator.
It is up to them to do with it as they please. NOTHING is stopping artists from creating art and passing it into the public domain the second they finish it. The system you suggest as an alternative can fully function within the current framework of the law without the need to abolish it. However if creators want to protect their work, they can.
I strongly encourage you to take your suggestions and experiment with them. Get yourself a cup, a street corner, and sign that says will create art for chicken soup and see how it goes.
And yet, if all those laws were abolished tomorrow (for the sake of argument, not saying we'd want that), then wouldn't the opposite happen? What would stop someone from opening a shop with pirated 360 games? I think that would actually demolish the status-quo in consoles. Which would then in turn make the PC the logical system for developers, which brings me to my point here:
That the giants of our industry are actually on the PC. Blizzard for instance, the goliath of our industry, relies almost exclusively on PC gaming. And yet they don't seem to be affected by piracy (as much). The explanation given to this phenomena is usually that the nature of their games, being online multiplayer types, is what enables that. Which is precisely the point, one could argue that companies like Blizzard and CCP are actually ahead of the times, and ahead of piracy, which is why they're successful. Companies that rely on the protection the consoles provide, not so much so.
I'd pop up homebrew wow and eve servers and openly advertise them, it's not like they own the IP anymore, they have no right to shut me down!
Greevar, you've flown off the deep end in your wild re-imagining of society, not just copyright law. I'm not sure why I'm even wasting my lunch to respond...
For those looking for the abridged version of this wall of text, see the orange bits.
I probably should of drawn a distinction between laws enacted in modern times by democratic governments that are run by the people instead of monarchies and dictatorships of the pre-industrial age. The laws you're quoting as oppressive censorship are not the laws that are in play today. They're not even a rough framework. I think you need to follow the rabbit trail a little farther than the 17th century...
Art is more than ideas, it has physical form as does a computer and the information contained within it. Just because you can strip away some of the tangibility of art by digitizing it doesn't mean you can strip away its protection.
It might be very hard for you to hold in your hand or even see its bits and pieces with a microscope but it has a very real physical presence in the world. To interact with a game you must have physical hardware, it doesn't exist in an ethereal form that is intangible and therefore unregulated. The fact that you can copy and pass its around more easily then ever before means that it is needs to be protected more than ever rather than more freely and illegally shared.
Why and how do you justify giving rights and ownership to people who did NOT create it? How does anyone have the right to anything that is created before the person who created it? It is COMPLETELY backwards to think that the group will somehow pull together and out of charity or compassion create an environment for the creator to live where they don't need to be compensated or protected.
Creations should be passed into the public domain at the creators consent.
It's not the public's place to grant the rights of ownership to creators as it sees fit. That sets up a system where by artists are abused and denied ownership because some bureaucrat sees it unfit to grant an ownership license.
Given the logic you present, my key should fit in any locked door and the contents behind it should belong to whoever has the strength to take it from my hands. Under those circumstances art is something that isn't shared but something that is hidden from the public, If the public doesn't know about it, I can control it. someone might grow jealous and try to take it from me, so why should I share it. I should dig a moat around my home and start boiling oil in preparation for the coming hordes.
Why should an artist be distracted with having to come up with crazy and inventive ways to sell their art? Why distract from making art at all? Now you'll need masters in horse trading and doctorate in psychology just to trick people into giving a creator money for food? You'll easily end up in the same predicament that other "idea guys" are in.
Scientists spend more time writing up business proposals and securing grants and funding then they do working on scientific endeavors. Why force that on artists also? Why should we replace a system that allows artists to focus on art with a system that strips their rights away and gives their work to the public for free?
The person who pays for art wants finished art, why don't we create a system that allows people to create art and be compensated for it by selling it as product? Oh wait that's what we have now. Why do the rights of ownership first pass to the public then back to the artist after the public is finished with it?
I don't walk into a car dealership and commission a car to be made for the public to use. Why pay for time, effort and will, when the final product is free and public to use?
Likewise no one will pay an artist to create work that will belong to the public. You could wait until the artist creates it and take it for free since it becomes the property of the public. IF the car belongs to the public and not the person who paid for it, everyone has every right to take and use it however they want, even if that is counter to the interests of the person who originally commissioned it. If they aren't going to make it until I pay for it then its the same as paying for the final product after its created.
People will not put food on the creators table unless they withhold the creation in exchange for payment. As piracy has shown, people will take what they can get for free and not compensate the creator even in the slightest. Case in point, Ironlore. fantastic game, pirated to hell and back and the result was a studio that didn't survive. But wait, shouldn't the pirates provide Ironlore a way to keep moving forward? Perhaps send then cookies and chickens that they can cook over an open fire instead of money.
If people can get something for free, they'll take it.
You might believe that these people will magically open their hearts and wallets if you can only erase the laws that force them to compensate people for their work but it's never going to happen, ever. The only recourse any creator has is to withhold the final piece, until payment is rendered. If that is not tightly controlled any people copy and give it away, no one goes to the creator, no one sends the creator a check, or a chicken, or even a box of cookies.
Protecting art for the lifetime of the artist is not an abuse and it's not stopping you from creating new art. It's stopping you from profiting off of another persons hard work. You want to make new art, fine, go make it. You want to profit off the work of another person, you'll need to wait a really long time until long after they're gone. Such is the price of being a non-creator and the incentive to create new things rather than simply profiteer off the work of others.
Why sell the finished product when you can sell the time and labor? I think there is a key different that needs to be made, when I hire a electrician to wire my house, they bill me by the hour and charge me for parts, but I'm paying for the final product a house that has electricity. They don't rip it all out pile it up in the middle of the street and let the public have at it.
There is a finite amount of time an artist can create art and bill for services, the rest of the time if they're lucky the price for their art will increase over time as their reputation grows. They may of sold some early paintings for a fraction of what they might go for later on. The price of their art should be allowed to appreciate to whatever people are willing to pay rather than locked at the price of time and materials.
The second you get the world to sign onto your radical ideas, I'm heading to the louvre with a handful of coins. I'll have them arrange them in a candy crane machine so I can get a little sport out of it. The creation belongs to the creator.
It is up to them to do with it as they please. NOTHING is stopping artists from creating art and passing it into the public domain the second they finish it. The system you suggest as an alternative can fully function within the current framework of the law without the need to abolish it. However if creators want to protect their work, they can.
I strongly encourage you to take your suggestions and experiment with them. Get yourself a cup, a street corner, and sign that says will create art for chicken soup and see how it goes.
I'm not going to argue it anymore. You think you're right and I think I'm right too. Let's just leave it at that. I'm going to go back to being sick now.
Trade body estimates impact of reported 4:1 ration of illegal games sales...
....The trade body has reported that several publishers have claimed illegally downloaded games could outnumber those sold legitimately by as much as 4:1 and UKIE director general Michael Rawlinson claims that even a 1:1 ratio would be severe.
And yet, if all those laws were abolished tomorrow (for the sake of argument, not saying we'd want that), then wouldn't the opposite happen? What would stop someone from opening a shop with pirated 360 games? I think that would actually demolish the status-quo in consoles. Which would then in turn make the PC the logical system for developers, which brings me to my point here:
Well, yes and no. In terms of practical considerations, no one in their right mind would open up a shop to sell or even freely distribute pirated 360 games.
1. If they tried to sell them, their customers would quickly realize that they could copy these games themselves and distribute them to their friends for free. (thereby destroying the potential profits of the pirated game sales) Even if they were drastically undercutting the price of original retail copies, the system just wouldn't last.
2. If they attempted to distribute these pirated copies for free, they would be constantly losing money due to the rent they would have to pay for the building, and on the physical media they would need to acquire to continue reproducing copies of the games. Then there's employee overhead, cleaning, storage, etc... No one is going to saddle themselves with the cost of opening a store without some promise of a return on investment.
At the same time, your claim of "demolishing" the status quo is in fact correct. It would just happen on-line rather than in the physical space. However, I still question whether or not this is best for the industry. It's a little scary to think that the abolishment of modern copyright laws could collapse an entire industry. Hundreds of thousands of game developers out of work, practically overnight. The markets that currently foster smaller indie development would be immediately flooded, and the glut of new content would probably cause those systems to be drastically de-valued. (preventing small-time developers from making a living wage) Nintendo and Sony would probably be able to survive thanks to their markets in Japan and Europe, but the 360 would go under immediately and Microsoft would be forced to shutter its entire games division.
It would be an even worse industry collapse than what happened in 1982. And given the nature of copyright law, it would drastically effect the entire media industry, not just video games.
That the giants of our industry are actually on the PC. Blizzard for instance, the goliath of our industry, relies almost exclusively on PC gaming. And yet they don't seem to be affected by piracy (as much). The explanation given to this phenomena is usually that the nature of their games, being online multiplayer types, is what enables that. Which is precisely the point, one could argue that companies like Blizzard and CCP are actually ahead of the times, and ahead of piracy, which is why they're successful. Companies that rely on the protection the consoles provide, not so much so.
There are numerous genres of games that don't conform or benefit from on-line or multiplayer integration. What about handheld games, where you can never have a guarantee of on-line connection? What about story-based adventure games? What about linear single-player experiences? Are we expected to throw out all of that in order to obtain security?
The route that Blizzard has taken works for them, and the kinds of games they produce. But it wouldn't work for everyone. I would argue that Valve has found a more workable solution through Steam. But even that doesn't represent a truly open platform. At the moment, most developers have to sacrifice either security or independence in order to develop for the PC.
The sad fact is that file sharing is making the scenario I've described far more likely. The backwards and broken console/retail system is the only thing keeping us from teetering into that abyss. Canny developers like Blizzard and Valve would likely survive such a collapse, thanks to the systems they had the foresight to develop. Everyone else would begin flocking to those secure systems, and new systems like OnLive.
The day when purely digital content could be "owned" by the consumer is over. Piracy and file sharing are the cause. Given the nature of the medium, this result was inevitable. Now everyone is just trying to figure out how to deal with the change occurring.
Yeah, most of what you said makes perfect sense. I don't think we disagree on much. Still a couple of points though where I don't quite follow your logic, so I'm asking here not for argument's sake, but for curiosity's sake:
However, I still question whether or not this is best for the industry. It's a little scary to think that the abolishment of modern copyright laws could collapse an entire industry.
Scary, yeah, but so is every major change. I'm not sure why you're looking at it as a collapse, where it could be seen as a renaissance. Do you believe that such a collapse will be followed by nothing? Cause to me it sounds more like a restructuring.
The sad fact is that file sharing is making the scenario I've described far more likely. The backwards and broken console/retail system is the only thing keeping us from teetering into that abyss. Canny developers like Blizzard and Valve would likely survive such a collapse, thanks to the systems they had the foresight to develop. Everyone else would begin flocking to those secure systems, and new systems like OnLive.
Doesn't that contradict itself? If devs like Blizzard and Valve are canny, shouldn't we aspire to move in that direction? Why should we rely on, as you put it, backwards and broken console/retail system instead of moving forward with the times?
It strikes me that the whole anti-piracy thing is really just serving to hold us back in the long run. You said it yourself, we're relying on a backwards system.
I mean, right now with the amount of protection provided to the industry, there's a very significant sum on money flowing from the population into the development of games. So we know for a fact that the money is there, and people are willing to spend it in that way. I don't see that ever changing. The only thing I imagine changing is the specifics of what they'll be spending it on. Maybe the reason we're struggling is because people just don't want to spend their money on the stuff you described? Maybe they want more and more stuff like what Blizz/Valve/CCP and the likes provide? Is it not possible that we're making products that the public thinks are good enough to play, but not good enough to pay for? Which would then explain the entire phenomena of piracy.
Yeah, most of what you said makes perfect sense. I don't think we disagree on much. Still a couple of points though where I don't quite follow your logic, so I'm asking here not for argument's sake, but for curiosity's sake:
Scary, yeah, but so is every major change. I'm not sure why you're looking at it as a collapse, where it could be seen as a renaissance. Do you believe that such a collapse will be followed by nothing? Cause to me it sounds more like a restructuring.
Doesn't that contradict itself? If devs like Blizzard and Valve are canny, shouldn't we aspire to move in that direction? Why should we rely on, as you put it, backwards and broken console/retail system instead of moving forward with the times?
It strikes me that the whole anti-piracy thing is really just serving to hold us back in the long run. You said it yourself, we're relying on a backwards system.
I mean, right now with the amount of protection provided to the industry, there's a very significant sum on money flowing from the population into the development of games. So we know for a fact that the money is there, and people are willing to spend it in that way. I don't see that ever changing. The only thing I imagine changing is the specifics of what they'll be spending it on. Maybe the reason we're struggling is because people just don't want to spend their money on the stuff you described? Maybe they want more and more stuff like what Blizz/Valve/CCP and the likes provide? Is it not possible that we're making products that the public thinks are good enough to play, but not good enough to pay for? Which would then explain the entire phenomena of piracy.
I do like what Valve/Steam has been doing lately. Their store is an excellent step forward. It covers the issues of backups. You buy the game and it's yours forever, you can download it as many times as you want, and you don't have to have those stupid boxes filling up your home. I can also install my games on any machine I can log into my Steam account with. I also get all of my custom settings saved to their server which makes multiple system installs easier. They price things very competitively where possible. I've bought a few games I normally would not have bought just because it was only $8. They don't need DRM just because their service is, in many ways, better than file-sharing.
I think they could easily migrate from a retail system, like they have now, to an entirely services-based system that doesn't sell games so much as conveniences you can't get easily elsewhere. If I do buy a game, I tend to do so through Steam. I wish they would do the same for console games.
Replies
How can you say that with any certainty? What evidence is there that says without a reasonable doubt that high quality games wouldn't exist without big budgets? I've seen games by both ends of the spectrum that are AAA quality and there is also a glut of big budget games that just stink like last year's gym socks. I truly think it's the people and ideas behind a game that makes it great, not it's budget. Transformers was a massively high-budget movie and both of them are generally considered to be absolute tripe.
High budgets do not equate to high quality nor is a prerequisite. They just have better marketing teams.
Ya know you could apply this to most of your posts Greevar. Most of which display an amount of naivety and idealism about the "way things work" or should work. Get some experience, get some perspective.
It's true! All games regardless of budget have the same amount of game devs. AAA games just have bigger marketing teams.
Correlation does not equal causation. To say that big budget games are of higher quality because they have a big budgets is no more valid than saying that violent games make children violent. That's why I doubt eld's assertion. It's far more logical that the big budget teams that produce great games are capable of doing so because they were able to acquire top notch developers for their team. Money is like any other tool, it's not the quality or quantity of it. It's the skill of the people who use it. You could argue that big budgets draw in more talented developers, but that's just one motivation that brings people to a project. There are equally talented people working in the lower budget studios. That doesn't mean that their game will be inferior compared to EA or Activision's minions.
aesir:
I didn't say that. You're taking my words and putting unintended meaning to it. Of course bigger budgets allow for more people to work on a project, but does that correlate to higher quality either? It can, to a degree, improve quality, but not if you have a team of mediocre devs. More hands mostly makes the grunt work go faster. And marketing does make a big difference on the retail success of a game. There are steaming piles of crap that sell well because they got enough rubes to see the ads.
Not that I'm disagreeing with what you said, cause I think you're right.
But that's not exactly what that cartoon was trying to say. Even within the realm of that cartoon, the guy would have to do some actual work to get the bird's song into a format where people can experience it widely. He'd have to learn to play an instrument, get the budget to record himself, etc etc. The bird itself was more to symbolize the inspiration artists get from nature.
The point they were trying to make was, that once all of that is said and done, for how long does the first person own that idea exclusively? Further, it was making the point that the only way to keep things the way they are, is by putting people in prison.
Basically, it always starts out as an artist doing something. But then it quickly turns into the suits that are "above" the artist trying to squeeze out cash for as long as possible, even if it means putting people in prison. Like in music for instance, the artists make the songs, they get paid, etc. But even decades later, the record companies will sue people for playing that song without a license. It's not even the artists anymore. It's some faceless person in a suit that's trying to maintain a profit for his master.
Right. What I'm saying is you are draw alot of conclusions based apon this same kind of logic. Especially when giving examples to support your arguments. The industry is not perfect, many issues related to piracy or publishing are complex issues that have pros and cons attached to them. So hey..lets learn and grow. Not start a revolution and take shots into the dark.
You can still create awesome stuff on a small budget and a tiny team, its just that you can't create all types of awesome. Otherwise everyone would work that way, why hire 200+ people to create a MMO if you can do the same thing with 3 people and a iphone app budget...
Please tell me where I ever said that high quality games required high budgets.
And why did you use morrowind as something to prove your point when it just disproved it.
It doesn't. It requires talented people, but those often don't work for free, even the filmmakers knows this.
ignore list
add
You're still just trying to attribute everything to "the man", even when we have indie studios without publishers out there.
But it doesn't apply in that case.
It's not the indie studios/labels that are suing people, trying to put people behind bars. Apples and oranges man.
That cartoon was a critique of the way "the man", as you put it, does business. About how they pay some money to some artists, the artists make the product, and the high-aboves cash in on it for ages.
Indie labels/studios/productions aren't part of that criticism.
It's not like these big labels win any money from suing people, they're just doing it as a scare tactic, since it's pretty fruitless to try to go after the small people.
Fear of consequence is the only thing stopping most casual piracy between this reality and one where piracy would be legalized.
your moms pretty cheap, and she suuuure is talented bro!
i kid, i kid...
sir you juts blew my mind !
I think some of you out there just want things to go back to the way it was and anyone that gives an opinion that doesn't support that is stupid, wrong, or doesn't know what they are talking about. You can't debate with me on any points of real merit, so you instead you try to trivialize my argument by accusing me of playing the semantics game or not knowing what I talk about because I don't work in the industry. Well let me tell you, the semantics game was started a long time before I entered the debate and I don't have to work in the barn to smell the bullshit. The terms, "stealing", "intellectual property", and "piracy" are semantic tools leveraged by those that want to maintain their monopolies on art because they're too scared or short-sighted to think of a way to make a living without copyright. Those terms are intended to confuse and misrepresent the truth. I'm just trying to expose their deceptive practices.
I'll be frank, I think copyright is the worst thing to happen to art in all of written history. It gets in the way of the creative freedom and encourages miserly attitudes towards sharing ideas. Honestly, I think copyright infringement is great. I hope it tears down the art business as we know it because it's terrible and needs to be restructured. For a bunch of creative people you sure do have a hard time imagining doing things differently or trying new ideas. Then somebody comes along and offers a differing opinion and you just dump on him. I'm trying to contribute to the discussion by getting people to question the norm. We're artists, we're supposed to question the norm. All I hear is that I'm wrong, you're right, and then you stick your fingers in your ears.
I see more and more as I read what people say about illegal file-sharing (a.k.a "piracy") and can't help but get the feeling that you just want to have 100% control and power to dictate to people how, where and when they can use the works you create. It's not your property. No matter how many times you say "intellectual property" it doesn't make it true. All works are the property of the public domain and that copyright law that was shoved down our throats was put there to give those with the power of distribution the ability to milk the creative talents out there for every bit they're worth and beat down anyone that wants to compete. Every business out there fights hard to create monopolies despite the fact that US law explicitly forbids it, because monopolies are immensely destructive.
When it comes to intangible art, you can get paid for making it, but you can forget about getting paid for what you've created. I say this over and over again, but nobody listens. Every other occupation sells their time and effort. Carpenters, plumbers, salespersons, and so on. They don't demand payment for work they've already done. They get paid for doing it. Art is a service, not a product. Treat it as such and you'll have a much easier time.
I've paid attention to history and I know what's going to happen to the business as you know it. Just like the cotton gin made slavery in the south obsolete and the automobile made the horse and buggy obsolete, so will the internet make artificial monopolies on the creation and distribution of ideas obsolete.
So go ahead, tell me how wrong I am, or how I know nothing of what I'm talking about. All of you naysayers are in denial. You think your plane is flying, but it's actually in free fall. You just haven't hit the ground yet.
The man? Calls for upheaval and rebellion? The sky is falling??
Don't mind the video, its a lighthearted poke at the mood that this discussion is tumbling further into.
Relax, take a chill pill, no need to start another fight over a discussion. Yes Greevar, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you gotta keep in mind to separate feelings from facts, cause it makes one hard pill to swallow.
I don't know how old/experienced you are, but if there is a majority who disagree with you, take it with a pinch of salt. Lord knows i'm always far from right, but at least I let things digest before snapping back and saying "don't try to hold me down man! I will never give in!"
It's been mentioned before, it's great that you tried to come up with solutions, and you should stick with that positive uplook instead of devolving into rebellious anger.
Peace.
Creativity is stronger than ever, sharing of ideas is being done much more than ever, and this is in the same playground as IP and copyright laws.
I think you should put your effort into real IP troubles, like trademarking EDGE or VILLE, or patenting simple code or methods, copyrights are there for even the small guy from the very basic fact that it is applied the moment he creates something.
I think people get defensive from the very fact that you're attacking something that is essential to just about all of our careers. High-end big-staffed gameart is the first thing to go in the case of an abortation of IP and copyright laws.
Also, furniture nowdays are made in factories at low-cost, you're not paying just for the materials, you're also paying for the work put into it.
1)
Copyright law is to protect an individuals rights and work from other people looking to make a profit off it. They can profit off of it, only when the original creator gives his/her consent. Its designed in such a way that only you have the right to sell and distribute what you create and no one else does. You're rights are not transferred to "teh man" automatically unless you specifically enter into an agreement that he/she can control your works, or you pass your work into the public domain knowingly.
What you're purposing is that anyone anywhere should be able to take any work, claim it as their own and profit off of it, even work they have not created or purchased the rights to.
2)
Art is art. It is not a product unless you specifically create it and distribute it as product. A game is a product that contains art. You're confusing quite a few things together and I think you should take some time to straighten it all out before you go off and ramble. Take that from someone who likes to go off and ramble...
3) Because under the law, those are the rights that are given to the creator. If you would like to rewrite those laws and obliterate those freedoms that are granted under it then be my guest, go ahead and try.
You will not be met with criticism from the top 2% that create nothing but who have acquired a big pile of rights over time. They will be on your side, they will be able to take whatever the hell they want and profit off of it without a peep from the artists themselves. If artists release it, it will be taken and profit will be made by anyone and everyone.
The unproductive 2% will love you, and probably throw you a parade and create a statue in your honor. They will have a much easier time making money off of creations they haven't created.
You will be rebuffed by the lowly artists who toil in their craft and love art. You will drive them to squirrel their work away and never show it to anyone because it will be taken and exploited while they work on more art. You won't see more open and free sharing of ideas, you'll see people horde it.
4)
If there is no way for an artist to make money off of what they sell and everyone can have at it, there is no incentive for people who like to create art, to create art for a living. It is only when people are fully protected and able to capitalize on their ideas will you see things open up. When people understand that it was the original artist.
These are YOUR rights and the laws are put in place to help you retain them. It's easy for someone to exploit your rights if you don't know what they are or how they operate. PLEASE take some time to read up and educate yourself. My fear is that we will have more artists like you that are raised with a misunderstanding of how things operate and work to destroy and dismantle all that the artists and creators that have come before us have worked hard to establish for us. Don't screw over future generations of artists with half baked ideas and talk of "revolution" just because its easier for you to tear it down and attempt to write something new, than it is to take the time to understand what was created previously.
5)
We shouldn't tear down things we don't understand, but instead work to understand them and make them better.
I see this all the time when artists are learning new software. Why doesn't XYZ work like ABC, is there a script that does ABC!? Well... if you crack open the help file and read you'll find why it doesn't operate that way and why a few million artists have agreed to arrange it in a particular way.
I'm not saying it isn't good to question things and to evaluate long held beliefs, standards and laws, but you need to fully understand them before you can begin to question or improve them. You don't come to an understanding of something by first destroying it and trying to recreate it.
How many times have you seen that tried, and how many times have you seen it fail? I personally have seen it enough times to know that if you want to change something you need to first find out what makes it tick, and then study it some more.
1) No, copyright was born out of censorship back when the printing press was new. They took the power to print books away from the public and imposed strict approval systems to prevent people from printing anything that might be seditious. Stationers were given the sole power to print books under the law. If you wanted to print a book, they were the only ones permitted to do it. This monopoly on information made them very rich and when parliament saw no reason to not let it expire, the stationers convinced them that it was necessary for authors to make a living. Copyright exists based on that lie and it was intended to protect the business model of those that do not create, but merely exploit works.
2) Art is a collection of expressed ideas. It is not a product until you fix it to a physical medium like stone sculpture or paint on canvas. A game is a collection of expressed ideas. It also has no true way to manifest itself physically, so it can never truly be a product. Thus, it always was, and is, the property of everyone.
3)Yes, the law does support your perceived right to control it, but that doesn't mean that it's the right way, or the best way. They are not freedoms, they are restrictions. When copyright is applied to works, rights are taken away from the public domain for the benefit of the artist/publisher. It's a huge misconception that it's needed to give incentive to artists to create. If you're trying to sell copies of work as your source of income, you're already working from a weakened position, because it can and will be copied. It can't be enjoyed without some degree of copying. There is no law you can pass that doesn't infringe on basic human rights that will stop copying.
"If there is no way for an artist to make money off of what they sell and everyone can have at it, there is no incentive for people who like to create art, to create art for a living."
That's a misleading statement that I hear all too often. Of course, if there was no way at all to make a living from art, nobody would do it for profit. But what you're claiming applies only if you assume that the only way to make money from art is by applying copyright to it. That's pretty unimaginative for an artist. I say this over and over again, but nobody takes heed of my suggestion: Get paid for doing the work like every other industry instead of selling the results of your work. Nobody can "pirate" your time, effort, and will. If nobody is willing to pay you to do it, they certainly aren't going to pay you after you've already done it. Yeah, I know, people buy games all the time. That's true, but it probably won't last forever. As those who share get older, they will raise a new generation that sees it the same way. Eventually, everyone will see sharing as the primary way to get art. You might say I'm dreaming, but I'm just seeing the writing on the wall.
5) I understand it just fine. I've been learning the business from those that have done it the old way, questioned its validity, and found it to be extremely flawed. It's a very one-sided system. The artist creates the art. The publisher pays the artist for the creation of that art and tries to sell the copies of it knowing full well that it will only work that way if there are laws that support it and they maintain sole power of distribution. The only way they can do it is by having a monopoly on the distribution and use of the works. Well, this is actually damaging to the core principles of copyright "to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences".
The scope of copyright has been expanded so much that ideas are tied up in monopolies so long that they can never be used to benefit the progress of art because they never fall to the public domain until long after the artist is dead and therefore, long before you get a chance to adapt their works into new ones. The art is tied up in nearly perpetual monopolies that doesn't serve anyone but those that wish to profit from it. It's bad for art, it's bad for artists, and it's bad for those that appreciate art.
Johny: How old are you? I'm sorry, that's none of my business nor is my age any of yours. Let's just say I'm a legal adult and I have a college education. I'm sure that's what you were really trying to get at with that question, "Do I even have any right of experience to speak on this?"
eld:
Yes it's stronger than ever despite copyright because of the wonderful open nature of the internet.
Instantaneous and automatic copyrights were a terrible idea that should never have been. It has guaranteed that nothing will enter the public domain until many, many decades after it's created.
Yes, they do get defensive about it for reasons I spoke on earlier about cognitive dissonance and irrational behavior. I may have forgotten about that when I spouted off on my rant.
I can't copy a chair though can I? I can get the technical spec on the construction of that chair and make my own with my own time and resources, but I can't replicate it ad infinitum without additional resources.
Actually, I've intentionally avoided focusing on those concepts and arguments. Given the nature of the video that prompted this thread, I've attempted to focus on this issue from a practical standpoint, not from a legal, ethical, or moral standpoint. The thrust of my argument is that large-scale file sharing is damaging to the game development industry as it currently stands. And yes, I do think it is dangerous to abolish copyright laws outright. That's anarchy you're talking about there.
Pump the breaks there, son. Copyright law defends the rights of creative individuals. (as well as corporations) Thanks to copyright law I can show off my work anywhere I please, without having to worry about it being misappropriated, abused, or sold by anyone else. It's also important to point out that this does not limit the sharing of ideas in any way. Ideas can't be copyrighted. This is why you see so much blatant cloning in the games industry. You can copyright the art, and even the code used in producing a game. But you can't copyright the general structure of the game. Anyone can make their own version of your ideas, as long as their work is original.
What!? When did this happen? The last time I checked, being an "artist" was not synonymous with being rebellious. I've always thought of it as being someone who exercises their creativity. It is the act of creation through imagination that defines an artist. This has nothing to do with political ideology or conformity. Sounds like you've been buying a little too much into whatever "artistic" culture you've found yourself involved in.
Why isn't it my property? If I created it, shouldn't I have some rights to it? After all, it wouldn't have existed if not for my efforts. If I destroy it rather than share it, I could easily deny everyone access to it. 100% control is impossible from the get-go, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have some control.
As I already pointed out, the law defends the small individuals as much as it does the large corporations. And it also gives the individuals something that they can use against the large corporations. If you take all that away, you take it away for both sides. And the large corporations have more and better lawyers. You think large corporations won't abuse the free-rights utopia you are espousing? Think about the consequences.
Wow, you're naive! If you spend a few years as a contract artist, you'd understand how silly this statement is. Artists charge for their work as if it is a service, (if they're smart) but the client is only ever interested in the finished product. But what you're railing against isn't art, its marketing. Intellectual properties are a function of branding, not craftsmanship. And branding can be treated as a product, not a service.
You're not a very good student of history. The invention of the cotton gin made slavery in the southern states viable, not obsolete. That invention is often credited as the cause for the slave culture established in the south, and indirectly leading to the United States Civil War. The cotton gin made it possible to separate the cotton from its seeds much faster, which made it possible to grow and harvest much more cotton at one time. This led to a strong demand for cheap labor, which led to wealthy southerners purchasing large plantations and staffing them with a large number of slaves. If the cotton gin hadn't been invented, slavery in the south would have probably died out naturally much sooner and with little to no bloodshed. Not a very good example.
I didn't even take piracy or copyright infringement into account, and I wouldn't even consider those taking any credit for creativity or advancements in entertainment such as games or music.
Opensource projects, collaborations, indie games, stories, mods, they're all working inside the "limitations" of copyright and IP laws, heck, they're even protected by IP laws and the likes.
No, they're instantaneous for the very fact that the small guy could not ever be able to protect his work in any other way, lack automatic copyrights would not affect big corporations in the same way.
For the very fact that you want to share all these creative works that would not have existed if it weren't for IP laws and its protection, you're so willing to share all this work but you fail to see that there wouldn't be anything to share.
What would even be the incentive to develop new hardware if it wasn't for the ever growing games market.
If you had a factory you could copy, oh wait, I forgot that this is being done already.
Actually, the a large part of the idea behind using slave labor in the south was for the purpose of keeping out smaller competitors that couldn't afford slaves. The cotton gin gave them the ability to do more work with a smaller labor force. The civil war broke out because people were arguing the validity of slaves being property and the plantation owners didn't want to give up their monopoly on cotton.
"In the pre-bellum North, mechanical industrialization, especially of agriculture, reduced the economic incentive for slaveholding. Immigrant labor also changed the Northern economy, making slave systems less profitable. Northerners didn't abandon slavery because they were morally superior to Southerners, but because of economic and technological changes.
Just as farm machinery lowered costs and increased efficiency in agriculture, digital devices have lowered costs and increased efficiency in production and distribution of cultural works. Musicians, artists and authors are beginning to discover their works are more profitable shared through the internet, than distributed centrally. A few economists are pointing out that free sharing of cultural works increases profitability for artists and overall wealth. They avoid moral arguments, focusing on rational market incentives."
http://questioncopyright.org/redefining_property
So, perhaps my specific point on the cotton gin may have been a poor choice, the fact remains that technology made slavery economically inferior.
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1274552&postcount=710
Less talky, more worky. That's why people don't respect you.
I was thinking the same thing, except I couldn't find any work. I was looking for a portfolio link or something so I'd know who I didn't want to work with
You just proved that your statement is false. Innovations in technology made slavery advantageous to southern landholders. It made slaves inferior in terms of separating cotton, but it economically justified their widespread use in picking cotton. (the cotton gin didn't pick cotton, it just separated cotton much more efficiently) The agricultural nature of the southern states was what originally promoted the use of slaves. But it wasn't until the cotton gin that they started being purchased and used en masse.
It irks me that you are arguing so poorly. Take some pride in your efforts.
If you really wanted to use this example, you could have said that copyright law is like the cotton gin. You could point out that it fostered the kind of environment that led to the current big-publisher system. That would have been much more effective, and would have drawn a subtle comparison between major game publishers and slave owners.
Of course, then I could have turned right around and pointed out that software piracy and widespread file sharing are actually a much closer comparison to the cotton gin. After all, its software piracy and lack of security that led to the modern economic predominance of fixed hardware platforms like home consoles. PCs are much friendlier platforms for developers since they are all open. (and don't require licences) But widespread piracy and lack of security drove the rise of home consoles thanks to overwhelming developer support. This in turn made GameStop's business model viable. And this lead to an over-reliance on big-budget, heavily marketed titles and the dominance of the mega-publisher business model.
WTH? People don't respect me because I don't share their opinions. Nevertheless, this is going nowhere and I'm sick of being told off by people that just assume they are right. So yeah, I'll just get back to my art where I can make some headway.
Off topic: What's wrong with it? I think it's a pretty decent start. I didn't say it was done.
Once again, this works on your own posts as well...
Yes, I was wrong on the specific example. I admit it. Did you think I was incapable of that? I have to plead mental impairment for the moment. I'm not feeling well and it's probably impeding coherent thought.
Well it's digital, you should think of switching careers, not much future in this one.
That's not true and I was never trying to say that. I still have confidence that the industry can survive without the conventional methods. They're just afraid that if they abandon what they have, that they can never go back. Nothing ventured, nothing gained I guess.
The problem with it is that it isn't in here: http://www.polycount.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=62
You are in an art community, not a political discussion board. How good you are at art strongly effects what people think of you here.
Here is the reality: my company helped in the release of a bunch of open source games, helped bring a new funding model to games, raises money for the EFF, and practices what it preaches with innovative initiatives like not using DRM and offering full refunds for people who buy our game. In addition to being part of all of that, I still had enough time to make a bunch of art last week and post up a video of it. People seemed to think the art was pretty good (although nowhere near the best people here on PC).
I don't even get that much respect here. I think you need to try harder, and that doesn't mean arguing more on the internet.
Ok, fair enough. I'm not unreasonable. I'm impressed with your efforts into trying new things. I applaud you.
I'm not sure where the logic is there. On the one hand, you're saying that PCs are infested with piracy so much so that it drove developers into consoles. Which for the sake of argument I'll agree with, but I'm not sure I'm sold on the validity of that claim. But anyway, on the other hand you're also claiming that consoles thereby provide that security.
But what seems weird is that you're using this as an argument in defense of IP/Copyright laws? Which is why you mentioned piracy on the PC.
And yet, if all those laws were abolished tomorrow (for the sake of argument, not saying we'd want that), then wouldn't the opposite happen? What would stop someone from opening a shop with pirated 360 games? I think that would actually demolish the status-quo in consoles. Which would then in turn make the PC the logical system for developers, which brings me to my point here:
That the giants of our industry are actually on the PC. Blizzard for instance, the goliath of our industry, relies almost exclusively on PC gaming. And yet they don't seem to be affected by piracy (as much). The explanation given to this phenomena is usually that the nature of their games, being online multiplayer types, is what enables that. Which is precisely the point, one could argue that companies like Blizzard and CCP are actually ahead of the times, and ahead of piracy, which is why they're successful. Companies that rely on the protection the consoles provide, not so much so.
Which is when people bring up EA and the likes, with the myriad of sports clones. Which is exactly who legalized-piracy would hurt the most, "the man" if you will.
Again, not disagreeing with you that piracy is bad. But this just seems like backwards logic.
For those looking for the abridged version of this wall of text, see the orange bits.
I probably should of drawn a distinction between laws enacted in modern times by democratic governments that are run by the people instead of monarchies and dictatorships of the pre-industrial age. The laws you're quoting as oppressive censorship are not the laws that are in play today. They're not even a rough framework. I think you need to follow the rabbit trail a little farther than the 17th century...
Art is more than ideas, it has physical form as does a computer and the information contained within it. Just because you can strip away some of the tangibility of art by digitizing it doesn't mean you can strip away its protection.
It might be very hard for you to hold in your hand or even see its bits and pieces with a microscope but it has a very real physical presence in the world. To interact with a game you must have physical hardware, it doesn't exist in an ethereal form that is intangible and therefore unregulated. The fact that you can copy and pass its around more easily then ever before means that it is needs to be protected more than ever rather than more freely and illegally shared.
Why and how do you justify giving rights and ownership to people who did NOT create it? How does anyone have the right to anything that is created before the person who created it? It is COMPLETELY backwards to think that the group will somehow pull together and out of charity or compassion create an environment for the creator to live where they don't need to be compensated or protected.
Creations should be passed into the public domain at the creators consent.
It's not the public's place to grant the rights of ownership to creators as it sees fit. That sets up a system where by artists are abused and denied ownership because some bureaucrat sees it unfit to grant an ownership license.
Given the logic you present, my key should fit in any locked door and the contents behind it should belong to whoever has the strength to take it from my hands. Under those circumstances art is something that isn't shared but something that is hidden from the public, If the public doesn't know about it, I can control it. someone might grow jealous and try to take it from me, so why should I share it. I should dig a moat around my home and start boiling oil in preparation for the coming hordes.
Why should an artist be distracted with having to come up with crazy and inventive ways to sell their art? Why distract from making art at all? Now you'll need masters in horse trading and doctorate in psychology just to trick people into giving a creator money for food? You'll easily end up in the same predicament that other "idea guys" are in.
Scientists spend more time writing up business proposals and securing grants and funding then they do working on scientific endeavors. Why force that on artists also? Why should we replace a system that allows artists to focus on art with a system that strips their rights away and gives their work to the public for free?
The person who pays for art wants finished art, why don't we create a system that allows people to create art and be compensated for it by selling it as product? Oh wait that's what we have now. Why do the rights of ownership first pass to the public then back to the artist after the public is finished with it?
I don't walk into a car dealership and commission a car to be made for the public to use. Why pay for time, effort and will, when the final product is free and public to use?
Likewise no one will pay an artist to create work that will belong to the public. You could wait until the artist creates it and take it for free since it becomes the property of the public. IF the car belongs to the public and not the person who paid for it, everyone has every right to take and use it however they want, even if that is counter to the interests of the person who originally commissioned it. If they aren't going to make it until I pay for it then its the same as paying for the final product after its created.
People will not put food on the creators table unless they withhold the creation in exchange for payment. As piracy has shown, people will take what they can get for free and not compensate the creator even in the slightest. Case in point, Ironlore. fantastic game, pirated to hell and back and the result was a studio that didn't survive. But wait, shouldn't the pirates provide Ironlore a way to keep moving forward? Perhaps send then cookies and chickens that they can cook over an open fire instead of money.
If people can get something for free, they'll take it.
You might believe that these people will magically open their hearts and wallets if you can only erase the laws that force them to compensate people for their work but it's never going to happen, ever. The only recourse any creator has is to withhold the final piece, until payment is rendered. If that is not tightly controlled any people copy and give it away, no one goes to the creator, no one sends the creator a check, or a chicken, or even a box of cookies.
Protecting art for the lifetime of the artist is not an abuse and it's not stopping you from creating new art. It's stopping you from profiting off of another persons hard work. You want to make new art, fine, go make it. You want to profit off the work of another person, you'll need to wait a really long time until long after they're gone. Such is the price of being a non-creator and the incentive to create new things rather than simply profiteer off the work of others.
Why sell the finished product when you can sell the time and labor? I think there is a key different that needs to be made, when I hire a electrician to wire my house, they bill me by the hour and charge me for parts, but I'm paying for the final product a house that has electricity. They don't rip it all out pile it up in the middle of the street and let the public have at it.
There is a finite amount of time an artist can create art and bill for services, the rest of the time if they're lucky the price for their art will increase over time as their reputation grows. They may of sold some early paintings for a fraction of what they might go for later on. The price of their art should be allowed to appreciate to whatever people are willing to pay rather than locked at the price of time and materials.
The second you get the world to sign onto your radical ideas, I'm heading to the louvre with a handful of coins. I'll have them arrange them in a candy crane machine so I can get a little sport out of it.
The creation belongs to the creator.
It is up to them to do with it as they please. NOTHING is stopping artists from creating art and passing it into the public domain the second they finish it. The system you suggest as an alternative can fully function within the current framework of the law without the need to abolish it. However if creators want to protect their work, they can.
I strongly encourage you to take your suggestions and experiment with them. Get yourself a cup, a street corner, and sign that says will create art for chicken soup and see how it goes.
I'd pop up homebrew wow and eve servers and openly advertise them, it's not like they own the IP anymore, they have no right to shut me down!
Edit: Mark, is this your keyboard right now?:
I'm not going to argue it anymore. You think you're right and I think I'm right too. Let's just leave it at that. I'm going to go back to being sick now.
Well, yes and no. In terms of practical considerations, no one in their right mind would open up a shop to sell or even freely distribute pirated 360 games.
1. If they tried to sell them, their customers would quickly realize that they could copy these games themselves and distribute them to their friends for free. (thereby destroying the potential profits of the pirated game sales) Even if they were drastically undercutting the price of original retail copies, the system just wouldn't last.
2. If they attempted to distribute these pirated copies for free, they would be constantly losing money due to the rent they would have to pay for the building, and on the physical media they would need to acquire to continue reproducing copies of the games. Then there's employee overhead, cleaning, storage, etc... No one is going to saddle themselves with the cost of opening a store without some promise of a return on investment.
At the same time, your claim of "demolishing" the status quo is in fact correct. It would just happen on-line rather than in the physical space. However, I still question whether or not this is best for the industry. It's a little scary to think that the abolishment of modern copyright laws could collapse an entire industry. Hundreds of thousands of game developers out of work, practically overnight. The markets that currently foster smaller indie development would be immediately flooded, and the glut of new content would probably cause those systems to be drastically de-valued. (preventing small-time developers from making a living wage) Nintendo and Sony would probably be able to survive thanks to their markets in Japan and Europe, but the 360 would go under immediately and Microsoft would be forced to shutter its entire games division.
It would be an even worse industry collapse than what happened in 1982. And given the nature of copyright law, it would drastically effect the entire media industry, not just video games.
There are numerous genres of games that don't conform or benefit from on-line or multiplayer integration. What about handheld games, where you can never have a guarantee of on-line connection? What about story-based adventure games? What about linear single-player experiences? Are we expected to throw out all of that in order to obtain security?
The route that Blizzard has taken works for them, and the kinds of games they produce. But it wouldn't work for everyone. I would argue that Valve has found a more workable solution through Steam. But even that doesn't represent a truly open platform. At the moment, most developers have to sacrifice either security or independence in order to develop for the PC.
The sad fact is that file sharing is making the scenario I've described far more likely. The backwards and broken console/retail system is the only thing keeping us from teetering into that abyss. Canny developers like Blizzard and Valve would likely survive such a collapse, thanks to the systems they had the foresight to develop. Everyone else would begin flocking to those secure systems, and new systems like OnLive.
The day when purely digital content could be "owned" by the consumer is over. Piracy and file sharing are the cause. Given the nature of the medium, this result was inevitable. Now everyone is just trying to figure out how to deal with the change occurring.
Scary, yeah, but so is every major change. I'm not sure why you're looking at it as a collapse, where it could be seen as a renaissance. Do you believe that such a collapse will be followed by nothing? Cause to me it sounds more like a restructuring.
Doesn't that contradict itself? If devs like Blizzard and Valve are canny, shouldn't we aspire to move in that direction? Why should we rely on, as you put it, backwards and broken console/retail system instead of moving forward with the times?
It strikes me that the whole anti-piracy thing is really just serving to hold us back in the long run. You said it yourself, we're relying on a backwards system.
I mean, right now with the amount of protection provided to the industry, there's a very significant sum on money flowing from the population into the development of games. So we know for a fact that the money is there, and people are willing to spend it in that way. I don't see that ever changing. The only thing I imagine changing is the specifics of what they'll be spending it on. Maybe the reason we're struggling is because people just don't want to spend their money on the stuff you described? Maybe they want more and more stuff like what Blizz/Valve/CCP and the likes provide? Is it not possible that we're making products that the public thinks are good enough to play, but not good enough to pay for? Which would then explain the entire phenomena of piracy.
I do like what Valve/Steam has been doing lately. Their store is an excellent step forward. It covers the issues of backups. You buy the game and it's yours forever, you can download it as many times as you want, and you don't have to have those stupid boxes filling up your home. I can also install my games on any machine I can log into my Steam account with. I also get all of my custom settings saved to their server which makes multiple system installs easier. They price things very competitively where possible. I've bought a few games I normally would not have bought just because it was only $8. They don't need DRM just because their service is, in many ways, better than file-sharing.
I think they could easily migrate from a retail system, like they have now, to an entirely services-based system that doesn't sell games so much as conveniences you can't get easily elsewhere. If I do buy a game, I tend to do so through Steam. I wish they would do the same for console games.