I ask what is the difference between asking to be paid for an MP3 and asking to be paid for a ticket to a concert. You respond "they are different. [good work, you just got 1 point on the rubric scale for the NC writing test] The band is not present and performing when you play the song on your ipod."

Let's analyze this response, shall we?
"They are different." Good, you say there's a difference. Surely your next sentence will illustrate, in some way, a difference between the two.
"The band is not present and performing when you play the song on your ipod." OK, this seems to be what you say is "different." For an MP3, the band is not present and performing. Because this is "different", then it must be the case that the band IS present and performing at a concert (which makes sense, or else it's not much of a live concert).

Therefor, if we follow your logic, the band should be paid for a ticket to a concert, because they are present and performing. And, they should not be paid for an MP3, because they are not present and performing (otherwise it wouldn't be a "difference", right?). The thing that you say deserves payment is "being present and performing."


Now, let's go a feeeeeeeew steps farther and put on our thinking caps and think about this response. A band should be paid for "being present and performing." In the process of creating an MP3, does the band ever need to be "present and performing"? Do you now see what I referred to as a "lack of logical reasoning"?

9/19/2012 9:49:15 PM

screw some E-books

those things cost just as much as the real thing, I've found

9/19/2012 9:52:07 PM

Quote :

""What's the difference between asking to be paid for an MP3 and asking to be paid for a ticket to a concert?" They are fundamentally different experiences? The band is not present and performing their work in front of you every time you press play on your ipod?"

Wow! This was a bad answer.

A person or organization has the right to exclusive use of land over a certain period of time, or indefinetely. Refer to our land ownership laws. Does the concert have the right to keep you from enjoying it off the property? Oh hell no! If you enter the concert without permission, you're subject to trespassing laws since the person with administration rights over that land intends for the concert to be a money-making venture, selling the experience.

Could listening to the mp3 on your player be a form of "trespass"? I find this a hard pill to swallow. The reason this is an issue is because that data was such a slut to begin with. If a company has data they don't want to get out, then they can keep it on their servers. They legitimately have exclusive access to the servers. I will not ask that they divulge this data because it would violate their right to security of property. They can DRM that shit, and that's within their right to property. It's in my right not to put that crap on my computer. But I am arguing I have a right to an open computing environment where I can copy whatever I want. If it's recordable, and I made the recording without violating their rights to property, then I should be able to keep the data on my machine and make it have sex with the other data on my machine, because that's how me and my machine roll.

9/19/2012 10:06:18 PM

OK, the concert requires land rights. Why do the land rights matter in this context?

And wait, they can DRM their digital files, because it's "their property"? What if they want to allow you use of that property, for a price? Should they not also be able to do that? Is such a request reasonable? And, if reasonable, should you be able to circumvent their reasonable request for payment for the use of their property?

Quote :

"If you enter the concert without permission, you're subject to trespassing laws since the person with administration rights over that land intends for the concert to be a money-making venture, selling the experience."

And what if the producer of the MP3 intends for its production to be a money-making venture? What about the MP3 means that you should be able to circumvent and ignore the producer's desire for payment? Or, more aptly, why should the person owning the land be able to make it a money-making venture while the person producing the MP3 should NOT be able to make it a money-making venture?

9/19/2012 10:10:51 PM

Speaking of sluts...



This is 40 songs, all mixed illegally, stolen against their will, and forced AS SLAVES to be a part of this song of vice and nefarious, indecent, wicked hooliganism. This is what the "don't copy that floppy" man warned us against. This is the tune of the apocalypse.

Alphabeat - Boyfriend
Alphabeat - Fascination
Bag Raiders - Shooting Stars
Black Eyed Peas - Gotta Feeling
Britney Spears - ...Baby One More Time
Capsule - Can I Have A Word
Chromeo - Momma's Boy
Coldplay - Viva La Vida
Daft Punk - Aerodynamic
Daft Punk - Around The World
Deadmau5 - Raise Your Weapon (Madeon Remix)
Deadmau5 - Right This Second
Ellie Goulding - Starry Eyed
ELO - Mr. Blue Sky
Girls Aloud - Biology
Gorillaz - Dare
Gossip - Heavy Cross (Fred Falke Remix)
Gwen Stefani - What You Waitin For (Jacques Lu Cont Mix)
Housse de Racket - Oh Yeah
Justice - DVNO
Justice - Phantom Part II
Katy Perry - One Of The Boys
Ke$ha - Take It Off
Kylie Minogue - Wow
Lady Gaga - Alejandro
Linkin Park - Crawling
Madonna - Hung Up
Martin Solveig ft. Dragonette - Boys and Girls
Michael Jackson - Billie Jean
Nero - Me and You
One Republic - All The Right Moves (Danger Remix)
One-T - Magic Key
Ratatat - Shempi
Solange - I Decided (Freemasons Remix)
Stardust - Music Sounds Better With You
The Buggles - Video Killed The Radio Star
The Killers - Losing Touch
The Who - Baba O'Riley (SebastiAn Remix)
Yelle - Que Veux Tu (Madeon Remix)

9/19/2012 10:14:07 PM

I too agree with the poster who said that copyright protection lasts too long; basically I'm with Lawrence Lessig.

Quote :

"People create because they get an obsession to fulfill a vision. No one that's any good does it for money. The money is icing on the cake."

If they're also independently wealthy or supported by some wealthy benefactor, that's true; generally, however, artists intend to make a career out of their art, meaning that money isn't just "icing on the cake" but rather essential, if not the most important thing.
If people don't have the money to fulfill their visions, those visions don't get fulfilled

9/19/2012 10:15:08 PM

Quote :

"And what if the producer of the MP3 intends for its production to be a money-making venture? What about the MP3 means that you should be able to circumvent and ignore the producer's desire for payment? Or, more aptly, why should the person owning the land be able to make it a money-making venture while the person producing the MP3 should NOT be able to make it a money-making venture?"

A concert sells experience, but it's only able to do that because it has a mechanism to do it with. I have an experience I want to sell people. In fact, I have an experience I would like to sell everyone ITT, but sadly, I don't have the mechanism to do this and charge.

It's like the song, say I have a milkshake that brings all the boys to the yard. I could teach them and charge for it... but if I'm doing it in public then I can't legally keep other people from watching. Actually, I'd probably get arrested...

Anyway, our commerce never guaranteed success of a venture. It never guaranteed that such a venture wouldn't be subverted by free riders. However someone manages to make money or not make money simply isn't the business of our laws. In the real world, copyright and patents are only utilitarian tools built to encourage creation. The ability to opt out should be there, and the creators should be able to respond however they see fit.

9/19/2012 10:23:06 PM

Oh, absolutely, the ability to opt-out of copyright laws should certainly be there. Do you think it is not?

Quote :

"A concert sells experience, but it's only able to do that because it has a mechanism to do it with."

do you not think an MP3 sells an experience?

I'm still not seeing why you think a concert should charge for a ticket, but a content producer should not charge for an MP3

9/19/2012 10:29:10 PM

No one is arguing that you shouldn't be able to sell digital content, not in the slightest. Whether or not it's an experience or a lamppost shouldn't matter... unless it's prostitution, drugs, or one of the many other things we're not allowed to sell.

It's just about whether or not the law should be an anti-copy measure.

9/19/2012 10:37:48 PM

Well, why shouldn't it be? Should the law be an anti-fraud measure? Should the law be an anti-counterfeit measure? Should the law be an anti-contract-violation measure? Why shouldn't there be some provision in the law to protect producers of content from unauthorized copying and distribution of their work without payment? What is fundamentally different about producing digital content from producing Fords that should protect one producer from loss of revenue due to unauthorized distribution and not the other?

I can absolutely agree that our current copyright laws are a bit absurd (though more their current interpretation via the RIAA and MPAA), but what the hell is there to get people to pay for something if not the law?

9/19/2012 10:41:22 PM

Well is this a utilitarian issue or an ethical issue? Someone can validly hold different viewpoints on these two.

9/19/2012 10:45:44 PM

On which count?

I mean, from an ethical perspective, it's not ethical at all to simply take the product of a man's work without paying him, unless he gives that product out for free. From a utilitarian perspective, markets can't function at all if sellers of products don't have any way to enforce their desire to be paid for their product. I'm not sure that there is really any other way to frame it.

9/19/2012 10:53:44 PM

I mean, utilitarian would be to ask if we would be better as a society on the whole with copyright. Well, really, which amount of copyright would make GDP highest or something like that.

In terms of the ethical part I agree there is are troubling ethics with copying something that someone doesn't want copied. But we post naked pictures on TWW that the person (and likely the taker) don't want posted. I see those two ethical questions as the same. If someone truly advocates the radical form of anti-copyright I've voiced here, the most righteous course of action is to simply avoid watching anything that the producer doesn't want freely copied. There's a lot of good that can come from that.

9/19/2012 11:00:32 PM

We may post nakey pics on here, but if any party involved in the picture so desires, they can use the law to remedy that, correct? Would you suggest they should not be able to do that?

Quote :

"If someone truly advocates the radical form of anti-copyright I've voiced here, the most righteous course of action is to simply avoid watching anything that the producer doesn't want freely copied."

No, not so much. The most righteous course of action would be to consume content in the manner prescribed and allowed by the content producer. Simply not wanting something to be freely copied is NOT the same as saying that no one should be able to consume the content.

Quote :

"I mean, utilitarian would be to ask if we would be better as a society on the whole with copyright. Well, really, which amount of copyright would make GDP highest or something like that."

I think a sensible amount of copyright, similar to what we had established around the time of the VHS concerns, is best. It balances the right of the consumer to use purchased content and the right of the producer to request compensation for content. We've certainly swung way too far towards the producers right now. I see copyright as a natural extension of other market realities, most obviously, the right of a seller to request payment for his product. It is, also, an acknowledgement of the difference between a hard and physical good and the more nebulous good of "content".

9/19/2012 11:11:30 PM

Quote :

"So, if someone invents an industrial farming system that marginalizes most crops and floods the market with cheap goods--how do the farmers get paid? If the printing press comes along and makes scribes obsolete what do the scribes do to get paid? If the record companies come along with a way to record sounds what do all the touring acts do to get paid? If refrigeration becomes cheap enough so that people can make their own ice at home what do the ice men that deliver the ice do to get paid? If automated trucking systems deliver goods at 1/3 the cost what do the truck drivers do to get paid?"

A swing and a miss. You're talking about market competition, no completely leveling a market to where all items are just free. Your argument isn't that another company is swooping in saying, "fuck this! I don't need money to run a business! music is free! books are free! take'em you fuckers!". Your argument is not paying for existing content with existing technology. Not sure how you got this competition angle from a legal debate on copyright laws.

9/19/2012 11:19:13 PM

9/19/2012 11:24:09 PM

Quote :

"We may post nakey pics on here, but if any party involved in the picture so desires, they can use the law to remedy that, correct?"

no... not correct at all. Did you see the thread on PinkMeth? That was much less legal than an ordinary nude leek and those women still can't do shit about it.

Quote :

"The most righteous course of action would be to consume content in the manner prescribed and allowed by the content producer."

Not if you don't agree with the business model.

9/19/2012 11:29:02 PM

so... if you don't agree with the business model, then it's more ethical to just take the product of someone's work without paying them? that sounds like a cop-out to rationalize what is, effectively and for lack of a better word, theft.

9/19/2012 11:30:36 PM

Quote :

"A swing and a miss. You're talking about market competition, no completely leveling a market to where all items are just free. Your argument isn't that another company is swooping in saying, "fuck this! I don't need money to run a business! music is free! books are free! take'em you fuckers!". Your argument is not paying for existing content with existing technology. Not sure how you got this competition angle from a legal debate on copyright laws."

I'm saying that recorded music has zero value on it's own. It had value when it was produced in a factory and had to be taken on mass at great cost to a Circuit City/Best Buy. We do not live in that world anymore. A whole fuck load of content providers in books and music have figured out how to make money and be profitable. They do this by reducing friction of sale (buy it on your phone or Kindle and listen/read it immediately) and in some cases selling related merchandise, doing promotions with a large multi-national corporation, making TV appearances etc. In aggregate I guarantee that artists are better off now. We will have less Britney Spears with Gulfstream IVs and more Avett Brothers.

Quote :

"no, they may be different, but your explanation for how they are different and why one deserves payment and the other doesn't was NOT logically sound. You said one required time, suggesting, then, that the other doesn't. Is it your contention that the band does NOT have to spend any time at all or do any performing whatsoever in order to make an MP3? "

One is an experience, heard of the Phish? You think they were as big as they were from CDs? They pulled in $75 million a year touring. It's an experience--one of the best things music has going for it in terms of monetizing in the digital environment.

Quote :

"If they're also independently wealthy or supported by some wealthy benefactor, that's true; generally, however, artists intend to make a career out of their art, meaning that money isn't just "icing on the cake" but rather essential, if not the most important thing. If people don't have the money to fulfill their visions, those visions don't get fulfilled"

Most good acts/artists start small and build a fan base organically. One of the members of the Avett Brothers quit his normal job at IBM and worked in a bar so he could play more. He got picked up by them and achieved his dream. They now have a huge fan base that buys their albums and t-shirts religiously. No one starts out a virtuoso--you have to put in your time and you don't make money in the phase you're a scrub. Steven Pressfield talks about it in the War of Art, he quit his job and lived in his car a decade while trying to make it as a writer selling screenplays. Silicon Valley is full of people trying to make it that don't have the chops yet to make a living, as well as a few dreamers that could definitely be pulling in a decent salary.

9/20/2012 5:07:22 AM

Strike 2. Again, you are talking about businesses changing their model, this is not what the OP is about. If a music business figures out a model to give away its music for free and still make money, then great. The OP was talking about dismantling copyright law and forcing many content producers into new business models, because in effect, the government would be telling these companies that their products are now free to the people.

It doesn't matter that there's no longer a music factory. If a business wants to no longer charge and force a different type of market, then fine. That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the PEOPLE, not the businesses; and subsequently, obviously wanting the government to hand them something on a platter. I'm not against free stuff, such as music, which is what your post implies. I'm just saying that a company has the right to charge for its product (doesn't have to) and has the right to have that product protected from theft, which in this example would be in the form of copyright infringement.

[Edited on September 20, 2012 at 7:13 AM. Reason : .]

9/20/2012 7:11:15 AM

Quote :

"so... if you don't agree with the business model, then it's more ethical to just take the product of someone's work without paying them?"

Period.

I couldn't have said it better myself. This entire thing about "supporting artists" is an endorsement of a business model. Maybe the business model you want to support is a gift economy, maybe it's the indy scene, maybe it's Kickstarter, maybe it doesn't require any money at all.

Just the act of using Linux is empowering the community to some degree. If 25% of computer users were using Linux, many people would see that as a game changer, and other businesses like software and hardware makers would adapt, making the world easier for future users.

9/20/2012 11:59:40 AM

Cael, you're using musical artists as your example, which is understandable because music is the art form most able to survive a destruction of the current industry. Music acts could still be profitable from live performances even if all publishers were bankrupted.


However, please make your same case for big budget movies and video games, then I'll consider your argument.

[Edited on September 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2012 1:50:10 PM

^ Online games typically use servers that require a fee to play multiplayer right? Some have in game purchases for content and new levels. These things are possible to get without paying, but it's a lot harder to do when the games infrastructure is built into something online.

The world is becoming decentralized giving more opportunities to the little guys, it could be in the future that there won't be any big movies as we know them today.

9/20/2012 2:51:46 PM

soapbox style walls of text ITT

9/20/2012 3:28:02 PM

A future full of free to play shovelware and low budget indie garbage.

Plz god no

9/20/2012 5:11:33 PM

Quote :

"Some have in game purchases for content and new levels"

but by the "copying is not theft" logic, you'd just make copies of the content and new levels

9/20/2012 5:51:54 PM

^ Right and those with the technical no how may still add the content, but it's a lot easier to pay $2 for a level than figure out how to hack it in yourself. My time is worth more than $2/hr.

Quote :

"A future full of free to play shovelware and low budget indie garbage. "

I think we've seen enough remakes of 80s flicks and had enough Spiderman movies.

9/20/2012 6:33:09 PM

the woman that made this animation taught at the place where I went to grad school

9/20/2012 7:37:18 PM

She also once gave a performance-art show in 2004

and was on Springer 7 years earlier about wanting to join a suicide cult

9/20/2012 8:29:23 PM

yep...

that sounds like the caliber of person my grad school would recruit

9/20/2012 8:32:25 PM

...so you went to Parsons at the New School: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nina_Paley

TBQH, until I learned she had a husband, I thout she was a lesbian

9/20/2012 8:40:03 PM

Quote :

"I ask what is the difference between asking to be paid for an MP3 and asking to be paid for a ticket to a concert. You respond "they are different. [good work, you just got 1 point on the rubric scale for the NC writing test] The band is not present and performing when you play the song on your ipod." Let's analyze this response, shall we? "They are different." Good, you say there's a difference. Surely your next sentence will illustrate, in some way, a difference between the two. "The band is not present and performing when you play the song on your ipod." OK, this seems to be what you say is "different." For an MP3, the band is not present and performing. Because this is "different", then it must be the case that the band IS present and performing at a concert (which makes sense, or else it's not much of a live concert). Therefor, if we follow your logic, the band should be paid for a ticket to a concert, because they are present and performing. And, they should not be paid for an MP3, because they are not present and performing (otherwise it wouldn't be a "difference", right?). The thing that you say deserves payment is "being present and performing." Now, let's go a feeeeeeeew steps farther and put on our thinking caps and think about this response. A band should be paid for "being present and performing." In the process of creating an MP3, does the band ever need to be "present and performing"? Do you now see what I referred to as a "lack of logical reasoning"?"

Again, you're reading quite a bit into the few words that I posted.

9/20/2012 8:50:37 PM

Quote :

"One is an experience, heard of the Phish? You think they were as big as they were from CDs? They pulled in $75 million a year touring. It's an experience--one of the best things music has going for it in terms of monetizing in the digital environment."

What the hell does that even mean? An "Experience"? Why does that mean you can charge for one and not the other? Are you arguing that there is no "experience" when listening to an MP3? Cause I'd beg to differ. Why would the "experience" of a concert mean you can charge but the "experience" of listening to an MP3 doesn't?

Quote :

"Period. I couldn't have said it better myself."

Well, I'm glad to see that you think that theft is ethical. At least you are honest.

Quote :

"Again, you're reading quite a bit into the few words that I posted."

Well then, further explain them. Explain why what you say after saying "they are different" isn't a difference, when I asked for a difference. Did you just say "they are different. oranges taste good" or its equivalent? it almost sounds as if you said something that you thought made sense at the time, and then it was eviscerated, and now you don't know where to go at this point. Please, explain where in my post I deviated from what you were trying to say or what you were thinking when you said it.

9/20/2012 9:00:48 PM

You asked the ridiculous question of what's the difference between asking to be paid for an mp3 and a concert ticket.

The difference is, in one case you're asking to be paid for a piece of data. I did not claim that's an absurd thing to ask for. In the other case you're asking to be paid for a major live production. I did not claim that's more worthy of money than an mp3. That completely answers the question you originally asked. I chose to ignore your obvious slant and not participate in the argument you are so eager to get into. I was simply literally answering your super easy question.

For the record, I get music via Spotify premium and attend at least a show per week.

9/20/2012 10:19:07 PM

Community, geographical boundaries, proximity to peers, life story potential? Pick one?

Music used to be about the community pre modern recording industry. Quit dreaming in the 1990s. Its about the 1890s now.



[Edited on September 20, 2012 at 11:39 PM. Reason : a]

9/20/2012 11:36:58 PM

It also wasn't able to be distributed in recorded form at all back in the 1890s

9/21/2012 9:01:15 AM

I don't think the real issue is copying. If we can just narrow down the discussion for a moment to the recording industry it's pretty simple. Copying is theft but why is this now such a big deal, copying has been going on since, at least, dual cassette decks.

The problem is that "artists", or more likely the recording companies have seen revenues drop off during the past 10 years because you no longer have to buy entire CDs filled with shitty music for the one or two decent tracks. Now consumers have gained an edge and the record execs hate it. So they go after the pirates. Unfortunately I really feel unless you can actually prove that someone stole the song you shouldn't be able to go after them, as is usually the case that the theif (Michael Glapion) is not usually the owner of the access point.

9/21/2012 9:21:29 AM

There are two main reasons for making a big deal out of widespread copying now rather than earlier (although there were fear campaigns like "home taping is killing music"): First, there is no generational loss with digital copies as there is with analog; second, it is much easier to spread copyrighted material around the Internet than to send bootlegs around.

Quote :

"Copying is theft"

no, just...no

I mean did you even listen to the song in the OP?

9/21/2012 11:41:02 AM

1890s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPKe9OfWs-M

1990s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE_9CzLCbkY


So... When people can copy toothbrushes and cups in their home.

http://www.thingiverse.com/

http://www.makerbot.com/

Is everyone going to rally to the aid of Procter & Gamble? Whatever will they do? HOW WILL THEY MAKE MONEY??? THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO EVEN TRY!

9/21/2012 11:51:25 AM

Those specific examples are poor, because the cost of materials and energy by itself would make them uneconomical for 3D printing (as opposed to the industry standard injection-molding); also, much of P&G's product line consists of specific substances that cannot be obtained competitively by a typical consumer.

Still, there will be litigation (and may already be such) against people distributing 3D models of copyrighted designs, and worse, distributing 3D models of objects for which they have not licenced the necessary patents (this goes far beyond specific designs and involves the actual functionality, so if you patented a hand-tool for stripping berries off a vine without damaging the vine, and anyone else made such a tool without licensing your patent, even if it used a different design, it would violate the patent...but fortunately patents are for actually limited times), and the hammer of the law will fall harder on the distributors than the end-users of the illegally distributed designs.

9/21/2012 12:02:36 PM

Quote :

"If you are a software person there are plenty of ways to make money: Work for a company implementing a custom system, market yourself as a consultant by being visible in a community, build a service product that you sell access. For photography, a company that needs a photo, particularly if they have specific needs has 2 options. One, pay someone with aesthetic to go through thousands of photos to find the right one, which has the cost of both time and money. The other option is to find a photographer capable of providing exactly what you want and pay them lots of money for the custom job. Lots of photographers now sell all kinds of add on services to help them. Get creative... Please don't whine because you can't find a model that fits the modern world. If a bear is trying to eat you do you just say, "oh bother, guess i'm going to get eaten?" or do you kick and scream and try to find a rock or weapon? You're arguing for edge cases where someone has one brilliant photo that would have made them millions, but now just doesn't have the spark. Horseshit, people are just trying to find handouts instead of adapting. If it was easy to be successful everyone would do it. Parallel example, do you think Raleigh Denim said, "Hey the textile industry is dead in NC. Everyone is producing denim in China! You just can't compete with the cost of goods!" No! They fucking made a luxury product dumbasses in NY and SF pay $300 a pair for and sell the story of their success to the angry white men working in textiles of bringing textile worker jobs back to NC and the US creating word of mouth referrals. Christ, no wonder this country is in the shitter, no one has any imagination."

This pretty much covers it.

Intellectual property is not property. Protection of property rights, specifically the enforcement of property rights, requires that a person be able to show that they have been harmed in some way. Property has to be taken.

Well, in the case of music, or software, or genetically modified seeds, or even drugs, no one has a legitimate claim to potential (but not realized) profits. You came up with an idea and someone else used it. Welcome to human civilization. Literally everything we have in terms of advancement requires that someone stole/borrowed/took ideas hatched in some other person's brain.

Get creative. Find ways to get people to voluntarily give you money for the good or service you provide. Don't lobby the government for patents or copyrights so that you don't have to compete. Not only does it fuck over innocent people but it prevents progress. Established industry lobbies for patents so that they don't have to compete with new market entrants. Massive, insurmountable barriers to entry are created through IP, all for the stated purpose of "recouping R&D costs". All of this just means higher prices and lower quality for the consumer.

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2012 12:19:07 PM

Meh, things are only going to get worse. Pretty soon you'll have to pay for a song every time you listen to it and DVDs will only play two or three times and then "expire"...video games too. This is the new entertainment industry business model.

9/21/2012 12:31:26 PM

Also, someone mentioned video games as an area where copyright is necessary. Take a look at the success of a game like League of Legends, or any other product on a "freemium" model. League of Legends is totally free, but you can pay if you want to unlock champions faster or get special skins that make you look different but don't actually alter game play. People will pay in cases where they don't necessarily have to.

Quote :

"Meh, things are only going to get worse. Pretty soon you'll have to pay for a song every time you listen to it and DVDs will only play two or three times and then "expire"...video games too. This is the new entertainment industry business model."

Based on what I'm seeing, we're going in the opposite direction, which is great.

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 12:38 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2012 12:37:39 PM

^ So if I took league of legends, repackaged it on my own severs, and sold all that crap for 10% of what the company that developed it is charging, what then? Currently existing IP laws protect "freemium" software also, it doesn't exist in spite of them.

New or Innovative marketing strategies doesn't mean copyright protection is unnecessary.


Just because something does not exist as a physical object does not mean its just an "idea"

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2012 1:59:18 PM

^

There's no fucking way you could do that with modern tech in a time efficient/cost effective way. It'd be cheaper to just do a wholesale copy from scratch.

While you are out trying to copy the backend the original author is adding additional functionality and bug fixing leaving you forced to start over.

But assuming we are 40 years in the future with sophisticated machine learning that can generate your servers more power to ya. Though with that power there are hundreds of other application that would be more lucrative.

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 5:03 PM. Reason : a]

9/21/2012 4:51:55 PM

Bullshit, even if you couldn't modify the game itself you can still rip out most of the code and assets. Start from scratch my ass.

Piracy might not be as big of a problem as media industries claim, but without copyright protection there would be nothing protecting companies from each other, which would be incredibly destructive to both the industry and anyone who cares about quality content.

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2012 5:25:26 PM

^

I can see how that business plan conversation goes. We have all the assets for <Insert Modern Warfare Title or other big game>. We just need a team of 150 hot shit developers to implement it. Budget will be $50 million and take two years.

Who the fuck is going to fund that business model? Who the fuck would want to work on a copy product?

9/24/2012 2:16:17 PM

Quote :

"Meh, things are only going to get worse. Pretty soon you'll have to pay for a song every time you listen to it and DVDs will only play two or three times and then "expire"...video games too. This is the new entertainment industry business model."

actually, it's an old business model that failed...called divx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX

9/24/2012 2:19:20 PM

^^ I have no idea where you get those numbers from. So I'll just bring up the point I've made before but has never been addressed.

How do you feel about counterfeit money?

[Edited on September 24, 2012 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ]

9/24/2012 4:56:41 PM

^

It costs a lot of money and time, even if you have all the art to build a software product. Even if you start with a working copy, and have all the art and dev tools for the game(which is unlikely), it's going to cost a fortune in development costs to replicate it. Even if the counterfeit gets the game exactly right it's going to be out some time later, at which point the other studio has probably already built a superior product.

To put it another way, if the bills were invalidated every 2 years and it took 2 years and $200 to make a $100 bill, then no it wouldn't be a problem.

9/24/2012 5:25:41 PM