Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 08:19:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  News  |  Topic: Does it come down to trust? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Does it come down to trust?  (Read 177662 times)
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #140 on: May 02, 2008, 01:09:04 PM

I wish that I could believe these distributors acted with only the best interests of humanity in mind, but I really don't buy it.  They had financial incentives for doing so and I'm willing to bet that their distribution helped them in financial ways, at least before the litigation started.

Buh?  How is a guy in a college dorm with a shared folder full of MP3s (this is how Napster started, and this type of "sharer" remains the backbone of noncommercial piracy) financially motivated?  How does he derive revenue from his dormmates listening to his music collection?  What sort of a business model is that?  Have you ever made a mix tape and given it to a friend for free?  How much money did you make off that little transaction?

You might be able to argue that Napster Software Inc. or YouTube or whoever is able to make money off that once they can interpose themselves into that process, but it's still all nothing without that guy who bought the CDs and then decided to share them with others for free.

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #141 on: May 02, 2008, 01:53:33 PM

You might be able to argue that Napster Software Inc. or YouTube or whoever is able to make money off that once they can interpose themselves into that process, but it's still all nothing without that guy who bought the CDs and then decided to share them with others for free.

Ah, that's the target (i.e. Napster etc.) I was focusing on.  I apologize for my misunderstanding. 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #142 on: May 02, 2008, 01:56:39 PM

The problem comes in that the entertainment industries do not distinguish between the two. They call them both dirty pirates and curse them to hell. They should be cultivating the buyer and attacking the seller.

Yes, I see your point.  It's silly to treat the small-timer and the major offender as one and the same.  I do understand what you mean by the "piracy-turned-customer" bit as well.  I've known many folks that have downloaded a single song only to end up as a full cd customer.  I guess that I still have many personal experiences that anger me about this whole situation.  Seems that smart artists would allow free downloads of single songs with the hope of attracting a stronger following.  Struggling bands do this all the time... and it often works.  My anger is really pointed toward those individuals that pirate music/software because of convenience.  When you corner them on the ethics of it, they refuse to accept the responsibility for their action.  I just can't comprehend how people think it's not stealing just because they're using their own equipment anonymously to obtain it.  Grrrr... sorry. 
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 02:05:42 PM by Nebu »

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #143 on: May 02, 2008, 02:12:04 PM

Ah, that's the target (i.e. Napster etc.) I was focusing on.

And yet the Napsters (the ones making the money) generally aren't the ones in direct violation of copyright law.  Napster in particular should never have been found liable for anything IMO, since they were just a search engine (imagine prosecuting Google because people are able to use it to find illegal websites).

Note also that file/content sharing has been around since long before anyone thought to monetize it.  Napster was pretty much the first, and it didn't start off as a commercial app; it was written because the pool of shared files in the author's dorm was getting too big to search through manually and he wanted an easier way for him and his friends to find each other's stuff.

Bootlegging is of course a very lucrative industry and always has been, but that's entirely separate from file sharing and has been around for much longer.

I agree with you in principle that people who just want to get shit for free that they would otherwise have paid for suck, btw.  But I think it's making a pretty giant leap to say that all file sharing is equivalent to lost sales, or that the existence of those freeloaders justifies cornholing your paying customers, or that anyone who's ever downloaded a torrent is the scum of the earth.

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #144 on: May 02, 2008, 02:48:50 PM

I agree with you in principle that people who just want to get shit for free that they would otherwise have paid for suck, btw.  But I think it's making a pretty giant leap to say that all file sharing is equivalent to lost sales, or that the existence of those freeloaders justifies cornholing your paying customers, or that anyone who's ever downloaded a torrent is the scum of the earth.

I wasn't saying anything of the like, btw.  I'm not naive enough to think that every pirate is a lost sale nor do I think that pirates are necessarily scum.

For the record, I think of most music/software pirates as being akin to petty shoplifters.  Individually, they really don't have much impact on the industry at all.  When you have millions of shoplifting events a year, it has a significat effect on the cost of goods for PAYING CUSTOMERS.  I saw this in spades when I was a department head for a local stearo shop in Minneapolis during the 80's.  You may have heard of Best Buy Co.  Now, shoplifting of tangible good is very different than a download (i.e. not all downloads are lost revenue, etc.) but I think there are plenty of similarities when it comes to principle. 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #145 on: May 02, 2008, 03:36:55 PM

For the record, I think of most music/software pirates as being akin to petty shoplifters.  Individually, they really don't have much impact on the industry at all.  When you have millions of shoplifting events a year, it has a significat effect on the cost of goods for PAYING CUSTOMERS.  I saw this in spades when I was a department head for a local stearo shop in Minneapolis during the 80's.  You may have heard of Best Buy Co.  Now, shoplifting of tangible good is very different than a download (i.e. not all downloads are lost revenue, etc.) but I think there are plenty of similarities when it comes to principle. 

The comparison breaks down when you try to assign a dollar value to individual acts of piracy.  It's very easy to assign a value to an act of shoplifting -- it's the price the store paid for the item plus the price of whatever labor is required to replace it.  Even if this value is very small, you can multiply it by the number of shoplifters and arrive very simply at a combined cost to the store (which is then shouldered by consumers).

What if each individual act of shoplifting somehow cost the store exactly $0 (suppose each shoplifter walked out the door, walked back in, and replaced the thing they'd stolen without being detected)?  Does it matter how many shoplifters there are then?  Any number times $0 is still $0.

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #146 on: May 02, 2008, 04:19:02 PM

The comparison breaks down when you try to assign a dollar value to individual acts of piracy.  It's very easy to assign a value to an act of shoplifting -- it's the price the store paid for the item plus the price of whatever labor is required to replace it.  Even if this value is very small, you can multiply it by the number of shoplifters and arrive very simply at a combined cost to the store (which is then shouldered by consumers).

What if each individual act of shoplifting somehow cost the store exactly $0 (suppose each shoplifter walked out the door, walked back in, and replaced the thing they'd stolen without being detected)?  Does it matter how many shoplifters there are then?  Any number times $0 is still $0.

I think this is where we disagree.  I believe that each act of piracy has a cost albeit a cost significantly lower than what the music/game industry would have you believe.  So in my opinion it's not multiplication by zero but by some very small number.  I think it's incorrect to assume that they don't lose at least a few sales from piracy.  Again, we just differ in opinion.

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Murgos
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7474


Reply #147 on: May 03, 2008, 05:27:33 AM

I think it's incorrect to assume that they don't lose at least a few sales from piracy.

Assigning values to potential acts off in the future, particularly when they may not be probable, is pretty much always going to be arguable.

"You have all recieved youre last warning. I am in the process of currently tracking all of youre ips and pinging your home adressess. you should not have commencemed a war with me" - Aaron Rayburn
IainC
Developers
Posts: 6538

Wargaming.net


WWW
Reply #148 on: May 03, 2008, 05:58:20 AM

I think it's incorrect to assume that they don't lose at least a few sales from piracy.

Assigning values to potential acts off in the future, particularly when they may not be probable, is pretty much always going to be arguable.
Not really. If you assume the game was not piratable at all then the people who pirate it fall into two camps. Those who wouldn't buy the game anyway because they don't care enough to buy it and those who would have bought it but preferred getting it for free.

It's not really possible to determine the relative size of each group but it is fair to say that sales are lost to piracy.

- And in stranger Iains, even Death may die -

SerialForeigner Photography.
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #149 on: May 03, 2008, 09:01:22 AM

Not really. If you assume the game was not piratable at all then the people who pirate it fall into two camps. Those who wouldn't buy the game anyway because they don't care enough to buy it and those who would have bought it but preferred getting it for free.

It's not really possible to determine the relative size of each group but it is fair to say that sales are lost to piracy.

This is fair to say -- but anyone who says HOW MANY sales are lost OVERALL (i.e. sales lost minus sales gained) is pulling numbers out of their ass.  Because, as you said, you might be able to determine how many people downloaded a copy of a game, but there's no way to determine whether they would have bought it otherwise, or whether they bought it anyway, or whether that's why they bought it, or neither.

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
Ratman_tf
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3818


Reply #150 on: May 03, 2008, 06:44:00 PM

It's not really possible to determine the relative size of each group but it is fair to say that sales are lost to piracy.

Sure, but not to the extent of 3-4 million copies, as Mr. Yerli seems to insinuate.

Does anyone think that WoW would have 10 million subs if it had system requirement like Crysis?



 "What I'm saying is you should make friends with a few catasses, they smell funny but they're very helpful."
-Calantus makes the best of a smelly situation.
Murgos
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7474


Reply #151 on: May 04, 2008, 10:46:35 AM

I think it's incorrect to assume that they don't lose at least a few sales from piracy.

Assigning values to potential acts off in the future, particularly when they may not be probable, is pretty much always going to be arguable.
Not really. If you assume the game was not piratable at all then the people who pirate it fall into two camps. Those who wouldn't buy the game anyway because they don't care enough to buy it and those who would have bought it but preferred getting it for free.

It's not really possible to determine the relative size of each group but it is fair to say that sales are lost to piracy.
I was pretty clear that I was talking about assigning values and that you wouldn't be able to make a claim and not have it be, at least partially, refutable.  Hence, this thread and the thousands like it across the internet.

"You have all recieved youre last warning. I am in the process of currently tracking all of youre ips and pinging your home adressess. you should not have commencemed a war with me" - Aaron Rayburn
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #152 on: May 05, 2008, 01:16:37 PM

Individually, they really don't have much impact on the industry at all.  When you have millions of shoplifting events a year, it has a significat effect on the cost of goods for PAYING CUSTOMERS. 

I'm going to get snarky here when I say that the cost of shoplifting or piracy has MUCH MUCH LESS effect on the price of CD's than corporate price-fixing has since the introduction of the CD format. Remember when CD's were $18 and the industry said they would drop in price once CD's were the standard industry format? CD's are still $18 now (barring sale prices that are highly variable), despite the cost of production going through the floor AND the format being the standard physical delivery medium.

Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #153 on: May 05, 2008, 02:23:33 PM

Should I be snarky back and say that $18 now is significantly less expensive when compared to $18 in 1984 and adjusted for inflation?I remember paying $25-$30 for a cd when I sold stereo gear in the early 80's.  I never dreamed I could buy compilation disks for $5 like I can now.

You're still correct.  The music industry is artificially adding cost because it's what the market is willing to pay.  I don't agree with their figures for lost sales either.  I still believe that we are absorbing at least some small part of the losses to piracy.  It's entirely possible that were piracy eliminated 100% that they'd not lower the price at all as well.  So maybe I am wrong. 


"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #154 on: May 05, 2008, 03:01:00 PM

I'm quite confident that the industry is losing much more to its fight against piracy (money spent developing new antipiracy measures, money spent hiring people to track down and prosecute suspected pirates, money lost by driving paying customers away) than it ever could to piracy itself.

Which means either that they're stupid (possible) or that it's a smokescreen for them to get something else that will pay off bigger.  Like, say, shutting down cheap distribution channels for indy music and thereby removing some competition, or moving toward dismantling consumer rights afforded by current copyright law (first sale in particular), or both.

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #155 on: May 06, 2008, 08:20:27 AM

It's entirely possible that were piracy eliminated 100% that they'd not lower the price at all as well. 

Now you and I both KNOW the answer to that. They wouldn't lower the goddamn price one dime so long as enough people were still paying it.

Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #156 on: May 06, 2008, 08:22:23 AM

Now you and I both KNOW the answer to that. They wouldn't lower the goddamn price one dime so long as enough people were still paying it.

I know that you're right.  It just took me a little while to get there. 


"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #157 on: May 06, 2008, 09:32:13 AM

Now you and I both KNOW the answer to that. They wouldn't lower the goddamn price one dime so long as enough people were still paying it.

I know that you're right.  It just took me a little while to get there. 

Now, if this is true, and the high prices are currently fixed by high demand, and making the assumption (which I still don't think is valid) that piracy cuts into sales, wouldn't it LOWER prices for legitimate consumers by lowering demand without lowering supply?   Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
cmlancas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2511


Reply #158 on: May 06, 2008, 09:38:50 AM

I think now is a good time for me to play with the "report to moderator" button that I just received access to!

 DRILLING AND MANLINESS

f13 Street Cred of the week:
I can't promise anything other than trauma and tragedy. -- schild
bhodi
Moderator
Posts: 6817

No lie.


Reply #159 on: May 06, 2008, 10:56:19 AM

Well, apparently EA does not feel particularly trusting. Both Mass Effect and Spore PC releases are going to use the new (crippling, IMO) version of SecurROM:
Quote
Mass Effect uses SecuROM and requires an online activation for the first time that you play it. Each copy of Mass Effect comes with a CD Key which is used for this activation and for registration here at the BioWare Community. Mass Effect does not require the DVD to be in the drive in order to play, it is only for installation.

After the first activation, SecuROM requires that it re-check with the server within ten days (in case the CD Key has become public/warez'd and gets banned). Just so that the 10 day thing doesn't become abrupt, SecuROM tries its first re-check with 5 days remaining in the 10 day window. If it can't contact the server before the 10 days are up, nothing bad happens and the game still runs. After 10 days a re-check is required before the game can run.

Please feel free to ask any follow up questions in this thread and I will try and answer them when I can.
Quote
For clarity, though, an internet connection is not required to install, just to activate the first time, and every 10 days after. You can be completely connectionless for 9 days and encounter no problems playing Mass Effect. And you don't need the disk in the drive to play.
Quote
Yes, EA is ready for us and getting ready for Spore, which will use the same system.

This new version isn't just a forced internet activation like bioshock, it's required every 10 days or the game won't run.

It apparently doesn't require the disc to be in the drive, though. One step forward, two steps back.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 11:14:14 AM by bhodi »
Der Helm
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4025


Reply #160 on: May 06, 2008, 11:30:50 AM

Shit like that is the reason the only games I played in the last years are MMOs.

(and my shitty computer of course)

"I've been done enough around here..."- Signe
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #161 on: May 06, 2008, 11:38:51 AM

Pretty obnoxious, but not quite enough for me to want to boycott/warez Spore.  Internet requirement is better than perpetual CD requirement in my book.  I'll be wanting it to phone home regularly to get me new player content anyway.

Shit like that is the reason the only games I played in the last years are MMOs.

Did you know that MMOs phone home EVERY time you play them?   Spinning star

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
Tebonas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6365


Reply #162 on: May 07, 2008, 12:46:32 AM

Thats not ideal, but better than the CD requirement copy protections. Depends on the actual implementation. Can I do the online check and then disconnect and play offline?

Basically Steam does the same and nobody whines about it. Beside getting the English version instead of a translated one, not having to hunt down a CD for a quick game of whatever is a godsend.
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23612


Reply #163 on: May 07, 2008, 01:34:37 AM

Basically Steam does the same and nobody whines about it.
I whine about it constantly.
Tebonas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6365


Reply #164 on: May 07, 2008, 01:42:45 AM

I stand corrected. Still better than that CD crap, though.
Velorath
Contributor
Posts: 8980


Reply #165 on: May 09, 2008, 02:17:45 PM

Looks like they got rid of the every 10 days thing.

Quote
Q: Did BioWare and EA change their mind on requiring that the game be re-authorized every 10 days?

A: BioWare has always listened very closely to its fans and we made this decision to ensure we are delivering the best possible experience to them. To all the fans including our many friends in the armed services and internationally who expressed concerns that they would not be able re-authenticate as often as required, EA and BioWare want you to know that your feedback is important to us.

Q: If the game isn’t going to require an authentication every 10 days, will it ever require re-authentication?

A: Only if the player chooses to download new game content.

It was mentioned elsewhere that Spore will also no longer require authentication every 10 days.


Triforcer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4663


Reply #166 on: May 09, 2008, 04:42:57 PM

What I find amusing about this debate is that all the "pro" piracy arguments center around hypothesizing about how piracy is really in a business's best interest, and that justifies calling executives idiots and/or not cracking down on piracy.

Shouldn't we trust the business acumen of, you know, businessmen and people with actual business degrees when evaluating how they best make money?  Make moral arguments for piracy if you must, but don't tell me you know the economics of the entertainment industry better than people in the industry unless you can flash me a Wharton degree. 

All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu.  This is the truth!  This is my belief! At least for now...
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #167 on: May 09, 2008, 06:15:06 PM

Remember that these are the same people who said that the advent of the home VCR would spell the death of the movie industry.  And that the Xerox machine would leave brilliant writers starving in the streets.

 awesome, for real

The only question is whether they actually believe their own claims or not.  Stupid, or lying?  Hard to tell.

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
Triforcer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4663


Reply #168 on: May 09, 2008, 06:33:42 PM

Remember that these are the same people who said that the advent of the home VCR would spell the death of the movie industry.  And that the Xerox machine would leave brilliant writers starving in the streets.

 awesome, for real

The only question is whether they actually believe their own claims or not.  Stupid, or lying?  Hard to tell.

Why would they be "lying?"  If saying "PIRACY AHOY" increased profits and they knew that, they'd be doing it.

And no, business execs aren't always right.  But they get the presumption versus random people who hate capitalism, especially when the countering argument is "you'll do better if you give your product away!"

EDIT: And having this debate in the context of a game that sells a million copies is misleading.  Sure, here, piracy probably didn't keep them from turning a profit.  What about MARGINAL games that would otherwise turn a small profit and give a new company a boost, if not for piracy?  But that feeds into the original constitutional justification for copyright, which again makes certain assumptions about capitalism and the impetus for creative innovation that 95% of this community probably doesn't agree with.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2008, 06:41:06 PM by Triforcer »

All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu.  This is the truth!  This is my belief! At least for now...
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #169 on: May 09, 2008, 11:36:53 PM

Why would they be "lying?"

This has already been covered, but shutting down competition and curtailing consumer rights are the two obvious motivations for people in the music industry to go along with the story.  First sale is already being eroded pretty quickly for things like iTunes purchases, "you can only install this 3 times ever" DRM, and (sad to say) Steam purchases.  Free Internet radio is pretty much dead thanks to RIAA-pushed legislation (except for the stations owned by Clearchannel and its ilk, of course), which is a shame because it could have done for indy labels what terrestrial radio has been doing for the big labels.

As far as the software industry, I suspect that it's a marketing tactic by SecuROM and its ilk -- the developers are probably for the most part smart enough to know that it's costing them more than it's saving, but SecuROM will have an army of reps whose job it is to terrorize the shareholders who don't know any better and convince them that if they don't license SecuROM's latest, greatest, and most restrictive software they won't see a dime of profit on their newest game.  (Of course, if sales drop and piracy increases when it turns out that the copy protection actually makes legit copies of the game unplayable, it's only evidence that the pirate menace is on the rise and you'd better buy our Premium package that we're coming out with next year which makes the disk self-destruct after installation.)

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
Sairon
Terracotta Army
Posts: 866


Reply #170 on: May 10, 2008, 04:09:36 AM

It's all a matter of perspective. Marketing execs tends to look at it from a different angle than the consumer, which I think is proven by some of the ridiculous claims we've seen in the past "We've lost X amount of millions because of piracy, X is the amount of money which the sales of the total number of downloads we've tracked!". Apparently a Wharton degree wasn't enough to spot the obvious that is iTunes, while the service that is iTunes was even suggested by consumers a long time before its arrival.
Krakrok
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2189


Reply #171 on: May 10, 2008, 08:55:23 AM

What I find amusing about this debate is that all the "pro" piracy arguments center around hypothesizing about how piracy is really in a business's best interest, and that justifies calling executives idiots and/or not cracking down on piracy.

Shouldn't we trust the business acumen of, you know, businessmen and people with actual business degrees when evaluating how they best make money?  Make moral arguments for piracy if you must, but don't tell me you know the economics of the entertainment industry better than people in the industry unless you can flash me a Wharton degree. 

You want people to trust business executives in America?  swamp poop And some piece of paper describing academic hoops jumped through is suppose to make people more trustworthy? As has been discussed on this site before it isn't only about the money. Once you have $X amount of money it ceases to be the only factor.

It's about control. It's not about business; it's about executive ego. If it was really about the money they would just buy offending sites and co-op them. It would cost less and be more productive than paying millions of dollars in lawyers to shut them down. "These pirate fuckers are stealing my shit and I'm going to destroy them! What's that you say? Google and YouTube are stealing my shit? Oh, let's have an executive love fest and do a deal."

It's laughable that the RIAA is still suing individuals when every song ever is available on YouTube. Arguments like "but what about the little guy!?!" are a fraud. The little guy doesn't have enough money to do anything about copyright infringement via the American court system.
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #172 on: May 10, 2008, 09:09:19 AM

The "little guy" (e.g. small software companies and indy bands) are generally the most cool about offering free demos, non-DRMed online purchases, etc.  They know what's what.  They stand to benefit far more from good word of mouth for their product (even if it means a few people might get it for free) than they would from trying to sue and/or alienate their own small fanbases.

You can only afford to alienate the source of your revenue when you already have what basically amounts to a monopoly over the medium, and the only thing keeping you there is terrorizing the people you work for into believing that they actually need the service you provide (well, that or having them under contract so that it doesn't matter).

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #173 on: May 13, 2008, 12:37:04 PM

But that feeds into the original constitutional justification for copyright

You really don't want to go there in this context. If you want to talk about the ORIGINAL justification for copyright, it was so that some other guy couldn't make money off of my creations. Walt Disney could be protected from someone using Mickey Mouse, not the board of the very late Walt Disney's theme park media empire being able to continually extend copyright material indefinitely. It was also supposed to expire soon after the original creator's death.

Don't bring in the Constitution, when many of those Wharton cunts you idolize keep trying to move the goal posts on what copyright is supposed to protect. Oh yes, and they also use copyrights they swindled from creators who just wanted their creations published and wanted to make a decent living off of them. You can talk about the original constitutional justification for copyright, but it isn't on the side of people like the Disney Corporation.

Triforcer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4663


Reply #174 on: May 13, 2008, 01:54:08 PM

But that feeds into the original constitutional justification for copyright

You really don't want to go there in this context. If you want to talk about the ORIGINAL justification for copyright, it was so that some other guy couldn't make money off of my creations. Walt Disney could be protected from someone using Mickey Mouse, not the board of the very late Walt Disney's theme park media empire being able to continually extend copyright material indefinitely. It was also supposed to expire soon after the original creator's death.

Don't bring in the Constitution, when many of those Wharton cunts you idolize keep trying to move the goal posts on what copyright is supposed to protect. Oh yes, and they also use copyrights they swindled from creators who just wanted their creations published and wanted to make a decent living off of them. You can talk about the original constitutional justification for copyright, but it isn't on the side of people like the Disney Corporation.

So Constitutional copyright protection only applies when the supposed infringer is making a profit?  Every constitutional scholar ever would beg to disagree with you (yes, I understand fair use, but I don't think anyone argues game/music piracy really falls within that doctrine).  Why does this Age of Aquarius stuff seep into every piracy argument?  I always get the feeling that although the pro-piracy crowd is happy to cite numbers, split hairs over statutory interpretation, and cite empirical data when it suits their purposes, undernearth it all is some sort of towering moral indignation about how the corporations won't let music be free like your soul, man.

Note:  I agree with you about the ridiculous nature of the SCOTUS's recent opinion on the temporal extension of copyright.  But that isn't what this discussion has been about.

EDIT:  And again, making this about the huge corps wrongfully frames the issue.  But its easier to demonize copyright because of MegaCorp whining about making X million instead of X+1 then it is to think about the budding entrepreneurs and small businesses that piracy kills.  Letting copyright protect the "good" entrepreneurs necessarily means some "bad" ones will take advantage, but that's no justification for gutting copyright. 
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 02:04:26 PM by Triforcer »

All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu.  This is the truth!  This is my belief! At least for now...
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  News  |  Topic: Does it come down to trust?  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC