Jimquisition: Piracy Episode One - Copyright

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Kwil:

He actually made a million dollars in 27 years and one week. And in that 27 years he's been performing stand up

Now, if you make a name for yourself without a publisher, than you've managed essentially to win the lottery.

So the fact that he can do without publishers isn't significant? Surely that's gotta make them nervous. What if every name they have suddenly decides to go down this route? Doesn't that significantly reduce the publisher talent pool/revenue?

Isn't the fact that you can go directly to the public bypassing the publishers significant? What if start selling one album or single to publishers and then go online with the rest of their music?

Isn't the fact that the lowered barriers

Quite often getting published is simply winning the lottery. The lowered bar of entry means that you can get yourself an audience through other means simply by releasing stuff on the when until someone, (anyone now it doesn't have to be a publisher) takes notice.

I'm not saying that there isn't a place for marketing but the old publisher model for music and books is done. All you need to put music into the world is a room with decent accoutics and a computer, a youtube and a MySpace account. All you need to publish a novel is computer and an Amazon digital publishing account. Suddenly the actual service a "publishing company" is offering you isn't publish at all; it's marketing (A different business model).

Sober Thal:

Wasn't that guy that is being extradited to the states in the same boat? He had multiple orders against him to to stop what he was doing, but the dumb kid decided to say fuck all, and now has to be made an example out of? He snuffed his nose at the states, and now they are going to make him realize his folly, eh?

When you profit from piracy, I vote for the trial by fire/punishment by fire method. These kids aren't going to learn otherwise.

People don't seem to realize that creators of a product have the right to decide how their IP is distributed.

double sigh

I take umbrage with what you've said. I've taken umbrage with a lot of what you've said, but this especially. America is not the world police or authority. That kid's country didn't have laws against posting links. What you've just called is imperialist fascism that's based on out-dated laws that are ill-equipped to handle the abilities of modern technology.
I'm going to ask you to stop, because you're representing America in a horrible light. Go do something else, please?

And you!

Jelly ^.^:
"If you disagree with that, fuck off, ya fuckin' thief. Worse than OJ Simpson. That's what you are, worse than OJ Simpson."

You are now worse than OJ Simpson, Jim.

Oh yes, acting factitious in a web video... is as bad as murder (alleged, I guess), blackmail, drug-trafficking, and resisting arrest. What an obviously trollish thing to say. You seriously need to go outside... get some perspective.

Part of me does in fact wonder how much richer companies would be if they spent nothing on DRM (which doesn't work anyway) and bribing politicians, or lobbying, if you prefer. That is a lot of money that is currently not getting you anywhere...

Pebkio:

And you!

Jelly ^.^:
"If you disagree with that, fuck off, ya fuckin' thief. Worse than OJ Simpson. That's what you are, worse than OJ Simpson."

You are now worse than OJ Simpson, Jim.

Oh yes, acting factitious in a web video... is as bad as murder (alleged, I guess), blackmail, drug-trafficking, and resisting arrest. What an obviously trollish thing to say. You seriously need to go outside... get some perspective.

Pardon? Jim's own words, not mine sir.

By backflipping and now disagreeing with what he said, he is now what he described as 'as bad as OJ Simpson'.

I think you should look to try and understand the context of a comment before projecting your own onto it.

Saying its ok to pirate a game by a major publisher and not if its an independent is a bit retarded dont you think? Also it is sales that ensure whether a game gets a sequel or not, legal sales. As a game reviewer you should no that. If every one pirated a game and few bought it legally then it wont get a sequel. They dont look at the illegal download count and go "wow it was pirated 3 million times, lets make a sequel." An yes the system is great, the law may need to be changed and maybe it is a dick move to keep an IP that they are not using. But, in the end, they own it and can what they want with it.....its there property.

You know what Jim, i hope you create a game and i hope it gets pirated by everyone so that every legal copy rots on shop shelves. An we shall see what your thoughts are. People who pirate games are not noble preachers of free speech or internet freedom, they are people that dont want to pay for there entertainment. This has been proving when that company released a game in which you could pay what you wanted....1p or 10. Even then people pirated it for nothing.

Good one, Jim. Good one.

Will be looking for future installments on this topic as well.

Jelly ^.^:

Pardon? Jim's own words, not mine sir.

5:00 onwards.

By backflipping and now disagreeing with what he said, he is now what he described as 'as bad as OJ Simpson'.

I think you should look to try and understand the context of a comment before projecting your own onto it.

1) I don't remember seeing that Jim said he was going to start pirating... only that if he did start, he wouldn't be able to see why it's wrong do to so, right now and with that game (Metal Arms). In fact, I'd be a bit on the surprised side if Jim did start pirating all of a sudden.

2) Seeing as how that wasn't on the escapist, nor was it quoted in the video we're commenting on, I don't see how your comment could've been taken anyway else. You could've maybe just posted that link first.

3) I don't remember you quoting "You are now worse than OJ Simpson, Jim." in your post. Let me check... nope, you were, indeed, calling him worse than OJ. In fact, I'm going to reinforce my "trollish" accusation because you seem to have been quick with "correcting" anyone who called you out for a poorly explained post... with a better explanation.

Sober Thal:

Itsthefuzz:

Sober Thal:

Dragon Age 2 was a great game

After browsing these forums for quite some time... I honestly, until now, didn't know you had a sense of humor.

Uhm...er... I think you failed maybe?

There is no humor in that post, nor this one. You could list 5 things that made DA 2 bad and I could probably agree with you that those things weren't good. I still loved that game more than the original. I would also bet you could list 5 games you think are better than DA 2, and I could list 5 things that made them not as great (for me) as DA 2.

Hahaha, the sarcasm is indeed strong in this one. 5 good things about Dragon Age 2... really, excuse me I have to go wipe away my tears now.

Aardvaarkman:

weirdguy:
I thought they only sold data storage, management, and priority service.

If they wrote their terms and conditions in a certain way, they'll be able to wriggle out of any personal legal liability.

You'd be wrong about that. MegaUpload actively encouraged and financially rewarded the sharing of unauthorised material. They repeatedly ignored takedown requests from copyright holders. They weren't just innocent bystanders running a file storage service. The intention of the service was clearly to profit from the distribution of illicit material.

It would be nice if people actually had some grasp of the facts before commenting, rather than just repeating mythical fantasies.

You're wrong about that actually. They didn't do anything else than say YouTube, they also "actively encourage and reward uploading material": http://screencrave.com/2008-09-26/youtube-partnership-program-the-easiest-money-you%E2%80%99ll-ever-make/
And I'm pretty sure Google "knows" as much about "copyrighted material" being uploaded to their platform as MegaUpload did, hell a minute with Google and I can give you dozens of examples. That doesn't make them liable for the content being uploaded there though, and the rights holders have as much of a chance to "take down" that material as they did with MegaUpload. And they did remove all the links, the only real distinction between MegaUpload and YouTube was that they used an algorithm that checked hashes of files to be uploaded against files already on the server and only removed the links and not the files themselves, as any single file could have had hundreds or thousands of links. This was mainly done to save bandwidth and storage costs caused by thousands of redundant files being uploaded/available.

Was the guy a greedy fuck who deserved to be taken down a notch? Yes, he most likely was and I agree with people on that one, but there is not much difference between file hosters like those or big content sites aside of funds and sheer size (good luck sueing/taking down Google) and if he is indicted, it's more likely on a technicality.

They were also a likely target because they dared to fight back and ridicule the entertainment industry earlier: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/megaupload-v-universal/

ACman:

Kwil:

He actually made a million dollars in 27 years and one week. And in that 27 years he's been performing stand up

So the fact that he can do without publishers isn't significant? Surely that's gotta make them nervous. What if every name they have suddenly decides to go down this route? Doesn't that significantly reduce the publisher talent pool/revenue?

No one ever said publishers/agents are the only way to go, just that you either don't give them enough credit or think marketing/legal issues is a lot easier and less time and money consuming than it is.

Not everyone would go down the self-producing road because they realise how hard it is. If you want to get to the same place as Louis CK you have to work your ass off. As in we're talking drop everything and devote your life to this; You make no income as everything you earn goes towards promoting yourself. You have no time as you're constantly working to find gigs and preform them, you're constantly trying to make connections. You're constantly trying to find a way to live as you have no income. All the other time you have is going into refining your act, eating and sleeping (well maybe things are different in the stand up biz, but if we were to take this situation and put it instead into music production, this is true). Until you get big, you're stuck in this cycle with constant stress and worry.

ACman:

Isn't the fact that you can go directly to the public bypassing the publishers significant? What if start selling one album or single to publishers and then go online with the rest of their music?

Isn't the fact that the lowered barriers

Quite often getting published is simply winning the lottery. The lowered bar of entry means that you can get yourself an audience through other means simply by releasing stuff on the when until someone, (anyone now it doesn't have to be a publisher) takes notice.

If you allow a recording company to produce your album than you're almost definitely in a contract. Record labels aren't stupid, they realise that bands might use them for one album and then drop them and they contract to combat this.

Sorry, but getting published is literally nothing like winning the lottery. For one the lottery is all chance and for two people who write great books/music will almost always get a publishing deal (assuming their great works gather them a fanbase). I agree with you that the lower bar is great but in a way it's a double edged sword. An easier way in leads to more crap, although more awesome as well in smaller doses: but that's me getting off-topic.

ACman:

I'm not saying that there isn't a place for marketing but the old publisher model for music and books is done.

The old publisher model has it's merits but now days is completely done, which is why it's already been adapted to deal with the internet/today's market and has been for a long time. Also I'm completely guessing as to what the old publisher model is.

ACman:

All you need to put music into the world is a room with decent accoutics and a computer, a youtube and a MySpace account. All you need to publish a novel is computer and an Amazon digital publishing account. Suddenly the actual service a "publishing company" is offering you isn't publish at all; it's marketing (A different business model).

And microphones. But that's if you want to get a crappy demo out that no one cares about. If you want to get a decent quality song you either need do pay someone to record and master you (roughly $1200 a song depending on where you go and what quality you're getting) or get your own stuff: A professionally built room that takes into account the correct acoustics (I swear there's either a word for it or a way to shorten it but I just can't think of it...), a solid mixer, about 10 different mics and decent music mixing and mastering programmes (A very rough estimate is $10,000, but to be honest I don't really know at all). A publisher will not only give you use of their studio/s but actually pay you to use it in a sense.

Now lets say I've written a book, there is really only one way I can go with this. Get like 10 copies using my own know how and money, seeking out somewhere that could print it, or get an agent which will find me a publisher which has the capacity to mass produce my book so I can actually get it into a decent book store where people will see it. I suppose I could always go to the internet but I don't know anyone who has paid for a book online that they haven't intended to download to their kindle or ipad. There is only a very small market of people that would prefer to read their screen than a tangible book. Point is book publishers are DAMN important. Well at least I'm pretty sure, I haven't done any first hand research into it so I could very well be wrong.

My last point is kind of an analogy. Lets take the Extra Credits shall we? Extra Credits started out on youtube, talking about games in depth and gaming as a culture. Literally nothing has changed. They started off small, growing a small but generally committed fanbase that would watch each video. They soon became popular enough to gain the attention of the escapist, -publisher-, where they would produce videos and in turn the escapist would pay them and give them more of an audience. From there they exploded and gained many more fans. And then a whole lot of crap happened that we like to repress (well I do anyway). That's one of the great benefits of a publisher, ONE. This isn't a perfect analogy, but I'm pretty happy with it.

Publishers do sometimes screw their clients though which is terribly terrible.

Also sorry for the butt-load of text, I tend to get carried away.

Great episode.

Hm. Interesting. Problem is, Jim is not fundamental enough. His first statement about pirates was fundamentally right. They are thieves.
Point is, Activision are also thieves. And some other publishers too. It all fits into fundamental idea of stealing someone's IP. For example, MW3 is stolen by Activision.

You rule, Jim. You just rule.

End of story.

Cureacao:

If you allow a recording company to produce your album than you're almost definitely in a contract. Record labels aren't stupid, they realise that bands might use them for one album and then drop them and they contract to combat this.

Sounds like a good reason to avoid that contract and find someone who is just going to market you instead of insisting on rights and outmoded methods of distibution. With viral marketing you can get an amazing amount of coverage. All you need to do is chuck you track up on soundcloud and hit the music blogs and reddit\music.

People who write great books/music will almost always get a publishing deal.

No. People who write commercially viable music and books will always get publishing deals. I can think of quite a few of my favorite authors who spend years getting that first deal. And most of my favorite music wasn't touched by big companies until they had success in the independent field. Now that you aren't reliant on big publishers for distribution all they can really offer is marketing.

And microphones.

Most serious bands will have good mikes.

, a solid mixer, about 10 different mics and decent music mixing and mastering programmes

You'd be surprised at what a computer can achieve here.

There is only a very small market of people that would prefer to read their screen than a tangible book.

I'm actually specifically talking about digital books. Digital book signifcantly lower the barrier to entry for publishing and remember we're not just talking about novels here but all written media. All my text-books and reference books are on my netbook and it getting to the point where I'm looking at an iPad for reading them as well as digital novels. I'm probably going to be carrying all the books I have ever read.

I agree that real books are nice but there really are an indulgent luxury when you have sites like this.

http://www.digitalbookindex.org/about.htm

Or this

http://www.ecampus.com/etextbooks.asp?referrer=adwords&s_kwcid=TC|7413|digital%20books||S|e|8171688415&gclid=CLbA8Ljx6K0CFYaGDgodt3F16

And Amazon used to be really cheap for big publisher stuff but unfortunately big publishers have colluded with Apple to prevent discounting (Price Fixing >:[). But still If you check this:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=

The most popular stuff on Amazon is the cheap digital stuff and two of the top ten are self published.

The barriers to entry into the print and music industries have been demolished. Without the need for physical copies and the new ability to market your self to niche websites ( escapist/extra credits is an example of this) big traditional publishers aren't particularly necessary.

I am enjoying the debate on this thread but I won't get involved. I just had to say that I had been somewhat on the fence regarding the Jimquisition but this was a brilliant episode and I am all for the Jimquisition revolution!

This is one of those times I have to disagree with Jim.

Yes movie studios, record labels, publishers and other evil companies are an evil bunch that are making things worse instead of better, but the answer to stopping evil pricks doesn't seem to be let's be bigger more evil pricks. Pirates vs evil corporations just makes the internet into something like a virtual Mad Max world not a better place.

The answer should be to fix copyright laws not make it a lawless world because the fight to reform laws is harder than just taking stuff for free.

Let's apply that it's okay to pirate law to the real world and you see how crazy it is. The Conquistadors were some bad guys who went and stole art from Central America. But just because the Conquistadors were evil pricks that doesn't give me the right to break in museums and take things because some evil prick did something evil first.

Considering that I'm liking Jim's show less and less as time goes on (and never liked it all that much to begin with, since for the most part it's based on superficial, emotional arguments with imperfect understanding of the issues at hand), does that mean that, by Jim's standards, I am now justified in intercepting his paychecks?

Cuz, y'know, I don't like him, and I his treatment of certain issues means that I don't particularly care what happens to him?

Hitchmeister:
On the other hand, these big publishers didn't seize the rights away from creators at gunpoint. They walked up and waved a bag of cash in front of them. It seemed like a good deal at the time, and I have a hard time feeling sympathy for anyone who sold their soul, or IP, to EA.*

Then on the third hand, you get stuff like a band posting videos they created themselves of their own music on Youtube and getting takedown orders from their record company because they don't have the rights to promote themselves in any way that might interfere with the company's profits. Yeah, screw that.

*I know EA wasn't actually involved in the example in the video, but I wanted to draw a selling your soul to the devil analogy, and EA just fit so well.

You're partially right. But you have to understand, that when people with big figurative suitcases of money walk in and say "I want this for a fraction of what it will soon be worth, sell it to me and then F off", you're left with a choice. Sell it, and then watch in frustration as your little baby gets mutated into a money-spewing soulless abomination, or get nowhere on your own. That's often the reality of things, sadly. Unless you're sitting on the rights to the answer for life, universe, the whole thing, you don't really have a lot of say unless whoever appears interested feels kind or fair. But that's the thing, if they're good at their business, they're NOT gonna be that. They usually don't have to.

Anyway, this is the best episode of the Jimquisition I've ever seen and it pretty much perfectly mirrors my own opinions. Amen I say.

Ashley Blalock:
This is one of those times I have to disagree with Jim.

Yes movie studios, record labels, publishers and other evil companies are an evil bunch that are making things worse instead of better, but the answer to stopping evil pricks doesn't seem to be let's be bigger more evil pricks. Pirates vs evil corporations just makes the internet into something like a virtual Mad Max world not a better place.

The answer should be to fix copyright laws not make it a lawless world because the fight to reform laws is harder than just taking stuff for free.

Let's apply that it's okay to pirate law to the real world and you see how crazy it is. The Conquistadors were some bad guys who went and stole art from Central America. But just because the Conquistadors were evil pricks that doesn't give me the right to break in museums and take things because some evil prick did something evil first.

Isn't that pretty much what he said? The only thing I don't see you saying here that he said, was the he doesn't care anymore. Otherwise you're basically parroting him and calling him wrong at the same time. He just said he didn't care. He still doesn't promote or encourage or even "like" piracy, he explicitly said that.

You don't have to sell the rights to your IP in order to get it published. This is all the realm of contract negotiation. It's difficult to pull off if you're an unproven developer, but let's say you have a publisher sign off on your game idea where they hand you a big stack of cash to make the game in return for the IP. Now, if that game proves wildly successful, you can take any future IPs and offer them to publishers without also offering up the property rights. A publisher doesn't need the rights to publish the game, they just need the IP owner's consent to do so. If you can convince the publisher that your property will make a lot of money (which again, is easier to do if you've already proven you can), then you can get a contract that ensures your control of the IP. I feel no pity for the developers just because either A: selling IPs is what it takes sometimes to make it, B: investors need to have some sort of protection for their interests if you don't want them to bleed money and then have no publishers left to give developers money, or C: they weren't smart enough to negotiate a better contract.

TL;DR: Developers don't have to sell their IPs, and even when they do, publishers need protections to make sure they don't lose money. And remember, when publishers lose money, developers get no money.

Hey guys :D

Remember that article The Escapist ran in December about how the Swiss government conducted a study about the effect of piracy on the entertainment industry, and found out that there is no negative effect at all, and how piracy for private use remains therefore legal in Switzerland for private use?

Now where did I put that again? Oh right, here it is.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland

You know what's my favorite part about it? Where are all the violent anti piracy advocates in there? Only 32 comments, and most of them neutral or positive?!? :O

Yeah, I realize it's hard to argue with a study conducted by the Swiss government, who have no interest of protecting piracy, really. You could at least try, though.

The naive views of the escapist community amaze me sometimes. Even though this issue is actually quite simple: If you own something and you sell it to somebody else for a mutually agreed price then it is no longer yours. It's the same for intellectual property as it is for a TV.

Still it seems some of you want to prevent people selling their ideas for money.

But wait, I hear you say. It's ok for people to sell their ideas, but they have to be treated "fairly" and get compensated for their work. I agree, but who gets to decides what's "fair"? You? Me? The state? Or, even ...gasp... the creator and publisher themselves through a negotiated contract.

Jims rhetoric is pitiful - I'm surprized that anyone falls for it.

Davroth:

Yeah, I realize it's hard to argue with a study conducted by the Swiss government, who have no interest of protecting piracy, really. You could at least try, though.

They wouldn't do that, It is hard to convince people to give up their own ignorant views, no matter how much you smack them in the face with facts.

Warning Details
Post: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.339568.13738571
Reason: Do not sass the mods or complain about moderation in the forums.

I'm not allowed to discuss the topic of piracy, I'm not allowed to complain when I get warnings for basically repeating Jim.

Can I breath? Is it OK if I breath? HAAAAaaaaaahhhhhggggghhhh....

Why don't you just go ahead a fucking ban me. Go on Escapist, ban me for saying something somthing that you paid someone else to say. Go on, I fucking dare you bitch.

So thats what happened to metal arms.....I always wondered why they never followed up especially because of the way the game ended.....is there any hope that the trilogy can be brought back?

and btw.....

boom

Acrisius:

Ashley Blalock:
This is one of those times I have to disagree with Jim.

Yes movie studios, record labels, publishers and other evil companies are an evil bunch that are making things worse instead of better, but the answer to stopping evil pricks doesn't seem to be let's be bigger more evil pricks. Pirates vs evil corporations just makes the internet into something like a virtual Mad Max world not a better place.

The answer should be to fix copyright laws not make it a lawless world because the fight to reform laws is harder than just taking stuff for free.

Let's apply that it's okay to pirate law to the real world and you see how crazy it is. The Conquistadors were some bad guys who went and stole art from Central America. But just because the Conquistadors were evil pricks that doesn't give me the right to break in museums and take things because some evil prick did something evil first.

Isn't that pretty much what he said? The only thing I don't see you saying here that he said, was the he doesn't care anymore. Otherwise you're basically parroting him and calling him wrong at the same time. He just said he didn't care. He still doesn't promote or encourage or even "like" piracy, he explicitly said that.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting Jim's point, but it sounds a lot like he's saying I don't care take whatever you want just as long it's from big corporations with billions in assets not from small companies or individuals.

It seems like part of the reason we've had junk like SOPA was because people could somehow justify taking from large corporations. So yea I kind of care if people just take what they want when the rest of us are playing by the rules even if we don't like the rules.

Jim, for once I have to disagree. The original content creators don't own the copyright because they sold it, fair and square. Take this example:

Jim makes a video. He owns the copyright for his creation. He can either post it and wait for ad revenue to trickle in, or he can sell the copyright to a publisher, say a website. The website gives Jim a lump sum. This allows Jim to feed himself and fund his next video. The website has basically invested in this IP because it believes waiting for the ad revenue to trickle in will make them more money than the lump sum they paid to Jim. It was an investment. So if you pirate that video, it is not a victimless crime. That website spent it's hard earned money. If they don't earn it back, then next time they won't pay Jim so much, if at all. If everyone uses ad blocker and/or pirates the video, the website doesn't get any ad revenue. So Jim finishes his next video, and the website now either pays Jim less money because they didn't make as much as they projected, or they decide to pass completely and Jim goes hungry.

Ashley Blalock:

Acrisius:

Ashley Blalock:
This is one of those times I have to disagree with Jim.

Yes movie studios, record labels, publishers and other evil companies are an evil bunch that are making things worse instead of better, but the answer to stopping evil pricks doesn't seem to be let's be bigger more evil pricks. Pirates vs evil corporations just makes the internet into something like a virtual Mad Max world not a better place.

The answer should be to fix copyright laws not make it a lawless world because the fight to reform laws is harder than just taking stuff for free.

Let's apply that it's okay to pirate law to the real world and you see how crazy it is. The Conquistadors were some bad guys who went and stole art from Central America. But just because the Conquistadors were evil pricks that doesn't give me the right to break in museums and take things because some evil prick did something evil first.

Isn't that pretty much what he said? The only thing I don't see you saying here that he said, was the he doesn't care anymore. Otherwise you're basically parroting him and calling him wrong at the same time. He just said he didn't care. He still doesn't promote or encourage or even "like" piracy, he explicitly said that.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting Jim's point, but it sounds a lot like he's saying I don't care take whatever you want just as long it's from big corporations with billions in assets not from small companies or individuals.

It seems like part of the reason we've had junk like SOPA was because people could somehow justify taking from large corporations. So yea I kind of care if people just take what they want when the rest of us are playing by the rules even if we don't like the rules.

He said he won't care to get upset in any way in, what was it, 95% of times that pirates download something. He did say, however, that he think it's very "rude" (paraphrasing here) to "steal" from indie developers and whatnot. So I guess that's one example of the 5% of times he DOES care?

What he said was simply that he holds no sympathy for big corps anymore. Taken out of context that may sound like he says it's OK to pirate as long as it's from them. He didn't say that though.

Stemer:
Hang on if anyone said this on the forums they would get banned faster than you could say "hypocrisy".

I completely agree with Jim though, and that was a great episode.

No I've said as much on these forums before and didn't even get so much as a warning for it. This aint gamefaq; I think they actually believe in freedom of speech on this site...people get modded but for posting pharma ads. Edit:or work from home ads like the one below.

As someone who used to be poor, I used to "download" games for free from questionable places. However, if it was really good, I would buy a real copy. I'm also not recommending it; if only that you expose your pc to god knows what?

Jim's right. Everybody says how the devs don't get their money if we pirate or don't accept online passes but they're going to paid the same crappy wages no matter how many people buy it. The only ones who get your money from online passes or even legitimate purchases are the obscenely rich bozos who OWN the dev studios and IPs.

Sober Thal:

Itsthefuzz:

Sober Thal:

Dragon Age 2 was a great game

After browsing these forums for quite some time... I honestly, until now, didn't know you had a sense of humor.

Uhm...er... I think you failed maybe?

There is no humor in that post, nor this one. You could list 5 things that made DA 2 bad and I could probably agree with you that those things weren't good. I still loved that game more than the original. I would also bet you could list 5 games you think are better than DA 2, and I could list 5 things that made them not as great (for me) as DA 2.

I will also go on the record by saying I have never been paid by EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Valve, Actavision, ect ect ect...

Honestly you don't have to stay committed to the joke, it was funny you don't need to prove it. Still I appreciate the good humor.

Most excellent episode. We need a ruler like you Mr. Jim. Stern but fair.
I agree with you in most of your points, specially the more strident ones.
(^-^)

Wow, someone give this man a big hug! :D

It seems agreeing to the new 'code of conduct' made my comment double-post, so I'll use the edit button to modify this one :)

I'm glad your opinions can evolve, Jim, it's a sign of character.

Although I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between what's morally unacceptable, and what people find distasteful. Although copyright infringers may be doing something that some of us find sleazy, it's not actually an act that hurts anyone, and copyright enforcement is an act of aggression against peaceful people who simply have different opinions.

Thank God for Jim! Telling it like it is.

You distilled the problem to exactly its bare essence. The question isn't whether not not creators should be compensated for their work.

The question is do we use the scarce resources of our legal system to subsidize the profits of a few publishing companies at the expense of the public domain and freedom of communication?

My answer was always NO.

And piracy is GOOD for indies: example, http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/internet-piracy-is-good-for-films-1 and also http://400lonelythings.blogspot.com/2009/11/flyway-transmission-two-ink.html

rembrandtqeinstein:
And piracy is GOOD for indies: example, http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/internet-piracy-is-good-for-films-1 and also http://400lonelythings.blogspot.com/2009/11/flyway-transmission-two-ink.html

Yep! :D There was a claim that copyrights are needed, or else creative works would not exist.

Some people tried making money without copyright and it turns out it actually works.

Not only that, they even made more than they would have expected using a copyright based business model.

The only exception is predatory mega-corporations. They may far less money without copyright.

This is all stuff that has been tried in the real world. The obsolescence of copyright is no longer a theory.

Itsthefuzz:

Sober Thal:

Itsthefuzz:

After browsing these forums for quite some time... I honestly, until now, didn't know you had a sense of humor.

Uhm...er... I think you failed maybe?

There is no humor in that post, nor this one. You could list 5 things that made DA 2 bad and I could probably agree with you that those things weren't good. I still loved that game more than the original. I would also bet you could list 5 games you think are better than DA 2, and I could list 5 things that made them not as great (for me) as DA 2.

I will also go on the record by saying I have never been paid by EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Valve, Actavision, ect ect ect...

Honestly you don't have to stay committed to the joke, it was funny you don't need to prove it. Still I appreciate the good humor.

It's not a joke dude. Can you understand that? Or are you just trying to get a rise out of me?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here