Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[Storm Raven]

Stealing entertainment is not forthe most part in the public good. Stealing some persons (not corporations) livelyhood is wrong.

Corporations are people. Not in the sense that they are persons in the eyes of the law. In the sense that a corporation represents the investment of hundreds of people who have invested in it. When you decide that corporations are worthy of being screwed, you are saying that little old ladies who have put their money aside for a rainy day are worthy of being screwed. Workers with pension funds are worthy of being screwed. Your neighbor who put some money aside to fund his child's college education is worthy of being screwed.

OTOH if Brazil decides not to honor big pharmas copyright on a drug the people of Brazil need and can't afford -- I can't really get upset.

So, you'd rather not have pharmaceutical research? Because that's what you will get if you make it unprofitable.

I think the best way to research medicine is with openess and government funding so that the most humans can benefit. Take 100 Billion USD and X Nillion USD and set the scientists loose without copyright or anything else and you will probably get just as good ro better results than Pharam Corp can manage. As an added advantage the knowledge can better more people and the drugs will be cheaper too

Governments have a really poor track record of producing new medicines. There is a reason that the U.S. produces the vast majority of new drugs, and it isn't because we have smarter scientists than everyone else.

Cost of entry is cash and set up time only in my book . The labor you put in is your choice. If you are unhappy with your art than don't work so d--- hard. We do not need to reward people who do not keep their art life in balance with the rest of thier life. Thats a bad choice and while IMO people do have the right to make poor choices we do not need to reward them for it.

With the net result that little, if any, new IP will be produced. I suppose if you want to go back to the days where the only art and literature that got put out were politically motivated efforts funded by the superwealthy to aggrandize themselves, then you should be all for abolishing copyright.

As for other things -- new power sources, drugs and the like -- these things are hard goods hard goods with a very high cost of entry. As I mentioned above they really should be done by governments and in many cases open source.

No, ultimately they are ideas. A new power source is an idea. A new drug is an idea. Copyrights and patents encourage the makers of those ideas to put them out to the public. Without them, new power sources would likely be kept a secrets, hoarded in ways that those who invented them could best profit from them without making them public.

That's what IP laws are all about: encouraging people to come up with stuff and put it out there. Without IP, information becomes worthy of hoarding. Getting rid of IP laws won't promote the free flow of information, it will promote horading and hiding it.

With apologies for the politcal bit --
There are more models than US Capitalism, Communism,and and Tyranny -- Do a bit of research and you will find that Social Democracy works quite well. There are other models than can be tried too . Granted Tyranny and Communism suck, True Communism fails the human nature test Facism is bad. Anarcho Syndalism fails the human nature test but there are others options

Social democracy is a nice idea, but it doesn't work all that well. I've done the research. Social democracy usually results in economies crippled and governments adrift. There's a reason why most European countries have higher unemployment and lower growth than the U.S., and its not because we are any more deserving.

The trick is too make laws that work best for the most people not Corporations

Corporations are just groups of people who have pooled their resources to fund a business that no one of them would likely be able to feasibly raise capital for. They are, in point of fact, one of the most egalitarian constructs of the modern era. Without them, only the very wealthy would be able to afford the go into business - corporations are, in many ways, our best defense against the rebirth of feudalism.

 

[Lazybones]

Corporations are people. Not in the sense that they are persons in the eyes of the law. In the sense that a corporation represents the investment of hundreds of people who have invested in it. When you decide that corporations are worthy of being screwed, you are saying that little old ladies who have put their money aside for a rainy day are worthy of being screwed. Workers with pension funds are worthy of being screwed. Your neighbor who put some money aside to fund his child's college education is worthy of being screwed.

True. They are also self-interested organizations with very focused goals--maximizing return for their shareholders--which do not necessarily coincide with the interests of society at large.

Governments have a really poor track record of producing new medicines. There is a reason that the U.S. produces the vast majority of new drugs, and it isn't because we have smarter scientists than everyone else.

I do not have hard data close at hand (and I'm heading out to dinner, so no time to Google right now), but I've heard that a significant percentage of medical advances come out of public university laboratories (some of which gets funded by private dollars, of course, but the facilities and researchers are public).

With the net result that little, if any, new IP will be produced. I suppose if you want to go back to the days where the only art and literature that got put out were politically motivated efforts funded by the superwealthy to aggrandize themselves, then you should be all for abolishing copyright.

You mean back when literacy was extremely limited and distribution of content was extremely difficult? Sorry, I don't buy it. Check out the Story Hour forum on this very site for an example of why you are wrong.

No, ultimately they are ideas. A new power source is an idea. A new drug is an idea. Copyrights and patents encourage the makers of those ideas to put them out to the public. Without them, new power sources would likely be kept a secrets, hoarded in ways that those who invented them could best profit from them without making them public.

That's what IP laws are all about: encouraging people to come up with stuff and put it out there. Without IP, information becomes worthy of hoarding. Getting rid of IP laws won't promote the free flow of information, it will promote horading and hiding it.

I'll concede that copyright is useful. It's the length of current copyright I have a problem with (and I know you were responding to another poster with different views). Let people make their profit (14 years is long enough), and then let everyone benefit from those ideas.

 

[Psionicist]

Corporations are people. Not in the sense that they are persons in the eyes of the law. In the sense that a corporation represents the investment of hundreds of people who have invested in it. When you decide that corporations are worthy of being screwed, you are saying that little old ladies who have put their money aside for a rainy day are worthy of being screwed. Workers with pension funds are worthy of being screwed. Your neighbor who put some money aside to fund his child's college education is worthy of being screwed.

Same logic:

Organizations such as Al-Qaeda are people. Not in the sense that they are persons in the eyes of the law. In the sense that an organization represents the investment of hundreds of people who have invested in it. When you decide that organizations are worthy of being screwed, you are saying that little old ladies who have put their money aside for a rainy day are worthy of being screwed. Workers with pension funds are worthy of being screwed. Your neighbor who put some money aside to fund his child's college education is worthy of being screwed.

 

[Falkus]

Strawman much? There's a big difference between criminals and white collar workers.

 

[Storm Raven]

True. They are also self-interested organizations with very focused goals--maximizing return for their shareholders--which do not necessarily coincide with the interests of society at large.

But that is exactly what IP law is all about - funneling the action of profit seeking corporations into filling the interests of society at large. In this case, it is being pushed towards producing IP that people need, or simply want.

I do not have hard data close at hand (and I'm heading out to dinner, so no time to Google right now), but I've heard that a significant percentage of medical advances come out of public university laboratories (some of which gets funded by private dollars, of course, but the facilities and researchers are public).

Given that a majority of universities in the United States are private institutions, you'd probably be off the mark. This is coupled with the fact that a large proportion of university research is funded via private grants.

You mean back when literacy was extremely limited and distribution of content was extremely difficult? Sorry, I don't buy it. Check out the Story Hour forum on this very site for an example of why you are wrong.

IP isn't all about literature. There are a host of other media out there, sculpture, painting, and other art forms were monopolised by the wealthy until very recently. And if the story hour forum is what we can expect as the pinnacle of literature in a copyrightless world, I'll pass. It can be fun, but most professional authors are miles ahead in the entertaining department. Of course, you'll have to say good bye to a large proportion of visual media too, since that costs money to make, and convincing investors to fund their creation will be difficutl if there isn't any potential profit.

I'll concede that copyright is useful. It's the length of current copyright I have a problem with (and I know you were responding to another poster with different views). Let people make their profit (14 years is long enough), and then let everyone benefit from those ideas.

That may be a good idea. But given that this has almost nothing to do with illegal downloading (since the vast majority of downloads are of material that would still be protected, even if the copyright term was reduced to one or two decades), it isn't a particularly useful one with respect to the topic at hand.

 

[Storm Raven]

Same logic:

Not even close.

Organizations such as Al-Qaeda are people.

Yes, they are. However, they are people organized for an express criminal purpose. You can be a wild-eyed anarchist all you want and decry corporations as evil, but you will be a silly person when you do. Corporations are put together to engage in legal business, usually to fill significant needs along the way (since that is how you make money).

When you understand the difference between a legal objective and an illegal one, your opinions might hold water.

 

[Turjan]

Social democracy is a nice idea, but it doesn't work all that well. I've done the research. Social democracy usually results in economies crippled and governments adrift. There's a reason why most European countries have higher unemployment and lower growth than the U.S., and its not because we are any more deserving.

Since 1975, the growth in the U.S. happens for the sole benefit of the top 20% of the households (source: CIA World Factbook) and is accompanied by much more severe poverty (see same source or list of gini coefficients on Wikipedia). There are obviously different ways to look at this, so it's better to refrain from any further political side blows against European economies .

I'm not really sure what this has to do with the piracy discussion, either.

 

[Ace]

hey Storm Raven

I like the debate but we are abusing the forum. If you feel it is essential

to continue pop over to RPG.net and post on tangency -- this kind of thing is

cool there. Frankly I have broken the rules enough here so forgive my lack of reply and don't take it as giving in -- I luurve a good argument

 

[Ace]

Since 1975, the growth in the U.S. happens for the sole benefit of the top 20% of the households (source: CIA World Factbook) and is accompanied by much more severe poverty (see same source or list of gini coefficients on Wikipedia). There are obviously different ways to look at this, so it's better to refrain from any further political side blows against European economies .

I'm not really sure what this has to do with the piracy discussion, either.

It has nothing to do with piracy (yarr!) or copyright infringement either -- thanks for the fact though

Oh yeah and just for the record. I don't pirate movies, books, music or anything else -- its not cool

I want to change laws not break em

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

You really don't know much about computer games, do you? Most games on the market are not sequels. And I don't see how bringing up non-sequitors helps your argument.

The point is that a large section of the computer game market is simply improving upon last years' game-- which is accomplished automatically by upgrades and revisions of Open Source games.

I believe I did demonstrate it quite adequately. There would be no incentive for people to spend any significant amount of money to produce information, since they could expect no compensation for it.

There is still the sale of the media upon which the information is stored-- and I agree with you that no one else should be allowed to sell the material. Some people are always going to prefer the hardcopy-- I know I do.

You've admitted it anyway, when you said how the freeware stuff on the internet could replace computer games, for instance. Freeware on the internet is 99% crap, and the remaning 1% doesn't measure up to the stuff you pay for.

I don't know where you're getting your numbers or your misguided notions of freeware. As someone else pointed out, the majority of the Internet's software structure is built on Open Source freeware.

There are also numerous freeware products that are simply better than their retail competitors-- such as the web browser I'm using right now. Or my p2p client.

Information is a product. And like all products, it has a price. Some people are willing to offer their products for free, and that's nice of them. Most aren't willing to offer it for free.

I can't make unlimited copies of other products without expending my own resources. This is a very basic, fundamental difference.

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Please point out where I did that.

Would it have been better if I'd said "ironic"?

Your argument makes the implied assumption that greed is bad-- when your argument is as much motivated by monetary consideration as mine. Invoking greed is therefore pointless and foolish.

As was noted earlier in this thread I believe, piracy is considered to be theft by the laws of the land.

And as committed as I am to upholding the laws of the land, in almost every other case, this is simply one of those cases where I believe that the law is completely and utterly wrong.

Also, morality is not determined by national boundaries; it is just as moral for me to allow people to download my files from Russia as it is here, and just as moral for me to download them here as it is in Sweden. The only difference is that American law handles it differently from Sweden and Russian law.

The people who spent their time and their money on producing said stuff disagree, and I think their belief is worth a lot more than yours.

I think my beliefs are more important than yours. Otherwise, I'd just agree with you. What are you trying to prove here?

The Universal Declaration is not the source of human rights, it merely enumerates them. It gains its power because nearly every government in the world has agreed to abide by its tenets, though some do it better than others. Where do you get your idea that freedom of information is a right?

Yes-- every government has agreed to abide by those rights. That does not mean that everything in that document is a right, nor does it mean that there aren't other rights than those covered by that document.

And, as I have explained before, I got the idea that freedom of information is a right based upon the nature of information, and based on the principle that secrecy is wrong-- and is primarily used to cover up other wrongdoing. The fact that several national governments at least partially support my position helps, though I would hold my views without it.

Oh please. Governments can't advance technology a tenth as fast as the private sector can.

Do you care to demonstrate this? I can think of quite a few cases where governments have developed technologies that private industry would have never bothered with-- or would have taken decades longer.

So basically, take away the incentive for people to invent things?

You're rather stubborn in this notion that money is the only reason to do anything. Since I'm engaged in several activities that don't hold any monetary compensation for me-- including this argument-- I'm forced to conclude that there are other reasons to do things, even unpleasant things.