| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually cars are a great thing to compare this too, many of them are getting to the point you can't do your own maintenance on them not because they are too hard to work on, but because car manufacturers are putting specific pieces in that stops the car from running if you don't have a specific means of telling the car that it can run.
Which is BS in my book too.
Downloading games is a slightly different case, but is another example of why I don't buy games with buy in download content. I don't want them to be capable of taking something I bought and paid for away from me, just because they want to.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The car example was a different beast altogether, and used more to explain the difference between owning IP (which you don't in the case of a game) and owning the physical medium on which the IP is recorded (which you do in the case of a CD/cartridge/etc which stores a game).
I could not care less if I "own" a song, game, movie, television show or other piece of media. All I care about is whether I can access it when I want, where I want, and on whatever device I want. My preference would be to have a subscription based service ala cable television, but with some ability to exclude (and thus not pay for) certain content (e.g., cable news).
But, this is something the private market will never organically develop under the existing IP regime. Barring some gov't action on IP (or, I suppose, some huge monopoly sanctioned by the gov't ala AT&T), we're stuck with the current shitty system.
Well written, Davick. Can I get you on retainer for all future IP related threads so I don't have to pretend like I remember anything relevant to the topic from law school?
Sure. I thought about being a copyright attorney, but the music that got me interested in copyright in the first place won out in the end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed a post and several replies to it. I don't care what kind of veil it's behind: personal attacks are unacceptable.The heavy handed moderation probably wouldn't have been needed in the first place here or in the Mass Effect thread if a closer look was taken to the poster in the center of it in both threads. Apologies in advance if you see this as a slight Ross but as a long time poster here myself, I'm a little surprised.
Edit* I'm not all that innocent for falling into it, but there seems to be a common antagonist.
You mean there's one main individual in each thread whom you disagree with, and have thus chosen to label as disruptive?
Awesome. Someone disagrees with you as strongly as you disagree with him, and you decide that he's the one who needs to be removed from the discussion, as clearly there wouldn't be any conflict without him! We should all just agree on everything, and people who don't like our opinions should be removed before they become a "common antagonist". That's how healthy communities are built! With enforced homogeneity of opinion!
I love internet discussions. They certainly cast people in interesting light.
The car example was a different beast altogether, and used more to explain the difference between owning IP (which you don't in the case of a game) and owning the physical medium on which the IP is recorded (which you do in the case of a CD/cartridge/etc which stores a game).
I could not care less if I "own" a song, game, movie, television show or other piece of media. All I care about is whether I can access it when I want, where I want, and on whatever device I want. My preference would be to have a subscription based service ala cable television, but with some ability to exclude (and thus not pay for) certain content (e.g., cable news).
But, this is something the private market will never organically develop under the existing IP regime. Barring some gov't action on IP (or, I suppose, some huge monopoly sanctioned by the gov't ala AT&T), we're stuck with the current s$%*ty system.
This would be super rad.
We're getting closer, though, I think. I mean, how long will it be before we have the rough equivalent of Netflix for video games?
This would be super rad.
We're getting closer, though, I think. I mean, how long will it be before we have the rough equivalent of Netflix for video games?
Gamefly?
Gamefly?This would be super rad.
We're getting closer, though, I think. I mean, how long will it be before we have the rough equivalent of Netflix for video games?
Are they doing on-demand now? When I had a subscription, they were mail delivery only.
EDIT: Looks like on-demand/streaming is only available for PC at the moment.
Are they doing on-demand now? When I had a subscription, they were mail delivery only.Gamefly?This would be super rad.
We're getting closer, though, I think. I mean, how long will it be before we have the rough equivalent of Netflix for video games?
Um... I don't know I don't have Gamefly -- however I knew they had the mail system much like Netflix already has.
I know there is this though and it seems likely that it will develop more in the future.
The car example was a different beast altogether, and used more to explain the difference between owning IP (which you don't in the case of a game) and owning the physical medium on which the IP is recorded (which you do in the case of a CD/cartridge/etc which stores a game).
I could not care less if I "own" a song, game, movie, television show or other piece of media. All I care about is whether I can access it when I want, where I want, and on whatever device I want. My preference would be to have a subscription based service ala cable television, but with some ability to exclude (and thus not pay for) certain content (e.g., cable news).
But, this is something the private market will never organically develop under the existing IP regime. Barring some gov't action on IP (or, I suppose, some huge monopoly sanctioned by the gov't ala AT&T), we're stuck with the current s$%*ty system.
This would be super rad.
We're getting closer, though, I think. I mean, how long will it be before we have the rough equivalent of Netflix for video games?
Except this is NOT what they're trying to do. Movie studios aren't big fans of netflix. The closest current model is Gamefly and the game publishers are trying to push them out of the market.
Except this is NOT what they're trying to do. Movie studios aren't big fans of netflix. The closest current model is Gamefly and the game publishers are trying to push them out of the market.The car example was a different beast altogether, and used more to explain the difference between owning IP (which you don't in the case of a game) and owning the physical medium on which the IP is recorded (which you do in the case of a CD/cartridge/etc which stores a game).
I could not care less if I "own" a song, game, movie, television show or other piece of media. All I care about is whether I can access it when I want, where I want, and on whatever device I want. My preference would be to have a subscription based service ala cable television, but with some ability to exclude (and thus not pay for) certain content (e.g., cable news).
But, this is something the private market will never organically develop under the existing IP regime. Barring some gov't action on IP (or, I suppose, some huge monopoly sanctioned by the gov't ala AT&T), we're stuck with the current s$%*ty system.
This would be super rad.
We're getting closer, though, I think. I mean, how long will it be before we have the rough equivalent of Netflix for video games?
No, the closest current model - at least, to the sort of on-demand system I was discussing - is OnLive, as Abraham spalding pointed out. Which clearly the publishers are not trying to push out of the market, since OnLive's entire business is predicated upon active licenses negotiated with the publishers - over 50 of them, in fact. If the publishers didn't want OnLive around that badly, OnLive wouldn't be around.
No, the closest current model - at least, to the sort of on-demand system I was discussing - is OnLive, as Abraham spalding pointed out. Which clearly the publishers are not trying to push out of the market, since OnLive's entire business is predicated upon active licenses negotiated with the publishers - over 50 of them, in fact. If the publishers didn't want OnLive around that badly, OnLive wouldn't be around.Except this is NOT what they're trying to do. Movie studios aren't big fans of netflix. The closest current model is Gamefly and the game publishers are trying to push them out of the market.The car example was a different beast altogether, and used more to explain the difference between owning IP (which you don't in the case of a game) and owning the physical medium on which the IP is recorded (which you do in the case of a CD/cartridge/etc which stores a game).
I could not care less if I "own" a song, game, movie, television show or other piece of media. All I care about is whether I can access it when I want, where I want, and on whatever device I want. My preference would be to have a subscription based service ala cable television, but with some ability to exclude (and thus not pay for) certain content (e.g., cable news).
But, this is something the private market will never organically develop under the existing IP regime. Barring some gov't action on IP (or, I suppose, some huge monopoly sanctioned by the gov't ala AT&T), we're stuck with the current s$%*ty system.
This would be super rad.
We're getting closer, though, I think. I mean, how long will it be before we have the rough equivalent of Netflix for video games?
To be fair OnLive is a direct attempt to attack GameStop.
EDIT: With the primary complaint that on secondary sales they aren't giving a kick back to the publishers.
No, the closest current model - at least, to the sort of on-demand system I was discussing - is OnLive, as Abraham spalding pointed out. Which clearly the publishers are not trying to push out of the market, since OnLive's entire business is predicated upon active licenses negotiated with the publishers - over 50 of them, in fact. If the publishers didn't want OnLive around that badly, OnLive wouldn't be around.Except this is NOT what they're trying to do. Movie studios aren't big fans of netflix. The closest current model is Gamefly and the game publishers are trying to push them out of the market.The car example was a different beast altogether, and used more to explain the difference between owning IP (which you don't in the case of a game) and owning the physical medium on which the IP is recorded (which you do in the case of a CD/cartridge/etc which stores a game).
I could not care less if I "own" a song, game, movie, television show or other piece of media. All I care about is whether I can access it when I want, where I want, and on whatever device I want. My preference would be to have a subscription based service ala cable television, but with some ability to exclude (and thus not pay for) certain content (e.g., cable news).
But, this is something the private market will never organically develop under the existing IP regime. Barring some gov't action on IP (or, I suppose, some huge monopoly sanctioned by the gov't ala AT&T), we're stuck with the current s$%*ty system.
This would be super rad.
We're getting closer, though, I think. I mean, how long will it be before we have the rough equivalent of Netflix for video games?
To be fair OnLive is a direct attempt to attack GameStop.
EDIT: With the primary complaint that on secondary sales they aren't giving a kick back to the publishers.
A cursory Google search doesn't turn up much on OnLive's role as an organized attack on GameStop, but it's definitely true that GameStop sees OnLive as a threat.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
We're getting closer, though, I think. I mean, how long will it be before we have the rough equivalent of Netflix for video games?
It's been a while since I looked into it, but I thought that gametap had a subscription based service for some older games if you're interested in those.
But, I agree with your point and have been thinking the same thing - how much longer do I have to wait for Netflix (on demand) for videogames?
I had a screw up, Perry is going with Gaikai, and is the one that's gone from ranting about game stop to a trying to directly compete with OnLive and Gamestop.
No, the closest current model - at least, to the sort of on-demand system I was discussing - is OnLive, as Abraham spalding pointed out. Which clearly the publishers are not trying to push out of the market, since OnLive's entire business is predicated upon active licenses negotiated with the publishers - over 50 of them, in fact. If the publishers didn't want OnLive around that badly, OnLive wouldn't be around.
That depends, how do you define "closest to Netflix"?
I see Netflix as a one-price service. You pay X per month, regardless of how much you do or don't use the service. There might be multiple levels, but it's all predicated on a flat rate, not a usage level.
Onlive is still based on usage level, of which there are already several other examples, they just use different kinds of technology. Gamestop's store is close to a brick and mortar. You buy the game, it gets installed on your computer, you can redownload as necessary. Steam is partial cloud, you install the game, but certain variables, like saves, are put on a cloud. Onlive is purely on the cloud, the game is not installed on your PC. They do have a package deal that includes 100 games at a time, but it doesn't include everything in their library.
Gamefly on the other hand is a flat rate, the bottleneck is how many are available at any one time, but you pay one price and have access to their entire library, which I would consider a hallmark of having access to Netflix, but that's my opinion.
Onlive to me feels more like an online version of oldschool blockbuster, with an option to buy.
No, the closest current model - at least, to the sort of on-demand system I was discussing - is OnLive, as Abraham spalding pointed out. Which clearly the publishers are not trying to push out of the market, since OnLive's entire business is predicated upon active licenses negotiated with the publishers - over 50 of them, in fact. If the publishers didn't want OnLive around that badly, OnLive wouldn't be around.That depends, how do you define "closest to Netflix"?
I see Netflix as a one-price service. You pay X per month, regardless of how much you do or don't use the service. There might be multiple levels, but it's all predicated on a flat rate, not a usage level.
Onlive is still based on usage level, of which there are already several other examples, they just use different kinds of technology. Gamestop's store is close to a brick and mortar. You buy the game, it gets installed on your computer, you can redownload as necessary. Steam is partial cloud, you install the game, but certain variables, like saves, are put on a cloud. Onlive is purely on the cloud, the game is not installed on your PC. They do have a package deal that includes 100 games at a time, but it doesn't include everything in their library.
Gamefly on the other hand is a flat rate, the bottleneck is how many are available at any one time, but you pay one price and have access to their entire library, which I would consider a hallmark of having access to Netflix, but that's my opinion.
Onlive to me feels more like an online version of oldschool blockbuster, with an option to buy.
OnLive has a flat-rate plan, according to Wikipedia.
OnLive is basically a very early prototype of the ultimate future of gaming (maybe 2-3 generations down the line). The game sits on the cloud, you can play and access at will (after payment) and never have to worry about hard drive space, graphics issues etc. Games can continue to advance in technology as much as the creators wish, as they are not limited to a single specification (only that of the host computers, which can be improved near-constantly).
It's not ideal - modding would die and if the cloud company goes bust, you're screwed - but it's the logical way forward. And OnLive, which is the earliest version of this service, already works excellently. I played the entirety of DEUS EX HUMAN REVOLUTION on it on my old PC before I upgraded and it worked very well. For quite a lot of the time you forget you're even playing a streaming game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott, I find your ethical arguement does not hold water.
The creators were compensated for the game on first sale. The person they sold it to could have done anything he wanted with it. He could have loaned it to people, and would you argue that loaning a game to a friend is unethical? Those friends are not paying the original creator for the right to that game, but I doubt you will find anyone who will ever agree with you that playing a loaned game it is unethical. Or a sibling/spouse/child/roommate could have played the game too. Should they charge more if you plan on having 2 different people playing the game instead of 1? How about 10? My copy of Zelda, Occarina of Time was played by at least 15 people, and more enjoyed watching people play. Should I have payed more because all of those extra people played without paying the content creator?
So instead one decides to sell it, for one of many various reasons. He makes back a fraction of what he initially sold it for, the original creator does not make any profit, but at the same time he is not incurring any new costs. Why should the content creators make additional proffits when there was no additional work involved on their part? He already made money off of the work that was done.
Additionally, this isn't just about content creators, but about the console licenses, since it is the console manufuaturers that are pushing these new buisness models so that their fees cannot be removed by resales. All the console manufaturers are doing is giving their stamp of approval on the game, but the content manufacturers are forced to pay if they want the game sold on the platform. What right do the console manufacturers have to that proffit, and why should they get bennefit from games transfering hands?
OnLive has a flat-rate plan, according to Wikipedia.No, the closest current model - at least, to the sort of on-demand system I was discussing - is OnLive, as Abraham spalding pointed out. Which clearly the publishers are not trying to push out of the market, since OnLive's entire business is predicated upon active licenses negotiated with the publishers - over 50 of them, in fact. If the publishers didn't want OnLive around that badly, OnLive wouldn't be around.That depends, how do you define "closest to Netflix"?
I see Netflix as a one-price service. You pay X per month, regardless of how much you do or don't use the service. There might be multiple levels, but it's all predicated on a flat rate, not a usage level.
Onlive is still based on usage level, of which there are already several other examples, they just use different kinds of technology. Gamestop's store is close to a brick and mortar. You buy the game, it gets installed on your computer, you can redownload as necessary. Steam is partial cloud, you install the game, but certain variables, like saves, are put on a cloud. Onlive is purely on the cloud, the game is not installed on your PC. They do have a package deal that includes 100 games at a time, but it doesn't include everything in their library.
Gamefly on the other hand is a flat rate, the bottleneck is how many are available at any one time, but you pay one price and have access to their entire library, which I would consider a hallmark of having access to Netflix, but that's my opinion.
Onlive to me feels more like an online version of oldschool blockbuster, with an option to buy.
If you'll reread my post, I pointed that out. There's a package deal on their website that includes 100 games.
Their service uses a Netflix like delivery system, but an older blockbuster sales system for what looks like a significant portion of their business (the pay per game is what I saw the most information on on their website).
It's not ideal - modding would die
I don't think that's a supportable stance at all. We're already seeing the impact that cloud hosting can have on mods through the Steam Workshop, and I don't seen any reason to believe that a streaming service will be unable to incorporate the mods of your choice.
The creators were compensated for the game on first sale.
They were compensated for their sale to that individual. They were not compensated for someone else entirely eventually enjoying the unadulterated experience of their creation.
The person they sold it to could have done anything he wanted with it. He could have loaned it to people, and would you argue that loaning a game to a friend is unethical?
I would argue that it needs to be looked at very carefully. If two people are able to enjoy the full intended experience of the game, the game's creators deserve to be compensated accordingly.
Those friends are not paying the original creator for the right to that game, but I doubt you will find anyone who will ever agree with you that playing a loaned game it is unethical.
The nice thing about ethics is that an ethical framework's validity is not determined by how many people agree with it. It's amazing how many people will toss otherwise solid ethical guidelines out the window when they prove inconvenient, or when they're suddenly confronted with the possibility that a long-standing tradition of theirs conflicts with those guidelines.
Or a sibling/spouse/child/roommate could have played the game too. Should they charge more if you plan on having 2 different people playing the game instead of 1? How about 10? My copy of Zelda, Occarina of Time was played by at least 15 people, and more enjoyed watching people play. Should I have payed more because all of those extra people played without paying the content creator?
I think that this is a matter best negotiated between you and the publisher. If you purchase a license to use a game, that license will make your ability to share that game experience with others very clear. Some software comes with a license that allows for only one individual to use the program in question. Other software allows for multiple individuals to make use of the program.
So instead one decides to sell it, for one of many various reasons. He makes back a fraction of what he initially sold it for, the original creator does not make any profit, but at the same time he is not incurring any new costs.
That's not a solid rationale. It ignores the enormous upfront cost of developing and marketing the game - costs that are completely independent of how many copies are purchased. The cost of burning, packaging, and shipping a game is small compared to the price of the game, and that's largely because it's not the physical product that you're paying for as much as it is the software (and potentially the license) behind it.
Why should the content creators make additional proffits when there was no additional work involved on their part? He already made money off of the work that was done.
Now apply what you just said to intellectual property in general. For instance: digital distribution. It involves practically no work whatsoever to digitally distribute another copy of a program to a consumer. By your above rationale, then, publishers should receive no money for digitally-distributed products. After all, they didn't do any additional work to distribute each extra copy!
You're trying to apply the rules that govern the purchase and sale of physical commodities to the world of intellectual property. You can't do that. They are two different beasts, and unfortunately we haven't quite caught up to treating them as they ought to be treated.
Additionally, this isn't just about content creators, but about the console licenses, since it is the console manufuaturers that are pushing these new buisness models so that their fees cannot be removed by resales. All the console manufaturers are doing is giving their stamp of approval on the game, but the content manufacturers are forced to pay if they want the game sold on the platform. What right do the console manufacturers have to that proffit, and why should they get bennefit from games transfering hands?
First, let's examine your question: What right do console manufacturers have to the additional profit from games sold that are licensed to their platform?
It may surprise you to discover that consoles are typically sold at a loss. Manufacturing consoles as loss leaders allows them to lower the barrier of entry to the console gaming experience, thus widening the market for all the games that are eventually produced for that console. But the only way console manufacturers are capable of breaking even is through accessory sales, and sales of both first-party and licensed software.
In other words, console manufacturers not only have the right to enjoy some of the profits from software sales, but those profits are a requirement of the current market paradigm! Unless you want to pay dramatically more for your game consoles, you should accept that licensing royalties are perfectly fine.
Oh, and just in case you were planning on complaining that this model makes games cost too much, you should consider that video games have actually gotten cheaper over time. You pay less for your video games, and those video games cost developers and publishers more to develop and market! They only way the video game industry has managed to pull this off is because of the dramatic widening of the video game market over the last decade or so. In other words, the fact that console manufacturers lose money on their consoles and make it up later actually makes the situation better for everyone because it means more people are playing video games and paying less for the privilege!
Now, to the second issue: the idea that console manufacturers alone are the ones fighting against the used game market. That's false. Publishers within the last couple of years have made significant efforts to combat used sales of their games, offering one-time codes bundled with the software purchase for DLC, or multiplayer access. Some games - even purchased from physical stores! - now require internet access to validate that they are being used by the individual whose copy is tied to their online account. Publishers are very much rallying against the used market.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You bring up a lot of issues Scott, I will try to adress them without becoming a wall of text.
1. If people are not allowed to loan things, you are going against established first sale doctrine and the rights of the property holder. I don't know anyone who would agree with you, including many software developers.
2. Except those licenses I can't read before point of sale, making them invalid. I cannot enter a contract I cannot read, and a contract cannot be forced on me after the point of sale. Heck, I've looked over my games in the past, and most of them don't even mention that its a license on the packaging. Also, trying to force a license on me after I have bought their product is IMO significantly more unethical.
3. On costs to produce a game: If the company cannot recoup their losses from initial sales, they did something wrong. My reselling my game wont change that. Their costs are irrelevant. They chose the price point, the number of units, their marketting scheme. They are not entitled to proffits, and I am not required to maximize theirs.
4. Why should distributors make additional proffits off of resale? That is what you are aguing? Really?
5a. Consoles at a loss: I have known this for a long time. I also know that it is false. Consoles do not recoupe their losses on initial print runs. This is because they have fixed (R&D, production tooling manufacturing) and variable costs (materials). They are sold at higher than their variable costs, but not high enough to compensate the fixed costs at initial print runs. I believe the Dreamcast was the last system to actually lose money. The PS3 could have sold for significantly if they just wanted a game system and not an integrated Blueray player, which is where all of their losses came from. They took that loss in order to establish the next digital format, which they can now turn a proffit on for trademark fees.
5b. Other sources of income: There are lots of sources of income for console producers besides licensing fees. Hosting fees for multiplayer servers, distrobution fees for digital downloads, first party game design. If there were not proffit in it, they wouldn't do it.
6. True, some game producers are pushing for stronger control. EA, for instance, is huge in this. They are also losing fans in droves. Lots of small game distributors are seeing huge boosts in DRM free games, and those games are often selling as well or better than they designers expected. This tells me that most people do not consider these changes good. And considering that all 3 console manufacturers have been investigated or sued for, and 2 convicted of anti-trust violations, why should I trust the changes they want to implement to maximize their proffits?
1. If people are not allowed to loan things, you are going against established first sale doctrine and the rights of the property holder. I don't know anyone who would agree with you, including many software developers.
There is a difference between "things" and "intellectual property". You need to understand this. We cannot have a reasonable discussion of this matter at all until you accept that this is a matter of intellectual property, and thus needs to be treated differently than most other forms of property. This is essential, and this argument cannot progress any further until this is addressed.
1. If people are not allowed to loan things, you are going against established first sale doctrine and the rights of the property holder. I don't know anyone who would agree with you, including many software developers.There is a difference between "things" and "intellectual property". You need to understand this. We cannot have a reasonable discussion of this matter at all until you accept that this is a matter of intellectual property, and thus needs to be treated differently than most other forms of property. This is essential, and this argument cannot progress any further until this is addressed.
So you're argument is "until you admit I'm right, you're all wrong"?
Intellectual property is not new. Only the formats and methods of copying are new. The business model that publishers are trying to enforce on the market is an attempt to control those methods of copying, nothing more. We can't have a reasonable discussion on the topic until you admit this is true.
So you're argument is "until you admit I'm right, you're all wrong"?
No, I'm saying that until we can at least agree on the basics, there's no way we're going to be able to discuss particulars. If you're of the opinion that intellectual property and tangible property should be treated the same, we can't have much of a discussion. I'm not going to try and talk you out of that one - at this point, I'm sure better men have tried and failed.
Intellectual property is not new. Only the formats and methods of copying are new. The business model that publishers are trying to enforce on the market is an attempt to control those methods of copying, nothing more. We can't have a reasonable discussion on the topic until you admit this is true.
That is absolutely true. Intellectual property has been around for a while, but it's only recently that we've started to discover the extent to which it needs to be treated differently from tangible property.
You're posting on a website run by a company with a substantial PDF publishing business. The storefront and PDFs sold here employ multiple forms of DRM - logging in to access the files you have rights to download, your account information embedded in the PDF itself, etc. The idea of having to manage end-consumer rights to what is essentially book content would have seemed unbelievable fifty years ago. We're still catching up to figuring out how to handle stuff like this, and we will be for quite some time.
You're posting on a website run by a company with a substantial PDF publishing business. The storefront and PDFs sold here employ multiple forms of DRM - logging in to access the files you have rights to download, your account information embedded in the PDF itself, etc. The idea of having to manage end-consumer rights to what is essentially book content would have seemed unbelievable fifty years ago. We're still catching up to figuring out how to handle stuff like this, and we will be for quite some time.
I've posted my thoughts on this before and they were deleted, because Paizo decided I was promoting illegal behavior, so unfortunately I'm not actually allowed to debate you with the information that supports my argument.
I consider this antithetical to a free and open society.
I buy Paizo pdf's, because I like the work that they do, I feel they charge a reasonable fee and provide a good service. If they didn't meet those conditions, I would not buy their pdf's.
I believe consumers should have rights. Many of the big name publishers want to take away those rights in an effort to ensure their profits. I disagree with that.
A publisher's right is to go into business doing something else if they aren't making as much money as they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've posted my thoughts on this before and they were deleted, because Paizo decided I was promoting illegal behavior, so unfortunately I'm not actually allowed to debate you with the information that supports my argument.
I consider this antithetical to a free and open society.
Without the security that intellectual property law provides content creators, we would not see digital content of the quality that we see today. You can have your "free and open" society, but in the process you make the prospect of going into business producing digital creative works completely unattractive.
I believe consumers should have rights.
And where do you draw the lines of competing interest between the rights of the consumers and the rights of the producers? Is it your position that the producer does not have the right to decide exactly what he is selling to the consumer? That certainly sounds like what you're saying. And that certainly doesn't sound like something indicative of a free and open society.
I thought this article was a pretty balanced view of what's going on in the industry, and the impact that restrictions on used games might have on the larger video game market.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take:
It is well established that if someone buys a physical object, they can resell it as they please. Barring some prior agreement with the original vendor, anyway.
That historically speaking does apply to books and other objects relating to intellectual property: I can sell, lend, give away, or burn an individual book I have purchased without the publisher having any legal right to stop me.
In the case of a book, the IP is where that prior agreement point comes into play. While I have ownership rights over the physical book, I have no right to copy the contents and distribute them, unless the author or publisher has specifically granted permission to do so. So if I sell or otherwise relinquish ownership of a physical book, I then have absolutely no right to keep a copy of the contents. The owner of the IP contained in that book retains their ownership of the IP even though I sold the physical copy.
Rightly or wrongly, that is also how most people, including myself, consider other physical media involving IP, such as music, movies, and computer games. If we buy a physical copy, we expect to have certain rights over it. A company which includes a license agreement inside the box which gainsays those rights is going to be perceived as trying to rip off their customer. That may or may not be the case in a legal sense, but it's definitely not going to win said company any brownie points once word gets around that they're trying to 'screw the customers'.
I'm not a lawyer. I don't know whether the law either in the US or New Zealand actually supports the position that such companies take, but even if it does, I can also think of laws both in the US and NZ that have been repealed because it was concluded that they were unjust and should be struck down. I think in the game of perception, laws which allow a vendor to 'remove' the rights of their customers are going to be perceived as unjust, unfair, and unreasonable by those customers and as a result breed ill will against those companies which take advantage of them.
As for me personally, after getting nailed by a single player, local computer only game which didn't warn me on the box about needing an internet connection to register before I could play, I almost completely stopped buying new games. The more restrictive behaviour of the gaming companies has almost completely lost me as a customer. Which I suppose is a win for Paizo since they're getting more of my entertainment budget. ;-)
I've posted my thoughts on this before and they were deleted, because Paizo decided I was promoting illegal behavior, so unfortunately I'm not actually allowed to debate you with the information that supports my argument.
I consider this antithetical to a free and open society.
Without the security that intellectual property law provides content creators, we would not see digital content of the quality that we see today. You can have your "free and open" society, but in the process you make the prospect of going into business producing digital creative works completely unattractive.
I believe consumers should have rights.And where do you draw the lines of competing interest between the rights of the consumers and the rights of the producers? Is it your position that the producer does not have the right to decide exactly what he is selling to the consumer? That certainly sounds like what you're saying. And that certainly doesn't sound like something indicative of a free and open society.
You are completely correct. Things built with open source or creative commons would never exist. I bet there is no where on the internet that I can legally download high quality word processing software. Or a spreadsheet program.
I bet no one makes freely available, high quality audio codecs.
You are correct. No one will ever do anything of high quality ever.
You are completely correct. Things built with open source or creative commons would never exist. I bet there is no where on the internet that I can legally download high quality word processing software. Or a spreadsheet program.
Speaking as a prolific user of OpenOffice at home, and Microsoft Office at work, the differences in quality between the two are stark. It's the little things, of course, but they add up.
But that's not even the point, really. I'm glad you mentioned OpenOffice, actually, because it illustrates exactly what I'm talking about: making going into business producing digital creative works unattractive. OpenOffice is actually developed by the Apache Software Foundation, a registered non-profit corporation.
I bet no one makes freely available, high quality audio codecs.
Another great example! The flac codec is developed by the Xiph.Org Foundation, once again a registered non-profit!
No one in their right mind would spend the time to create the highest quality VOIP program and release it for free.
Highest quality? Bear in mind that the VoIP market includes such titans as Cisco and Skype.
You are correct. No one will ever do anything of high quality ever.
You're utterly missing the point. It's not about whether people would do creative things and then release them for free. Obviously that already takes place. But we would not see the same level of development of IP that we see today, because the strongest motivator for that development - profit - would cease to have any pull. Freely-duplicated IP isn't worth much to its holder. The only projects you'll see are the ones that we already see - open source projects developed by non-profit foundations, or pet projects run by lone developers and released under Creative Commons/BSD. We wouldn't gain anything in the exchange, from a creative standpoint. And we'd lose access to a host of strong, actively-developed IPs because the continued development of those IPs would no longer be seen as tenable from a business standpoint.
The creators were compensated for the game on first sale.They were compensated for their sale to that individual. They were not compensated for someone else entirely eventually enjoying the unadulterated experience of their creation.
The person they sold it to could have done anything he wanted with it. He could have loaned it to people, and would you argue that loaning a game to a friend is unethical?I would argue that it needs to be looked at very carefully. If two people are able to enjoy the full intended experience of the game, the game's creators deserve to be compensated accordingly.
Those friends are not paying the original creator for the right to that game, but I doubt you will find anyone who will ever agree with you that playing a loaned game it is unethical.The nice thing about ethics is that an ethical framework's validity is not determined by how many people agree with it. It's amazing how many people will toss otherwise solid ethical guidelines out the window when they prove inconvenient, or when they're suddenly confronted with the possibility that a long-standing tradition of theirs conflicts with those guidelines.
I have been followng this thread for a while, but these particular comments made me stop for a moment. I just want to clarify, are you arguing that lending out materials that are in your view primarily intellectual property is unethical?
Would you actually tell a friend that they could not borrow a particular movie/game/book that you owned? Tell them that you would have to think about the circumstances? Related to your second point, would you make other people leave the room before watching a movie or playing a game that you had purchased?
It just seems that at this point the IP law that we are talking about has transgressed on things that are considered normal human behavior (being nice to your friends). If this is actually what you are arguing ethically then I think that the ethics in question have to be examined very carefully, since they are now advocating negative things. I am, however, an avowed Consequentialist, so YMMV by quite a lot on this point. I'm interested in seeing what you do think, however.
I have been followng this thread for a while, but these particular comments made me stop for a moment. I just want to clarify, are you arguing that lending out materials that are in your view primarily intellectual property is unethical?
I am arguing that, at the very least, the decision to let someone else enjoy the unadulterated creative work of another person without compensating that person deserves a level of ethical scrutiny that is typically and merrily glossed over.
Would you actually tell a friend that they could not borrow a particular movie/game/book that you owned? Tell them that you would have to think about the circumstances?
No, I wouldn't. That would be a dick move, from a social standpoint. I would feel conflicted about it, but not enough to risk offending a friend by denying them something they would probably have no problem giving me were the situation reversed. And, really, that's part of the problem - regardless of the ethical considerations, it is both societally permitted and oftentimes expected that you will be open to the idea of letting others enjoy the creative works you no longer have a use for.
That said, it's been a very, very long time since I've asked to borrow any such things from friends for an extended period of time. The closest I've come is being handed a book and told that I must read it. And, then, I try to ensure that the author ends up with some of my money, one way or another.
Related to your second point, would you make other people leave the room before watching a movie or playing a game that you had purchased?
Movies are licensed/sold for home viewing, which includes the viewership of whomever might also be watching in your home. Games are another matter, and as I've said this would be something that deserves consideration. Is it just the multiplayer they're enjoying? Is it a local multiplayer experience that you're sharing with friends? Are they just watching you play? Are they playing through the full game while sitting in your living room? A lot of different factors can come into play that might change the outcome of the ethical calculus you use to determine whether it's appropriate to share something with others without the express permission of the creative force behind it.
It just seems that at this point the IP law that we are talking about has transgressed on things that are considered normal human behavior (being nice to your friends).
Normal human behavior is, as I'm sure you're aware, not necessarily in-line with ethically-sound behavior.
If this is actually what you are arguing ethically then I think that the ethics in question have to be examined very carefully, since they are now advocating negative things.
Negative is a subjective term. If you're talking about things that are viewed negatively from a societal standpoint, then yes, this certainly is one of them. However, one of my core points is that we, as a society, do not yet treat intellectual property as it truly ought to be treated.
You are completely correct. Things built with open source or creative commons would never exist. I bet there is no where on the internet that I can legally download high quality word processing software. Or a spreadsheet program.Speaking as a prolific user of OpenOffice at home, and Microsoft Office at work, the differences in quality between the two are stark. It's the little things, of course, but they add up.
But that's not even the point, really. I'm glad you mentioned OpenOffice, actually, because it illustrates exactly what I'm talking about: making going into business producing digital creative works unattractive. OpenOffice is actually developed by the Apache Software Foundation, a registered non-profit corporation.
I bet no one makes freely available, high quality audio codecs.Another great example! The flac codec is developed by the Xiph.Org Foundation, once again a registered non-profit!
No one in their right mind would spend the time to create the highest quality VOIP program and release it for free.Highest quality? Bear in mind that the VoIP market includes such titans as Cisco and Skype.
You're utterly missing the point. It's not about whether people would do creative things and then release them for free. Obviously that already takes place. But we would not see the same level of development of IP that we see today, because the strongest motivator for that development - profit - would cease to have any pull. Freely-duplicated IP isn't worth much to its holder. The only projects...You are correct. No one will ever do anything of high quality ever.
I agree, Microsoft Office is better, but OpenOffice is pretty good.
Mumble blows Skype out of the water. The advantage of Skype is it's availability on lots of different platforms (you can even use it on a smartphone). But the difference in quality is like switching between a Ford Escort to a BMW M3. Mumble has better codecs (audio clarity) and lower latency (the time between when you say something and the other person can hear it).
You said that high quality products wouldn't be produced, I gave lots of examples that they are. The fact that they're coming from non-profits does nothing to lessen my point. A non-profit gets it's money from somewhere, that means there are people who are willing to pay for a product to support it's production, even though that product will be released for free.
Profit is not the only motivator. It is A motivator, but there are plenty of others out there. I know people who take lesser paying jobs, because they like the work better.
I don't mind protecting an IP originator so that they get credit for their work. If they want to sell they work, they should be allowed to. At the same time, consumers should be allowed to do what they want with their copy of that work as they see fit.
Electronic media should not be treated differently than physical media. People who copy and distribute illegally should still be punished, but I as a consumer should be considered to have full ownership of the copy that I purchased.
Thanks for clarifying Scott. I personally find it really odd to feel ethically conflicted about lending things to my friends, but then again I seem to disagree with the majority of what you say.
I think that most of the vitriol over this topic, specifically with regards to games, is that the large publishers expect to be able to get away with treating consumers like criminals, or at least potential criminals when in fact their basic assumptions about how the marketplace they are in works do not hold up to the actual facts.
You said that high quality products wouldn't be produced, I gave lots of examples that they are.
No, I said that high quality creative products would not see the same level of development that they currently do, because businesses would no longer see them as the profit-generating engines that they are under the current paradigm. You gave examples of products that are currently in development. There is no reason to believe that removing the profitability of IP works would cause more high-quality properties to be developed.
The fact that they're coming from non-profits does nothing to lessen my point. A non-profit gets it's money from somewhere, that means there are people who are willing to pay for a product to support it's production, even though that product will be released for free.
The support structure behind a non-profit foundation is very different from the support structure behind a for-profit business. Non-profit foundations exist because, oftentimes, people aren't willing to pay for the product in question through typical channels.
Profit is not the only motivator. It is A motivator, but there are plenty of others out there. I know people who take lesser paying jobs, because they like the work better.
Profit is so much stronger a motivator than anything out there as to render nearly every other motivating factor nearly meaningless. But your position basically boils down to the idea that removing the primary motivator of production will somehow cause people to produce more high-quality things! I don't think that's a defensible position.
I don't mind protecting an IP originator so that they get credit for their work. If they want to sell they work, they should be allowed to. At the same time, consumers should be allowed to do what they want with their copy of that work as they see fit.
And that's my point: Doesn't the creator of the IP have the right to determine exactly what he is and isn't selling?
Electronic media should not be treated differently than physical media.
Yes, it should. It so should. Or, more specifically, intellectual property and works derived primarily thereof ought to be treated differently.
People who copy and distribute illegally should still be punished, but I as a consumer should be considered to have full ownership of the copy that I purchased.
I'd argue that you don't actually have full ownership of anything if you don't have the right to copy it. Furthermore, I'd argue that by advocating that those who copy and distribute IP be punished, you are suggesting that IP be treated differently from more tangible goods. After all, if someone buys a piece of lumber and then produces a copy of that piece of lumber to resell, he is not guilty of theft or infringement of any kind (unless the production of that particular lumber is covered by registered patent). But the moment you replace "piece of lumber" with "video game" it becomes an entirely different scenario, even by your own admission.
I never said profit should disappear completely. In fact, I pointed out that some people will still exchange money for something that can normally be gotten for free.
Also, are you saying you have never met a single person who has taken a lower paying job because they like it better? Please explain to me how that decision makes sense in your model of profit being vastly greater than everything else.
There is scientific evidence that profit is not the strongest motivator to human actions.
A study was done with some experiments around cheating. I can't remember all the specifics, but basically people were given an opportunity to cheat, but the ratio of their cheating was monitored. The conductors of the experiment hypothesized that if they increased the inducement to cheat (participants were paid money for each correct answer) that the ratio of cheating would go up. This turned out to not be the case.
The did an experiment at a college where they could monitor cheating. In a class room setting, an actor would stand up very quickly after the test started, declare they were done and ask if they could leave. The proctor of the exam said they could go home, paid them for their answers and the actor left. The determining factor of how that impacted the other students cheating was based on the sweatshirt the actor wore. If they wore a sweatshirt from the same school as the other students, cheating went up. If they wore a sweatshirt from another school, cheating went down (even more if it was a 'rival' school).
Money plays a role in human psychology, but it is not as cut and dry as the Chicago school of economics would have us believe.
I never said profit should disappear completely.
No, but you advocated a system in which it would disappear anyway.
In fact, I pointed out that some people will still exchange money for something that can normally be gotten for free.
Sure, some will. Are you willing to go into business on the idea that people will pay for something they could just get for free? I'm not.
Also, are you saying you have never met a single person who has taken a lower paying job because they like it better?
No, I certainly have. But I've known FAR more people who have taken a higher paying job, even though they know they'll enjoy it less.
Please explain to me how that decision makes sense in your model of profit being vastly greater than everything else.
Because, for some people, profit isn't greater than everything else. "Some" being the operative word.
There is scientific evidence that profit is not the strongest motivator to human actions.
A study was done with some experiments around cheating. I can't remember all the specifics, but basically people were given an opportunity to cheat, but the ratio of their cheating was monitored. The conductors of the experiment hypothesized that if they increased the inducement to cheat (participants were paid money for each correct answer) that the ratio of cheating would go up. This turned out to not be the case.
The did an experiment at a college where they could monitor cheating. In a class room setting, an actor would stand up very quickly after the test started, declare they were done and ask if they could leave. The proctor of the exam said they could go home, paid them for their answers and the actor left. The determining factor of how that impacted the other students cheating was based on the sweatshirt the actor wore. If they wore a sweatshirt from the same school as the other students, cheating went up. If they wore a sweatshirt from another school, cheating went down (even more if it was a 'rival' school).
Money plays a role in human psychology, but it is not as cut and dry as the Chicago school of economics would have us believe.
I encourage you to put your theory to the test. Go forth, and be a businessman.
I couldn't be a businessman, not because of my theories, but rather my personality traits and skill sets.
I couldn't be a businessman, not because of my theories, but rather my personality traits and skill sets.
You wouldn't be the most unlikely business tycoon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that a developer deserves part of the used sales is about like saying that the engineer that developed a Ford Focus deserves a cut of the used car sales, or that the movie studio who put out a DVD deserves a cut of the used DVD sales, or that the designer of my polo shirt deserves a cut of the sales proceeds if I buy it used from Goodwill.
There is no difference between 'IP' involved in the creativity of designing a car, creating a movie, writing a game, or designing clothes.
People tend to get this mixed up. They think that creativity of one type is somehow better than creativity of another type. It's not, it's all creativity.
If you're going to define 'creativity' in IP as most people do, then the creativity is done by :
A) Game's Script Writer (The person who figures out the plot)
B) Game's Art Director (The person who creates the look of the game)
The actual coding is not all that creative, especially with modern SDK and engines, it's really more of a 'plug and play' type thing.
Now, let's look at what would happen if the used game stores decided to give say, 30%, back to the developers on a sale of a used game. Would the programmers who worked on the game get a cut? No, they're salaried. They'd get nothing. Would the art director get a bonus? No, he's salaried, he'd get nothing. Would the script writer get a bonus? No, he's salaried, he'd get nothing. Who would get this windfall? The corporation would. They would not spend it on the people who developed the game, worked on it, generated the precious 'IP'. They'd reinvest it or pay it out to shareholders. If they reinvested it, that might be a good use for it, but, don't make the mistake of thinking it's 'going to the artists' anymore than money won from pirating lawsuits by record labels went to 'the artists' they theoretically represent. Any money that was given over would go into the corporate pot and be used either for shareholder profit sharing, or it would be plowed back into re-investment.
Now, I'm not saying that the developer wouldn't stimulate some economy by doing so (reinvesting), I simply question how much that economic gain would be more than the economic gain generated by the used game market. I suspect that the used game market generates more economic impact than the development company would. The used game market has a force multiplier on it, since a single game can be bought/sold multiple times. Each time it's bought and sold, the state collects sales tax. The company and consumer involved is still moving money around, from one bank account to another. The employees at the used game stores (who outnumber the developer's employees about a million to one) all have (granted much lower individual but higher in total) wages. Overall, from an economics standpoint, the country is MUCH better off with a used game market.
Also, the game economy being a 'billion dollar economy' includes the used game market. And, despite the dishonesty that developers use when talking about a used game market, they are actually benefiting from it too. Exactly how much is hard to know, as people will trade in used games and purchase new games. The price point difference between a new game and a used game is about $5 after 3 months. Quite a few people will buy the new one over the used one at that price point difference (I know I do, partly to avoid scratched/damaged discs, even though I know they're warantee'd by Gamestop, and partly to put money in the hands of the game company). Also, the stance that 'each used game purchase is a lost new game sale' is an inherently dishonest one, since it denies the logic that not every person who bought a game used (on the cheap) would buy it new (at full price). There are some people who simply won't pay full price for a game, and will do without if they can't get it cheap. Note that cheap is in the eye of the beholder, when I say this. So cheap might mean 'using trade in credit', not 'less than new price' (see the $5 price point earlier).
|
The loss of big box stores like Circuit city and soon many Best buy locations that will close is cause for more economic worry than Gamestop disappearing. I am not saying Gamestop doesn't deserve to be in business but industries change and with them the way people do business changes as well.
Publishers are choosing a new avenue to sell their products. They have every right to do this. Just like you have every right not to purchase those products or services. It is understandable that some people are upset and disagree with this. Companies have done business one way for decades. People have a tough time with change. Sounds like the publishers are betting that people will get over it. I think the "I will never get a game at a discount ever again" fears will be alleviated.
None the less it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Contrary to popular belief consumers have companies by the balls these days not the reverse. I feel another internet protest brewing as we speak.
I think a big difference that games and other electronic media bring to the table and what gets the developers/publishers concerned so much about piracy is the ease with which perfect copies can get made. When I was young, it was just as illegal to take a book, photocopy the pages and then sell that to a third party. But it was a pain and expensive on my part. It was possible to record a copy of a music record, tape or CD I bought onto a cassette but it was time consuming and the quality would suffer. Old video games based on cartridges were hard to duplicate for most people. Modern digital reproduction is perfect and convenient.
I do believe that a used games market should stay in business if they can make it work. That said, there needs to be a way to separate my ownership of the physical media (making copies for myself, etc.) from the license. I should be able to setup the software and use it all I want, but if I decide to sell or give it away, there needs to be a way to turn off my ability to use it, even if I have a copy of the media that I sold. Then, it's reasonable for the publisher to charge an activation fee (less than the total price paid for the software media production and distribution) to reactivate it by the new owner. This might mean though that an internet connection is necessary to play, or at least install and activate for your machine, a game and you won't be able to take that used copy and play it until you connect back to the publisher.
L
So you're argument is "until you admit I'm right, you're all wrong"?No, I'm saying that until we can at least agree on the basics, there's no way we're going to be able to discuss particulars. If you're of the opinion that intellectual property and tangible property should be treated the same, we can't have much of a discussion. I'm not going to try and talk you out of that one - at this point, I'm sure better men have tried and failed.
Intellectual property is not new. Only the formats and methods of copying are new. The business model that publishers are trying to enforce on the market is an attempt to control those methods of copying, nothing more. We can't have a reasonable discussion on the topic until you admit this is true.That is absolutely true. Intellectual property has been around for a while, but it's only recently that we've started to discover the extent to which it needs to be treated differently from tangible property.
You're posting on a website run by a company with a substantial PDF publishing business. The storefront and PDFs sold here employ multiple forms of DRM - logging in to access the files you have rights to download, your account information embedded in the PDF itself, etc. The idea of having to manage end-consumer rights to what is essentially book content would have seemed unbelievable fifty years ago. We're still catching up to figuring out how to handle stuff like this, and we will be for quite some time.
Actually, my arguement is that intellectual property is no different from physical property and should be governed by the same rules. You cannot copy physical object design, and it is protected by copyright laws. That does not mean that you cannot loan physical property, and should not mean that you cannot loan intellectual property.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Actually, my arguement is that intellectual property is no different from physical property and should be governed by the same rules. You cannot copy physical object design, and it is protected by copyright laws. That does not mean that you cannot loan physical property, and should not mean that you cannot loan intellectual property.
Great. Too bad that the laws of physics provide limitations on tangible property that are not so kindly provided in the case of intellectual property. For example, if I loan you my car, I can't still drive it, nor can I allow an additional 100,000 people to drive it. There is no way that intellectual property can be governed by the same rules as tangible property, if, for no other reason, because intellectual property doesn't even exist without a legal framework that defines what it is, how it operates, who has rights over it, and what those rights are. Governing tangible property and intellectual property using the same rules is about as logical and practical as using the rules of the road/highway on commercial airlines.