Pirating RPGs. (And were not talking "arggg" pirate stuff here.)

[Falkus]

since you of course are so insightful, i will admit i need a lecture. could you please point me to one example in which the same game was given in a graphic heavy option for a price and in a crappy graphic version for a reduced amount?

How does this, in any possible way, relate to what I said?

it's free. the graphic hurts my eyes. i turn down the music. but, heck, they're fun. and free. made in the author's spare time, i suppose.

So basically, you're arguing that quality games are only games you like? I don't like those stupid stick figure games, and not that many people do.

YOUR point was that there would be NO product whatsoever. i was simply challenging that, regardless the value of said products.

No, my point was that the quality of the products for sale would be vastly reduced, something that have you continually supported. Your economic model would destroy the quality of intellectual property.

just my two pences. oh, an my argument, which you are ignoring to bring your crusade on, is that we would have some kind of film output if the budget would be 1000$. in fact, we are already have that kind of films. you say they suck? 99% of them probably do, but i do enjoy the odd one.

You don't have an argument, because the claim you made was that no quality films have been made with high budgets. The fact that you deliberately ignored the point I was making, choosing instead of blather on about the specific examples I used, shows that you aren't arguing from fact, but from ignorance.

are you pulling my legs? so, let me get this straight: you ignore what i'm saying to push in my eyes the fact that if you don't spend millions you have no games, or films, or music that could be enjoyable for ANYBODY on earth, and i should reply talking about the weather?

You don't have any modern, quality games with your economic model, that was my point, and the technology to make games stops advancing, thus destroying the claims that modern copyright laws limit the production of IP.

so, if you believe that, in order to succeed, you have to be ruthless and be able to bend the laws

Ruthless and bending laws don't go hand in hand. And there's a slight difference between bending laws and outright breaking them.

personally, i still have so see one argument against the possibility of heathly (maybe not huge, but still healthy) and more moral business.

Simple, it'll go out of business. You can't compete by being 'nice'.

phil reed, monte cook, steve jacksons and other in the RPG market goes against your view of ruthless draconian economies and foster my belief in my "irrelevant" economic beliefs

And Microsoft, IBM, EA and Ubisoft back my beliefs up.

 

[just__al]

Would you steal a meal from a restaurant before deciding if you want to eat there.

Remember, the internet is not a lending library.

No but, I have been known to ask for that little plastic spoon of ice cream they give you at Baskin and Robins if I haven't tried an icecream that looks promising.

Besides, I need to eat something and that's what resturants are for. I didn't know I needed Frostburn until I read it.

 

[Storm Raven]

Since "the exclusive right to make copies" have now been take away from Eden Studios (see quote above) it can't possibly be illegal for anyone to upload it. Right?

Do you truly need to be deliberately dense to try to support your arguments? It kind of shows how hollow and worthless your position is when you do that.

 

[Storm Raven]

No but, I have been known to ask for that little plastic spoon of ice cream they give you at Baskin and Robins if I haven't tried an icecream that looks promising.

Which they voluntarily offer you. If they didn't, do you think you'd be justified in stepping behind the counter and taking a sample anyway?

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

1. last time i checked, i didn't see anybody trying on these boards to say that breaking the law was acceptable or desiderable.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. I have pretty loudly and clearly said that breaking the law was acceptable AND desirable with regard to copyright and intellectual property laws.

 

[philreed]

Besides, I need to eat something and that's what resturants are for.

Not exactly. While everyone needs food, ramen will keep you alive.

 

[Storm Raven]

If you'd read the post I was responding to, you'd see that the complaint I was responding to was that if the large media publishing companies suddenly disappeared, that the resulting mass of smaller companies, while producing more competitive environment, would eventually swallow each other up and become a tiny number of huge companies again. Decent antitrust legislation would prevent that cycle and ensure that, rather than having a market driven by the ability of a set of large companies to push their material, the market would be driven by the competitive value of the material being produced.

No, decent antitrust legislation wouldn't do that. Decent antitrust legislation prevents monopolies from dominating the market, it doesn't prevent large companies from buying small companies, or prevent multiple smaller companies from merging. It just prevents such a thing from resulting in a sole (or extremely limited) supplier. In point of fact, it is almost impossible to monopolize the recording industry, because the barriers to entry are quite small. That doesn't mean that there aren't going to be large companies in the business - there will, no matter what you do unless you put in place very draconian laws that are likely to do more harm than good.

As you've said, Britney Spears' music isn't going to be worth anything 15 years from now. Therefore, it must be fashionable garbage. Why do people listen to it? I'll wager it's not because they actually care about how the music sounds. Rather there is a huge marketing machine that is presenting them with a constant barrage of her and her music, so they come to associate it with normal life. As long as the music is artistically inobtrusive, vaguely danceable, and involves a certain amount of prurient content, it can be pushed in this way because most people simply do not care what music they listen to, except that it must be perceived by them as cool and popular.

This argument is always trotted out, and it just doesn't wash. There is no amount of marketing that can hypnotize people into buying stuff they don't really like. The simple truth is that many people like music that you don't. Teenagers have different taste in music than you do. The fact that you don't like a particular kind of music, and don't consider it to lack artistic merit does not mean that others share your opinion. The "suits" don't invent the demand, they identify it and fill it. But tastes change, so what is "hot" now won't be a couple years from now.

I claim that people do not listen to Britney Spears because they think she makes good music. Rather, they listen to her because a careful plan has been executed to make her become a part of the social world of the people who listen to her. They come to associate this music with their lifestyles, and feel the need to continue to listen or else feel disconnected from their lives. This is a planned effect.

So, you contend that people are duped into listening to her music even though they don't like it? That's implausible. Marketing doesn't work that way, and no matter how many conspiracy theories you cling to on that topic, none of them will be true.

I suspect that in the absence of very large publishing companies, this type of music will continue to exist. However, there will be more room in the market for other, different producers of music. Music that might be worth something 15, 50, or 200 years from now. Actually, I know that this music is being made. However, it's not being widely consumed because the large companies want to push media that's been calculated to sell to the least common denominator like Ms. Spears, so they marginalize pretty much anything else. In the absence of this effect, something closer to equal time could be given to more sources of media.

Did you ever stop to think that this may be because what you consider to be the "least common denominator" is what people want to buy? And if the different producers of music are making "something that might be worth something (how do you evaluate that) right now, isn't that an indication that there is room in the market? Isn't that an indication that copyright is working since it is stimulating the production of such a wide variety of material?

 

[just__al]

Which they voluntarily offer you. If they didn't, do you think you'd be justified in stepping behind the counter and taking a sample anyway?

No, but if somebody walked up to me and said, "here, this is the new B&R flavor, you should try it" I might have a bite

That's all the justification you are going to get from me, because strictly speaking, you have the correct take on the issue and the higher moral ground. I'll just continue to wallow in my less honorable "try before I buy" policy.

 

[philreed]

I'll just continue to wallow in my less honorable "try before I buy" tactics.

What if someone asked you to work for a day, a week, or a month before they hired you? After all, maybe they want to try you out before they pay you. Would you agree to such an arrangement?

 

[Storm Raven]

there's a better answer.
1. Kamikaze Midget is talking apples and oranges. the artists receives 100% of the royalties every time the song is used in any way. the money he gets out of record sales has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.

What? The only reason an artist can get royalties is because of the existence of copyright. Without that, there are no roylaties to be had at all. The rest of your argument doesn't actually have anything to do with copyright, but rather contract law, and thus has no bearing on this discussion. But when you make a grossly inaccurate statement like this one, it just demonstrates to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.