Major Copyright Judgement

[GreyICE]

That doesn't even make sense. I didn't claim that writers choose to be writers because they don't make money. That's bizarre.

I am saying that making money isn't their motivation for being writers. And having just flicked through a few interviews with Danielle Steele, Piers Anthony, and Martha Grimes, I can assure you that none of these writers are writers because of the money. They write because they need to write, because they have ideas and stories they need to share. The fact that they make money from it simply enables them to focus on doing that, and not have to earn a living elsewhere.

And video game developers don't have experiences which they want to share with others? Nonsense. I've read Kamiya's blog, I've read the thoughts of David Cage. They absolutely have experiences which they want to share with others. This is an argument from ignorance on your part.

As for 'need' nonsense. I'm sure if Piers Anthony wasn't eating food, he'd discover he has things he needs to do far more than write books.

Yes, it's a bizarre claim indeed that money is not a motivating factor. I should link you to econ 101 - but the link is earlier in the page. Let me assure you that economics applies to writing books as well as it applies to making video games or movies or music.

Yes, writers produce work for money alone - if that's your sole source of income you have no choice. But to what end? Well here's Piers Anthony's take:

"let me say that I don't consider Xanth the pinnacle of my career. Xanth is what pays my way so I can afford to do serious writing"

Serious writing. He sometimes has to put out money-makers, but only to give him an income so he's free to do his real writing, the stuff that matters, his art.

And your point is...

Oh yeah. I'm right.

They're not though. Video games aren't about artistry. They don't attempt to make compelling statements about the world around us. They don't offer insight into the human condition. They're entertainment. Facets of video game design involve artistry, sure, but the overall work is not a piece of art. It's a technical product, designed for entertainment, and the people at the heart of creating these games are technicians and businessmen, not artists.

What? WHAT?!? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Make compelling statements about the world around us? What do you think Grand Theft Auto is? Have you ever played The Void? Did you do more than click through The Longest Journey? Indigo Prophecy? Folklore? Max Payne? Metal Gear 4?

Oh I am sorry, they are entertaining. So? I enjoyed watching Blade Runner and Citizen Kane. I liked reading House of Leaves. They're not art either.

Oh no, businessmen pay for them. I suppose this differs from movie studios somehow. I'll let you get back to me on how, while I laugh at you. If you have the least little comprehension of movie studios, you understand why I'm laughing at you.

Really? Michael Bay on Transformers:

"Well, the underlying theme to me is really no sacrifice, no victory. That was something I wanted to nail. My movies often deal with the hero arch-type and the boy becoming a man, kind of like Nic Cage becoming a hero in The Rock."

Wait, boy becoming a man? Do you have ANY idea how often that's been done in video games? So often it's passed cliche. I could cite a dozen quality video games with exactly that theme. Lets start with Kingdom Hearts, and roll from there...
You'd be surprised how important filmmakers think their film is.

The difference is the primary personality behind these games doesn't think they're making some profound work. In almost all film cases the primary personality really does think this.

Huh? So the major difference you see is that you're ignorant of video games and the motivations of their creators?

Argument from Ignorance again. Why do you do this?

I don't think any of the things you've mentioned "define" art. A punch in the face can inspire emotion, a traffic light forces you to make a decision and witness the consequences of that decision, and a coffee machine is interactive. None of that is art.

Art often does all of these things. But fundamentally, for me, the defining characteristic of art, and particularly what separates it from design, is that art is conveying a message intended to influence the audience's values and view of the world.

Oh wow. I'm just going to let this stand. Actually, let me quote this again:

I don't think any of the things you've mentioned "define" art. A punch in the face can inspire emotion, a traffic light forces you to make a decision and witness the consequences of that decision, and a coffee machine is interactive. None of that is art.

Art often does all of these things. But fundamentally, for me, the defining characteristic of art, and particularly what separates it from design, is that art is conveying a message intended to influence the audience's values and view of the world.

Yeah. Video games are not art under this definition.

This is like discussing Atheism with the worlds least educated fundamentalist.

 

[GreyICE]

And, hold on a second, I just need to quote this again, on why video games are not art:

I don't think any of the things you've mentioned "define" art. A punch in the face can inspire emotion, a traffic light forces you to make a decision and witness the consequences of that decision, and a coffee machine is interactive. None of that is art.

Art often does all of these things. But fundamentally, for me, the defining characteristic of art, and particularly what separates it from design, is that art is conveying a message intended to influence the audience's values and view of the world.

 

[GreyICE]

Oh for pete's sake, I just have to come back to this. Really? The most puerile and basic form of art is to 'influence someone's values.' That's about one step above political activism, it's what Glenn Beck does on his TV Show. Art is a dialogue created between the artist and the viewer, a concept of aesthetics that offers new possibilities simply by existing - a new and different way of examining the world around us. Jackson Pollock does not attempt to 'change my values' he shows me a new form of painting, an interaction with the paint and the canvas that borders on interpretive dance. I observe the patterns and forms he creates with the paint, the explosion of color and vibrancy, the absolute emotional expression as transmitted through the very texture and form of the painting.

But he does not attempt to 'influence my values.' He does not 'change my view of the world.' He offers a new aesthetic, a form and figure, a texture and shape, a beautiful and moving piece for me to view.

You would place Keith Olberman on a pedestal above Jackson Pollock.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Also, I can legally rent video games from a number of sources, for free (minus a subscription).

This is different from piracy.
There is no such thing as an 'exorbitant price.' Either you pay it or you don't. This is it. You have no right to demand that a team of programmers who spent millions making a game set a price that you think is reasonable. Hell, you wouldn't have that right if they spent $10.

It is NOT life saving medication. If you don't like the price, don't pay. Do you steal a plasma TV because 50" TVs are 'too expensive?'

P.S. PC games are priced cheaper than console games because Microsoft/Sony take a cut of each game purchase when they are sold on the console - licensing fees. But thanks for demonstrating your ignorance again.

And we had actually gotten to where we having a (mostly) civil discussion.

Licensing fees nearly double the cost of the game? Hahaha.

How is borrowing from the library different from piracy without regard to actual law. How is the theory of "Hmm, I can buy this book and lend it out to people" different from the theory of "Hmm, I can buy this music and let other people copy it"? There is still only 1 copy sold for however many hundreds of people use it. The distributor sees the exact same proceeds. So don't tell me piracy is somehow hurting the artist while libraries aren't.

ETA: As for pricing...that's exactly how capitalism works. We, the consumer, have every right to claim a price is exorbitant. That's exactly how capitalism works. Thought you would know that, being all pro-capitalism. Looks like you're merely pro-profit (and yes, there is a difference).

Regardless, due to the last comment in your post, you have been put on ignore. I have no interest in a discussion where insults are hurled for no particular reason other than you are frustrated that the rest of the world doesn't, and refuses, to agree with you.

 

[GreyICE]

And we had actually gotten to where we having a (mostly) civil discussion.

Licensing fees nearly double the cost of the game? Hahaha.

50x2 does not equal 60. It's not even close. Math fail.

How is borrowing from the library different from piracy without regard to actual law. How is the theory of "Hmm, I can buy this book and lend it out to people" different from the theory of "Hmm, I can buy this music and let other people copy it"? There is still only 1 copy sold for however many hundreds of people use it. The distributor sees the exact same proceeds. So don't tell me piracy is somehow hurting the artist while libraries aren't.

Oh, we're actually having this discussion? Fine. First, neither libraries nor video game libraries would hurt sales the way you think. The key part of libraries is that they have limited stock and limited check-out times. Good video games are frequently valuable to the player for longer periods than 1-3 weeks, and limited check out periods absolutely make it difficult to operate with these restrictions. This crops up in books in that authors very rarely write 'one book.' Readers can and will buy other books by the author rather than what the library offers. Throw in the added convenience of having the book permanently, rather than short term, and you see how different libraries are.

Rental copies are also purchased. At most, mediocre video games suffer lower sales from the 'rent and return' model, because they are not worth having in a collection. This is both perfectly legal and ethical. If one is willing to pay fee (a portion of which absolutely returns to the game creator) for the opportunity to play the game a few weeks, and filter out the dreck while buying only the best games that you absolutely want in your collection, that is fair and fine. I'd note that most rental places have a 'sale' program, where you can buy the item you rent - and this is because they'd rather sell it to you than have you go buy it from someone else (I assure you, they did not implement these policies due to lack of demand).

Piracy operates differently in that its permanent and universal. Therefore it absolutely impacts video game sales in a way rentals do not.

ETA: As for pricing...that's exactly how capitalism works. We, the consumer, have every right to claim a price is exorbitant. That's exactly how capitalism works. Thought you would know that, being all pro-capitalism. Looks like you're merely pro-profit (and yes, there is a difference).

Um, no. Price is determined through supply and demand. A very important part of a healthy market is that both the buyer and the seller are 'free to walk.' Consumers may 'demand' whatever they want with their wallet. If a person cannot sell a product at a set price, they have to lower the price or go out of business.

This is completely different from just stealing their merchandise because you don't feel like paying for it. No one can afford to make high-cost titles for $5, which is what pirates are willing to pay. Many people are willing to pay $60, enough to support the games. Pirates go 'hey, I'd rather not pay $55. I know, I'll steal!"

Regardless, due to the last comment in your post, you have been put on ignore. I have no interest in a discussion where insults are hurled for no particular reason other than you are frustrated that the rest of the world doesn't, and refuses, to agree with you.

Aww. I hurt your feelings. Your threats to 'not read my posts' are not scary, I assure you.

Anyway, it's reciprocated. You've never written anything worth reading, I won't miss much.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

You know what... so far I've based my conclusions on what I've heard/seen in radio/TV news. Reputable news outlets, yes, interviews with reputable people, but still, second-hand stuff.

After just now doing some digging into what little analysis is available, I'm obliged to (pardon the pun) change my tune.

None of the methodologies appear very robust, and everyone admits there's a lot of inference going on, but overall it seems that the impact, industry wide, is either neutral or positive.

I saw one analysis which found that top bands are being hurt, but that lesser known bands are benefiting.

Thanks for making me show the money. You corrected an error on my part.

Well done you. You're an example to us all. Thanks for taking the time and being honest about it.

Yup, difficult to really see the impact but my anecdotal experience suggests the top bands / lesser known bands effect could well be true because (and this is just my personal experience) downloaders who merely pirate are not big music lovers / collectors and just want whatever's hot. Those going for less well known bands are more interested in music per se and want exposure to a wide variety of music not just what the main media pushes. The latter tend to use downloading to get the more obscure stuff, try out new bands etc and tend to spend more money than average. As a result, even if they don't legitimise the albums they downloaded they will then buy eg the new album by that band (or DVD or whatever) when they are looking to spend money.

 

[Belz...]

I actually find it weird that computer games are thought of in the same vein as things like books. They're not. They're an entertainment product created purely to make money, by a company. And because they have such a short shelf life, the companies that produce them release them for free long before any sort of copyright would expire, making the issue a moot point when it comes to games.

Films, books, and music are totally different.

I disagree completely. Video games are also a form of art, and many of them have stories that are on par with some of the best movies or novels out there, and have great graphic/musical/artistic value. I don't see why you'd want to distinguish one form of art from another. Do you think they make books or movies without thinking about the bottom line ?

 

[Belz...]

I am saying that making money isn't their motivation for being writers.

Same thing about video game designers.

They're not though. Video games aren't about artistry. They don't attempt to make compelling statements about the world around us. They don't offer insight into the human condition. They're entertainment.

You haven't been playing the right games, Gum. Honestly, you are wrong.

ETA: In my opinion ALL forms of art are for entertainment.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm writing a series of books at the moment that has so far taken me fourteen years, and may very well take me another ten years to complete. If I was only going to have ownership of that work for fifteen years, I'd never get it published. This is my life's work. I have poured my very soul into it. The idea that in my own lifetime anyone who wants could copy, sell, and commercially exploit my work for their own benefit, without having to gain so much as a nod of approval from me, frankly appalls me. You cannot imagine how horrendous a notion that is. I would literally rather die.

Apart from the fact that the clock would start ticking when you published, not when you put pen to paper, I really do not give a hoot if the idea that your work might end up in the public domain offends you.

The fact that you really, really want to be paid in perpetuity for your books and "would literally rather die" than see someone else make a buck off them is not a good enough reason to pay police and courts to fulfil your wishes.

While there are excellent social reasons to have the police enforce your perpetual ownership of your house (one of your terrible analogies), I see no comparable social reasons to have the police enforce your perpetual ownership of reproducible artistic creations.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I...
I'm writing a series of books at the moment that has so far taken me fourteen years, and may very well take me another ten years to complete. If I was only going to have ownership of that work for fifteen years, I'd never get it published. This is my life's work. I have poured my very soul into it. The idea that in my own lifetime anyone who wants could copy, sell, and commercially exploit my work for their own benefit, without having to gain so much as a nod of approval from me, frankly appalls me. You cannot imagine how horrendous a notion that is. I would literally rather die.

Really?! You'd honestly rather lose your life than someone have a copy of your book(s) without paying (you) for it?

I think you're selling your life pretty short. I mean, I could imagine being pretty cheesed about it but 'literally rather die'? Blimey!

Are these books a labour of love or your main occupation / source of income? I'm asking more out of interest than that I'd think it makes a material difference to your rather dramatic statement.

 

[Cuddles]

A person's wishes regarding their property is not worth listening to ?

As I said, if a person's wishes regarding their property are completely retarded then no, they're not worth listening to. I could wish for all my property to be stored with the Crown Jewels, that doesn't mean anyone should pay attention to me.

When it comes to music, software and the like, there are sensible wishes and retarded wishes. Wishing to be allowed to control the distribution of your songs and who can make a profit off them is sensible. Wishing to be allowed to prevent people from making backups or dictating how and when they can listen to songs they have bought is retarded.

As I've said many times before, the problem with copyright isn't the idea itself, it's that the people arguing in favour of protecting it are mostly utterly irrational, and make such stupid demands that no-one takes them at all seriously. As I said above, tell me to drive at 30mph and I'll make a fair attempt to do so. Tell me to drive at 10mph and I'll ignore you completely, since I wouldn't be able to do so even if it wasn't a stupid instruction to start with.

And that makes it okay how ?

Perhaps you'd like to quote the part of my post that made any judgement on whether it is OK or not? On the other hand, perhaps you'd like to actually read my post before responding to it next time.

 

[Gate2501]

In my humble opinion, video games are simply art 2.0, the natural evolution of things like paintings, books, music and movies. Sure there are some games that are complete rubbish(ironically, many based on movies!) without much artistic value to anyone even subjectively speaking, but this has always been the case with other formats(of art) as well.

To say that video games are not art betrays some manner of wacky bias for one kind of art over others, or the fact that you are an old fuddy-duddy.

 

[Belz...]

As I said, if a person's wishes regarding their property are completely retarded then no, they're not worth listening to.

In other words a person should not be the judge of what other people can do with their property, so long as Cuddles think they're being nuts ?

I could wish for all my property to be stored with the Crown Jewels, that doesn't mean anyone should pay attention to me.

You mean, if you wish for your property to be stored with someone ELSE's property ?

When it comes to music, software and the like, there are sensible wishes and retarded wishes.

And yet it's their right to do so.

Perhaps you'd like to quote the part of my post that made any judgement on whether it is OK or not? On the other hand, perhaps you'd like to actually read my post before responding to it next time.

Oh, please. It's implied in your post that my suggestion to "download the demo" doesn't work because some games don't have a demo, thereby justifying piracy. Why did you bother to comment about my suggestion, if there are no other alternatives ?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I
And yet it's their right to do so.

This is a fantastic example of begging the question.

Of course if content creators have a "right" that we observe copyright law exactly as it exists, then we should do so.

The problem is, I've never seen any sensible case that they should have such a "right".

To my mind a "right", if it exists at all, is just a privilege such that it happens to work out well for everyone if we extend that privilege to everyone. Copyright does not fit that description in its current incarnation.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

This is a fantastic example of begging the question.

Of course if content creators have a "right" that we observe copyright law exactly as it exists, then we should do so.

The problem is, I've never seen any sensible case that they should have such a "right".

To my mind a "right", if it exists at all, is just a privilege such that it happens to work out well for everyone if we extend that privilege to everyone. Copyright does not fit that description in its current incarnation.

Copyright law was never intended to be used as it is now. It's original intent was to prohibit a scenario where Artist A writes/records a song, this song is then copied/performed by Artist B to make a profit, i.e. to ensure that whatever profits come from a work of art are awarded to the original author, *not to so severly restrict the average end user who simply wants to listen to the music and/or share it with friends. After all, word of mouth is still one of the most effective marketing tools.

Anti-piracy advocates would have us believe that any and all works of art that are published/recorded/marketed are guaranteed to provide a profit/return to the artist/distributor. This is just simply not the case.


*ETA

 

[GreyICE]

This is a fantastic example of begging the question.

Of course if content creators have a "right" that we observe copyright law exactly as it exists, then we should do so.

The problem is, I've never seen any sensible case that they should have such a "right".

To my mind a "right", if it exists at all, is just a privilege such that it happens to work out well for everyone if we extend that privilege to everyone. Copyright does not fit that description in its current incarnation.

I don't see any clear case, at the moemnt, that copyrighted content is necessary for anything (except corner cases). In the case that it is not, I see no reason that the basic principles of contract law should not be followed.

In certain corner cases, I'd be for restricting rights usage, cases such as textbooks (which are in many ways non-optional purchases). But beyond that, contract law is contract law, and I don't see any reason to ignore contracts.

 

[Piggy]

Van Zandt sounds familiar, but I can't place it off-hand.

I do feel you, though. Most of the country music I listen to comes from time I spent living in West Texas - it has a genre of country all it's own, and you'll never see them on CMT, GAC, etc because they're not Nashville Country.

Of course, my tastes are probably a bit more colorful than most as the best live performance I've ever been to was a B.B. King concert (seen him live 2x, actually - you'd probably really enjoy the show if you ever get the chance). And while I've supported B.B. by eating at 3 of his 4 restaurants (trying to collect them all ) and going to his live shows, much of his best music can't be found on album in any store - so I turn to bootleg copies.


This is why I can't be completely anti-piracy - to completely demonize piracy means the loss of so much wonderful art and music that would never be heard, never be shared, lost for all time but to the lucky few that were able to record it live. And that is a great loss. Of course, again, YMMV

BB King is the best live performer I've ever seen.

Even his live albums don't really capture it.

Plus, he's an astute and generous showman. I remember one show at an arts complex in a college town. The folks down front were season ticket holders -- mostly college profs and administrators, museum donors, and the like.

They weren't into it.

He played for about 45 minutes, then handed out some picks and went backstage. The emcee waved him away with "King of the blues, ladies and gennelmen, king of the blues!"

The suits took their opportunity and vamoosed. But the band never stopped playing.

Once they were gone, everyone that was left came down from the balcony and the back rows and filled up the now-empty orchestra section.

Then BB came back on stage and we went wild. He settled in and played for over an hour.

Btw, do you know of a Texas band called the Ex-Husbands? If not, see if you can scrounge up their discs... you'll like 'em.

 

[Piggy]

Now wait a second. Piggy said he found this after digging, without a link or reference to where he found this.

I don't take this claim seriously without some links to where he was digging.

Sorry.

P2P, Online File-Sharing, and the Music Industry

According to Blackburn who investigates this issue the 'bottom' 3/4 of artists sell more as a consequence of file-sharing while the top 1/4 sell less.

I can link some of the other sources if anyone is interested.

 

[Piggy]

FWIW, w/ reference to an argument upthread, I write for the money (it pays for this computer and Internet connection, as well as the house I'm in and the supper I had tonight) and I'm vigilant about copyright.

I get ripped off all the time, but I know where the line is. In fact, I take it as a compliment when I find other folks recommending my work to others as a "killer swipe file", and even selling old samples of my work on eBay for precisely that purpose, which happened once.

Emulate me all you want, that's part of the game. But if you post my work as yours, verbatim (which has happened) you're gonna hear about it.

But there's not a choice to be made between writing what you love and being in the business of writing. They're not mutually exclusive.

Savvy writers learn to meld the two, so that they can devote all their time to writing rather than having to do it on the side and hold down some other job to pay the bills.

The sweet spot, of course, is to have enough commercial success with for-profit genre work that you can then start putting out projects aimed at a narrower audience which you do because it's what you want to do.

I love Mark Knopfler's solo work, for example, and I'm really glad that Dire Straits was successful enough to allow him the luxury of doing it.

 

[Cavemonster]

Sorry.

P2P, Online File-Sharing, and the Music Industry



I can link some of the other sources if anyone is interested.

Thanks for posting, I'm not sure I get the numbers though. According to the numbers posted, it looks more like the break even point comes at 50% and the benefit for artists under that mark is in the single digits, while the lost sales above that are into four digits.

Aside from that, his methodology seems to be based on the difference between sales after the RIAA lawsuits, which frankly, didn't change the downloading habits of anyone I know. Also, it looks like his numbers still only measured sales through mainstream outlets. I know one small record company that had to be downgraded from a business into a hobby as downloading decreased his market, and I know a good number of artists and labels fall beneath the view of these studies.