Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Me
Or, to put it another way: if you think its unfair for a musician to take home $0.25/CD sold...how is it MORE fair for them to take home $0.07/CD sold?

Korimyr the Rat
You're walking this pirate down the wrong plank. I'm not too worried about musicians with signed record deals, and I don't concern myself (too much) with the deals made between creator and publisher.

I also think, that is I were concerned about that, that engaging in piracy wouldn't be the correct solution-- because, after all, if they get $0.25 per CD sold now, and would get $0.07 per CD sold under some government-sponsored program, they'd still get $0.00 per CD downloaded off the Internet.

Sliiiight misunderstanding there, Kor- we all understand (I hope) there is no economic model that can compete with free goods.

My point was that with a single payor (gov't job) model, the EFFECTIVE price/unit consumed (by download, obtaining physical copies, etc.) will drop precipitously, especially with works that can be downloaded electronically, since acquisition cost is near nil, which means that scarcity is non-existent, and infinite demand can be satisfied. The more download the $50k/yr artist generates, the less he is being paid per unit. Economically, he'd be best off by producing just 1 unit per year for that salary: imagine Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon released 1 song at a time over a period of 10 years (its easy if you try).

As far as I know, there is NO government position that pays a competitive wage as compared to equivalent or analogous non-government positions. Example- my father, a physician, makes about 8-10x what he made as a military physician (varies annually), even accounting for losses in income due to insurance companies that reimburse him for his services at less than his cost for providing his services.

A creator of intellectual properties as a gov't employee will, thus, be less well off than if he tried to sell his goods on the open market...with the sole exception being those who create goods that are virtually worthless....say, perhaps, 80' tall pornographic statues of Confederate Generals made from molded bear poop.

The Dutch tried this for some time with painters and other creators of fine art (sculptures, etc.). As late as the early 1990's, anyone in the world could apply to become a Dutch state artist. You did your art and they got ownership of everything you produced...for $15k/year (many artists of quality can make that much from a single canvas or sculpture). I don't know the current state of that program.


And this doesn't even address the issue of how easy it would be for the gov't to censor art in such a model. After all, all they would have to say is "Your canvases are in storage in Hangar 18 at Nellis AFB...we can't display it at this time..."

Korimyr the Rat
If the game designers and authors wish to continue to be paid-- and they're certainly justified in that wish-- they have to realize that the pay-per-copy model is, at best, a temporary measure. It's been propped up by new media technologies, and received a boost from the online market, but the ability to make flawless reproductions of information online is going to kill it eventually-- and there's nothing any of us can do to stop it.

I don't know...if the majority of humans rediscover their ethics, perhaps IP creators will still be able to eke out a living at what they do.

Its not the tech thats the problem. Its just a tool. Its just that most people who violate copyrights don't even realize the consequences of their actions. If I may analogize- guns are tools. They are not inherently evil. They don't kill people, but they make it a lot easier to do so. The difference between the effort it takes to stab or bludgeon someone as compared to a simple pull of a trigger has had a devastating effect on murder rates in my former home city (New Orleans).

Similarly, while filesharing programs make copyright violations easier, they are NOT the cause. In fact, such program (and related technologies) will ultimately make even LEGAL copies of IP much cheaper (even PHYSICAL copies) by radically reducing or eliminating many overhead costs in the distribution chain- transportation, warehousing, shrinkage, salaries and even excess production.

As far as I can tell from my personal research and the research of others, while piracy is indeed big and growing business, the average (mode) PIRATE is just an ordinary joe who "shared a file"- not the Russian Mafioso who is ripping discs and selling copies for $4/pop.

Ace
In fact a lot of information made just for the fun of sharing or to satify a personal itch or whatever reason.
The web is full of bad to great fiction, art, music, reviews, computer software and gaming stuff all free and legal for the taking. In some cases they are promos or adds for a sale product, others are released just because computers make it very easy.

The difference is that people who decide to release their stuff for free made that decision themselves...copyright infringers are acting contra to the will of the owner/creators of the IP.

Ace
In not that many years (IMO) most forms of information will have a low cost of entry. Since Information (as versus hard goods) will have a pretty low cost of entry this means a lot of people contributing and even idf they contribute just a spot there will soon be more than anyone can even use.

That depends on how you define "low cost of entry." A pharmaceutical formula may take billions to perfect. An artist may spend thousands of dollars and decades of his life honing his craft; a writer may sacrifice his marriage while creating his magnum opus. Some inventors (like Nicola Tesla) were so focused on their creations that they alienated themselves from society.

Sure, anyone can create a little IP...but the stuff that matters...that takes talent, drive, and luck- which deserves to be rewarded.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Besides, I have to pay taxes to the record industry on blank CD-R and DVD-R. It's my legal right to download all the music I want as I've paid for it.

Yup. I love being Canadian

 

[S'mon]

PS: S'mon...why put "Entertainment Lawyer" in quotes?

Because Danny Entertainment Lawyer Alcatraz looks silly. I wasn't doubting your claim to be an Entertainment Lawyer, in fact I believe it 100%.

 

[Sammael]

Some inventors (like Nicola Tesla) were so focused on their creations that they alienated themselves from society.

It should be noted that Nikola Tesla died poor, because he was utterly uninterested in monetary wealth. His only goal was research, and all he needed the money for was continuation of research.

 

[Teflon Billy]

It should be noted that Nikola Tesla died poor, because he was utterly uninterested in monetary wealth. His only goal was research, and all he needed the money for was continuation of research.

Wasn't he also batshit loony?

 

[Sammael]

Wasn't he also batshit loony?

Pretty much, yeah. But without his insanity, the world would look a lot different today.

 

[JBowtie]

I'd just like to point out that copyright law is not homogenous nor universal.

I believe that most posters are working off the assumptions of US or Canadian law.

Rather than cite all the laws I am familiar with, I will point out a few oddities you may not be aware of.

In China, copyright infringement is punishable by death. It does not appear to have the effect some have wished.

In Russia, digital goods have no copyright protection; this is why AllOfMp3 could not be shut down. Russians who download, upload, or otherwise manipulate digital works are not breaking the law.

In Australia, there is no fair use. There is currently a commission looking at changing this, but until it is signed into law Australians cannot enjoy the rights most of you have.

With regards to open source, I will only observe that Microsoft uses a lot of BSD-licensed code. Their TCP/IP stack, which allows Windows computers to connect to the internet, is still based on open-source code.

 

[Sammael]

In China, copyright infringement is punishable by death. It does not appear to have the effect some have wished.

This law, by the way, was requested by U.S. based multinational corporations, and was one of the requirements that the U.S. placed before China in order to join the WTO.

 

[S'mon]

This law, by the way, was requested by U.S. based multinational corporations, and was one of the requirements that the U.S. placed before China in order to join the WTO.

When I researched this (US requiring China impose death penalty for copyright infringement) recently I found it was apparently a requirement imposed in bilateral US-China trade negotiations, in 1994 I think, not a result of multilateral WTO membership negotiations.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Sliiiight misunderstanding there, Kor- we all understand (I hope) there is no economic model that can compete with free goods.

That's not my point-- I understand what you're saying. The point is, the amount of money the creators get, per unit sold, isn't proper justification for piracy; piracy doesn't increase this amount, and since it doesn't increase sales, it doesn't do anything to help the creators.

With the exception of small-run publishers, I'd also argue that it doesn't hurt the creators, but that's a seperate argument.

I guess, what I was trying to say was that I agreed with you about the so-called Robin Hoods being full of something suspiciously resembling the waste products of certain agricultural processes. If you're worried about the amount of money creators get per unit, refusing to buy more units doesn't actually help anything.

Economically, he'd be best off by producing just 1 unit per year for that salary: imagine Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon released 1 song at a time over a period of 10 years (its easy if you try).

True, but this is the same for anyone paid by according to a time interval instead of per task-- anyone paid by the hour is better off doing as little as they can get away with, so that the work will take longer and they'll be paid more.

This hasn't managed to bring the construction or service industries to a screeching halt yet.

As far as I know, there is NO government position that pays a competitive wage as compared to equivalent or analogous non-government positions. Example- my father, a physician, makes about 8-10x what he made as a military physician (varies annually), even accounting for losses in income due to insurance companies that reimburse him for his services at less than his cost for providing his services.

Aren't we talking about people not being able to make it in the private market, though?

Which is it-- can they not survive the private market, or is the private market utterly and wholly superior to any other model?

A creator of intellectual properties as a gov't employee will, thus, be less well off ... with the sole exception being those who create goods that are virtually worthless.

This is among the problems of government-sponsored art-- as well as the censorship issue you mention later in your post. I do not think this is a proper solution, either; what I do think is that leaving it to the private market, especially using the current business models, is economic suicide in the long run.

You did your art and they got ownership of everything you produced...for $15k/year (many artists of quality can make that much from a single canvas or sculpture).

And many artists of quality would have been grateful for that sum, even if it is a pittance. If I remember correctly, Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting in his lifetime.

I don't know...if the majority of humans rediscover their ethics, perhaps IP creators will still be able to eke out a living at what they do.

Well, aside from my standard disclaimer that my ethics are firmly in place-- this is simply never going to happen. We can't base our social policy or our ethics on an ideal world; it's the same reason that pacifism is no good.

I might also point out, that in an ideal world, artists would get paid and people would have free and legal access to material. As long as artists rely on unit sales for their incomes, and as long as perfect reproduction is practically free, we're not going to have either, much less both.

If I may analogize- guns are tools. They are not inherently evil. They don't kill people, but they make it a lot easier to do so. The difference between the effort it takes to stab or bludgeon someone as compared to a simple pull of a trigger has had a devastating effect on murder rates in my former home city (New Orleans).

I have a sneaking suspicion that you would like my views on this issue even less than you like my views on intellectual property. Information isn't the only thing I think people should have free and relatively equal access to.

The difference is that people who decide to release their stuff for free made that decision themselves...copyright infringers are acting contra to the will of the owner/creators of the IP.

As, I'm sure, are people who decide to purchase their copies used-- because not only are they getting the superior, hardcopy version, they're doing so without compensating the creator. Yes, this is legally protected, and occurs far less often than digital copying, but from the perspective of the creator's pocketbook, it's the exact same thing.

There are a lot of things I could do with a book that I'm sure the author wouldn't care for. That does not change the fact that I am justified in doing them.

Sure, anyone can create a little IP...but the stuff that matters...that takes talent, drive, and luck- which deserves to be rewarded.

I really don't think anyone is arguing against this; I'm certainly not. However, the need for creators to be properly rewarded for their work cannot be allowed to prevent the free spread of knowledge.

Even the "luxury knowledge" that this thread is primarily concerned with.