Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

immortalfrieza:
snip

I don't think you understand what a monopoly is Immortal. Lets use cars cause you might see why your argument doesn't make sense. Toyota (or any other car company) doesn't have the rights to develop a car and brand it a Ford and sell it as such, they can only make Toyotas. They can make many different kinds of Toyotas but they can never make a Ford. Now just because Toyota cannot make a Ford, and vice-versa, does not mean that Ford has a monopoly. For Ford or Toyota to have a monopoly they would have to be the only country producing cars.

Going back to your definition, and your understanding of monopoly it could be argued that because Sony has a monopoly, being the only one able to produce playstation items, both Microsoft and Nintendo also have monopolies. As you see this doesn't make sense, because you have 3 competitors (something which doesn't exist in a monopoly) each with a monopoly, which goes against the very definition of a monopoly. For sony to have a monopoly they would have to be the only producer of video games and video game consoles on the market; ie. Microsoft, Nintendo, and many other companies could not exist.

I've hope I made myself clear. If I haven't let me know. I've already come up with a much better and simpler explanation using apples :)

Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

Jimothy Sterling:
Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

That was amazing :D
And since you're here: OMG I LOVE YOUR SHOW AND I'M YOUR BIGGEST FAN. Ahem.

Jimothy Sterling:
Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

Maybe arguing about the specific term did go too far, but the idea behind it is interesting; that maybe our entire modern system of gaming platforms as "products that competete each other", could be seen as another man's "megacorporations directly owning whole virtual economies", and it's just a series of historical accidents that things ended up like this, instead of every console being a little free market on it's own.

Jimothy Sterling:
Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

Especially when history has shown that whenever an entity has a monopoly on anything, it will eventually either be destroyed from within, or by the demand of the people.

I think Jean from LUNAR 2: Eternal Blue said it best before her fight with Lunn: "Power grows when spread amongst the many and perishes when hoarded by a few."

Mr.Tea:

immortalfrieza:

Mr.Tea:

In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.

I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

[Rageout Avoidance Mode Activated]

Ok, I'll try to stay civil and avoid trying to scream at you all caps. In return, can you PLEASE at least try to pay attention to what I'm saying?

I JUST put the meaning of "monopoly" as it applies to markets around the world IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony does not fit into it? Sorry, couldn't resist.

I did pay attention to what you're saying and what jumps out is that you're using "monopoly" wrong.

I get the increasing problem of patents, copyrights, proprietary platforms, exclusivity and ownership deals dragging games down into a never ending maelstrom of legal technicalities. You want to say it's a problem that should be worked on by invalidating all of that so every game maker can start with a clean slate and be able to make whatever games they want, however they want.
But none of that changes the fact that that's not what "monopoly" means. Saying Sony has a monopoly on its own products is a tautology: "We're the only ones who make this product because we're the only ones who make this product".

You can say that ownership of patents, licenses, trademarks, etc. is bad and is the problem with modern business, and I'd be inclined to agree with you to a point, but use the right terms: Sony runs a closed platform on which they enforce too many licensing rules and it's holding back gaming.
Say that and it's your valid opinion.

No, if I say patents and so on are bad would be my opinion (and I do) but saying that they have a monopoly on producing and selling the PS3 (for instance) because of those things is an factual statement.

Mr.Tea:

Say 'Sony has a monopoly" and it's just factually wrong and people will try to correct you.

I don't know why they would try to correct me for saying that, because that is in fact correct. The only reason anyone would try to correct me is because they fail to read what I actually wrote and think that I meant that Sony has a monopoly on the gaming industry itself, which for the tenth time was NEVER MY ARGUMENT!!!

Sony has a monopoly upon their product, nobody aside from them can make a PS3 in any form (even if the knockoffs don't actually play PS3 games) legally, that makes it a monopoly. Copyright and patent law supporting it doesn't matter, it wouldn't matter if they weren't abusing their licensing rights or anything, under the actual definition of a monopoly it is in fact a monopoly.

For an analogy, hypothetically, say for instance there are only 2 snack companies in existance, Doritos chips and Pop Secret Popcorn, and lets say each owns the patent to chips and popcorn respectively. As a result, nobody but them can make any sort of chips or popcorn EVER legally until the respective patents expire. This would mean that no company could ever be made that would have either chips or popcorn, they'd have to make an entirely new product that was different from either. Lays or any other chip wouldn't be able to exist, because it's a chip and Doritos' patent means they can't be made, same for any popcorn company. Sure, neither company would have a monopoly on the snack industry itself, but if the customers want chips or popcorn they have no choice but to pay whatever amount of money Doritos and Pop Secret want them to, and for whatever quality that those companies decide to provide, they have no other choice, since nobody else is allowed to make chips or popcorn to compete with them. It's the same situation with the PS3 and it's exclusive games that Sony still has the copyright and patents to, which they probably always will since Sony will probably keep renewing those copyrights and patents even if they never use them again, just for the sake of keeping their monopoly.

contla:
It upsets me that a company that once ruled the market now makes such childish mistakes.And for no good reason they have proven that they can do it right .PS+ is a good service that gives a reason to give them money, yet they still get it wrong with a new product.

I really like your avatar.
Just wanted to say that.
On topic.
Meh, don't have a Vita, still enjoying my PS2 way to much to care.

Jimothy Sterling:
Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

Yeah, nothing but scrabbling around...

immortalfrieza:

I don't know why they would try to correct me for saying that, because that is in fact correct.

Not it isn't. You might define monopoly that way, but it is meaningless to do so. No reasonable person thinks that sony has a monopoly cos microsoft and nintendo.

By your ridiculous definition literally everything is a monopoly apart from the most generic of products.

immortalfrieza:
Snip

What you are describing is not a monopoly according to economics. Simply because you are the only one who can produce something does not mean you have a 'monopoly' over something. Your' dictionary definition may make it seem that way, but open an econ textbook and simply by the quantity of information on a monopoly it will become quite obvious that a dictionary definition is not sufficient to determine what a monopoly actually is.

While you may say that you are not talking about 'the gaming market' that is the only context in which to talk about monopolies and dominant positions etc. If you're not talking about that then you're not talking about monopolies.

Didn't watch the whole thing due to all the usual Sony bitching but, are we encouraging piracy now? It's all good as long as it's not the Humble Indie bundle, right?

Wouldn't it do more good to encourage your your viewers to simply sell off their Vitas or not buy one to begin with, instead of adding yet another excuse to the seemingly endless list of reasons why pirates don't pay for things?

Mr_Terrific:
Didn't watch the whole thing due to all the usual Sony bitching but, are we encouraging piracy now? It's all good as long as it's not the Humble Indie bundle, right?

Wouldn't it do more good to encourage your your viewers to simply sell off their Vitas or not buy one to begin with, instead of adding yet another excuse to the seemingly endless list of reasons why pirates don't pay for things?

Correction. Pirates pay for things.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/05/file-sharers-are-content-industrys-largest-customers/

For more things than most other people. They just do it when and how they want to.

'Cause a pirate is free.

NightHawk21:

immortalfrieza:
snip

I don't think you understand what a monopoly is Immortal. Lets use cars cause you might see why your argument doesn't make sense. Toyota (or any other car company) doesn't have the rights to develop a car and brand it a Ford and sell it as such, they can only make Toyotas. They can make many different kinds of Toyotas but they can never make a Ford. Now just because Toyota cannot make a Ford, and vice-versa, does not mean that Ford has a monopoly. For Ford or Toyota to have a monopoly they would have to be the only country producing cars.

No, they don't have a monopoly because both companies can produce trucks for instance, they just can't sell trucks under each other's brand names (brand names are themselves technically monopolies, but small, barely noticable ones). Both companies are able to produce the trucks with their own personal tweeks and sell them for whatever price and at whatever quality they wish, but since both companies can and do sell the same exact product they do not have a monopoly on said product. Now, if Toyota had a patent on trucks and Ford had a patent on SUVs, with which each could only make and sell trucks and SUVs respectively, THEN each would have a monopoly, not on the car industry itself, but on a particular type of vehicle.

NightHawk21:

Going back to your definition, and your understanding of monopoly it could be argued that because Sony has a monopoly, being the only one able to produce playstation items, both Microsoft and Nintendo also have monopolies. As you see this doesn't make sense, because you have 3 competitors (something which doesn't exist in a monopoly) each with a monopoly, which goes against the very definition of a monopoly. For sony to have a monopoly they would have to be the only producer of video games and video game consoles on the market; ie. Microsoft, Nintendo, and many other companies could not exist.

No, in fact, I have never said that in this entire 3 page long discussion. I said Sony has a monopoly on the PS3, PS Vita and any games that were exclusively produced for it, and if customers want said products they would have no choice but to pay whatever price Sony wants them to and deal with the shoddiness of the products and there's nothing they can do about it. It's not like there's another company out there for consumers to buy from that is legally producing and selling PS3s for cheaper and functioning better, they can't because patent and copyright laws would have them arrested if they tried, THAT is a monopoly. I NEVER said that Sony had a monopoly over the gaming industry itself, just on their products.

Yeah... I'm a PC gamer...

There are a lot of problems with PC gaming that are along similar lines to Sony's current problems.

But compare Sony to a digital distribution company, Steam. Now steam is considered by many to be an absolute bastard due to the strict user only purchases is doing things in a way that while considered a bit unethical, are a great way to defer pirates.

You get occasional sales, easy access to old games, tons of indie games, easy access to new games and minimal updates. It's like once every month or so, and everything is managed for you!

It allows you to easily back up games and install them on other computers, but the system is set up that it discourages you from even sharing games with friends, and nobody cares because it's cheap and convenient.

They don't need to beat physical sales by much and the lower cost of digital distribution allows them to easily cover it.

But the best thing, you can get any game you want in minutes, and they have an insanely bad way of going about it but are also popular as hell. Sony... you could learn a thing or two from Steam.

-|-:

immortalfrieza:

I don't know why they would try to correct me for saying that, because that is in fact correct.

Not it isn't. You might define monopoly that way, but it is meaningless to do so. No reasonable person thinks that sony has a monopoly cos microsoft and nintendo.

By your ridiculous definition literally everything is a monopoly apart from the most generic of products.

Again, yet another person confusing what I said to mean Sony has a monopoly on the entire gaming industy when I said nothing of the sort.

PLEASE everybody, actually read and understand what I wrote before coming up with an argument against what I wrote, since apparently a ridiculous number of people continue to argue against a point I NEVER ACTUALLY MADE!!!

I have the Tomba music stuck in my head now. Thank you Jim :D

Shame for the Vita as it does look like a very good handheld device. It saddens me how Sony of this generation has treated it's customers, little things that should be easy to do take forever to be updated. We didn't get a multiple delete file option on the PS3 for six years for god's sake. Do you know how many Pro Evolution Soccer option files I had to manual delete before that firmware update sony? Each took some 40 minutes to delete, it would have been faster to just reset the entire ps3.

Before I saw this video
"I wish I had some games for my vita"

After video
"They added ps1 games? Hey Grandia and rayman 1 and 2 are here!"

Thank god for Jim. If he didn't complain, the $20 I put on psn to get Dawnguard might never have been used

jklinders:

I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.

Nope, there are no alternatives, (legal ones anyway) that was my entire point from the beginning. If I want a any system or game that Sony has the exculsive copyrights to, I must get it through Sony's distribution channels, pirate it or get an illegal knockoff, or not get it at all, there are no other companies that can produce and distribute that same game or system legally, which is what makes it a monopoly. In fact, the entire point of this Jimquistion episode is the fact that pirates provide a better, hassle free, and much more wallet friendly service for the PS1 classics than Sony itself does.

jklinders:

I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry...

I'll just stop you right there, because nothing I've ever wrote in this thread ever stated the above, I never even implied that, which if people that are quoting me actually read what I wrote instead of just reading a couple sentences out of context and then prematurely started complaining about them they'd know.

Sony never said 100 games at launch, Jim. You did. In fact, I followed it. They said 100 games, you added the "at launch" thing, then reported it as fact, with people subsequently following you. Sony offered the Ps1 classics they could on the store at first, and people realized there was a workaround you could do at home.

Jimothy Sterling:
Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

Thanks Jim, that joke brightened my mood, this discussion with people that just ignore what I'm saying was starting to piss me off. I'm getting out of here for a while before my anger starts taking over, I start incoherently ranting to them in all caps, and have the moderators come down on me. I hope that you get the point I was trying to make though, it was pretty much an explaination for why you're seeing what you're seeing with the Vita that you discussed in this video.

Vita's biggest mistakes are as follows:

1. Dungeon Hunter Alliance. I own this game for PS3, I bought it for $14 USD or so (maybe on sale or something) but it wasn't that expensive. Then comes the Vita version, the same EXACT fucking game btw, for $39.99 USD and NO COMPATIBILITY FOR THE PSN DOWNLOADED VERSION.
What. The. Fucking. Fuck?

2. PS1 Rollout: EU got more games with the 1.8 release (according to Sony) than the US. Why? And why not just roll out the ENTIRE library at once thats already on the PSN? If I remote play my PS3, every PS1 game I have on there works, including booting up my old black disc games.
So... What is the fucking problem Sony? Are you afraid of money?

Ok, the Vita 3rd party support has sucked. So make some FUCKING BADASS GAMES and blow away the 3rd party developers like you've done in the past (God of War, inFamous for two examples, and yes I know who made them, but they're EXCLUSIVES TO PS2/3 and helped sell me big time on the system). Also why not put Playstation Home on there?
And just drop the 3g wireless support. Thats a disaster and a waste of money, time and development cost. You can't use it for jack shit, so don't even bother with it PLEASE.

amaranth_dru:
Vita's biggest mistakes are as follows:

1. Dungeon Hunter Alliance. I own this game for PS3, I bought it for $14 USD or so (maybe on sale or something) but it wasn't that expensive. Then comes the Vita version, the same EXACT fucking game btw, for $39.99 USD and NO COMPATIBILITY FOR THE PSN DOWNLOADED VERSION.
What. The. Fucking. Fuck?

2. PS1 Rollout: EU got more games with the 1.8 release (according to Sony) than the US. Why? And why not just roll out the ENTIRE library at once thats already on the PSN? If I remote play my PS3, every PS1 game I have on there works, including booting up my old black disc games.
So... What is the fucking problem Sony? Are you afraid of money?

Ok, the Vita 3rd party support has sucked. So make some FUCKING BADASS GAMES and blow away the 3rd party developers like you've done in the past (God of War, inFamous for two examples, and yes I know who made them, but they're EXCLUSIVES TO PS2/3 and helped sell me big time on the system). Also why not put Playstation Home on there?
And just drop the 3g wireless support. Thats a disaster and a waste of money, time and development cost. You can't use it for jack shit, so don't even bother with it PLEASE.

This is pretty much exactly my view on the Vita. I love my Vita so much and it has so much potential, but Sony seems to be afraid of it for some reason.

Sony really needs to get their act together because at this rate, they will lose the next console generation for sure.

immortalfrieza:

This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.

The reason that Sony and companies like it provides such crappy service is because they know that the only way you can legally obtain the games and systems they copyrighted is to get it through their authorized distribution channels, so they know that they can screw their customers as much as they want, charge ridiculously high prices, and have godawful service and the only option that their customers have if they still want their products is to just shut up and deal with it.

This is why piracy is actually a GOOD thing, they help stop the competitive chokehold that Sony and other similar companies have on the industry, which is more or less what Jim was saying. Whether you actually support piracy or not nobody could argue this point.

I believe that a never ending monopoly is illegal in the US but temporary monopolies are legal in the form copyrights. If the lobbying for extended copyright lifetimes ever end (special fuck you to Disney) then eventually the hardware and software will enter the public domain and other people will be able to provide the products. The only thing I can really say that's on the corporate side is that it takes much longer for new products that are sold at a loss to become profitable and cover the cost of creation, the very reason that copyrights were made to begin with. I'd still say it's their own fault for creating something that lacks sufficient demand for people to buy it at a price that the company would profit from.

I'm not sure if that applies to services though.

jklinders:

NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.

Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.

A copyright is a legal temporary monopoly on a product. To clarify, a copyright is the governments acknowledgment and protection that a person or company has the exclusive right to be the sole provider of that specific product for a limited time.

Minus the "from the beginning of time" part, yes, those people have or had monopolies. It's perfectly legal under the terms of copyright.

immortalfrieza:

Mr.Tea:

Say 'Sony has a monopoly" and it's just factually wrong and people will try to correct you.

I don't know why they would try to correct me for saying that, because that is in fact correct.

Sony has a monopoly upon their product, nobody aside from them can make a PS3 in any form (even if the knockoffs don't actually play PS3 games) legally, that makes it a monopoly.

For the last time, that's not what a monopoly is.
"A PS3 in any form" is an Xbox, a Wii, an Ouya, a PC, etc.
The PS3 name is their trademark, and the technology that makes the PS3 a PS3 is theirs alone. Yes, that might be a bad thing and you can say trademarks/copyrights/patents make each company into metaphorical monopolies, but it's not what the actual economic term "monopoly" means.

But I see you're just going to keep arguing that fucking word, even though I mostly agree on how closed platforms can be bad for gaming... So don't quote me again. Good day.

jklinders:

immortalfrieza:

jklinders:

I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.

Nope, there are no alternatives, (legal ones anyway) that was my entire point from the beginning. If I want a any system or game that Sony has the exculsive copyrights to, I must get it through Sony's distribution channels, pirate it or get an illegal knockoff, or not get it at all, there are no other companies that can produce and distribute that same game or system legally, which is what makes it a monopoly. In fact, the entire point of this Jimquistion episode is the fact that pirates provide a better, hassle free, and much more wallet friendly service for the PS1 classics than Sony itself does.

jklinders:

I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry...

I'll just stop you right there, because nothing I've ever wrote in this thread ever stated the above, I never even implied that, which if people that are quoting me actually read what I wrote instead of just reading a couple sentences out of context and then prematurely started complaining about them they'd know.

So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.

NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.

Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.

You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident.

image

Have your last word.

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth. That's my entire point! Why can't you... Damn it... I'm getting out before I start swearing and insulting people and end up banned. In fact, that's probably what you're trying to invoke since you can't get the incredibly obvious point I've been making.

However, I will say one more thing. I am no troll, I'm making a legitimate point. "You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident."

I could say the same. Just because you aren't willing to admit that you are wrong and I am right doesn't make me wrong.

HNNNG I nostalgia'd so hard when the Grandia theme started playing at the beginning. That was my favourite game on the PS1 as a child.

immortalfrieza:

jklinders:

immortalfrieza:

Nope, there are no alternatives, (legal ones anyway) that was my entire point from the beginning. If I want a any system or game that Sony has the exculsive copyrights to, I must get it through Sony's distribution channels, pirate it or get an illegal knockoff, or not get it at all, there are no other companies that can produce and distribute that same game or system legally, which is what makes it a monopoly. In fact, the entire point of this Jimquistion episode is the fact that pirates provide a better, hassle free, and much more wallet friendly service for the PS1 classics than Sony itself does.

I'll just stop you right there, because nothing I've ever wrote in this thread ever stated the above, I never even implied that, which if people that are quoting me actually read what I wrote instead of just reading a couple sentences out of context and then prematurely started complaining about them they'd know.

So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.

NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.

Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.

You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident.

image

Have your last word.

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth. That's my entire point! Why can't you... Damn it... I'm getting out before I start swearing and insulting you and end up banned. In fact, that's probably what you're trying to invoke since you can't get the incredibly obvious point I've been making.

However, I will say one more thing. I am no troll, I'm making a legitimate point. "You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident."

I could say the same. Just because you aren't willing to admit that you are wrong and I am right doesn't make me wrong.

Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything. A lack of IP leaves anyone with original content naked to exploitation by the likes of Zynga. You know those industry parasites that rob everyone's ideas and copy them without giving any credit.

I don't want to live in a world where creativity is stifled by a lack of reward for hard sweat and work. IP is the only barrier we have to keep ideas flowing as without some mechanism to protect your ideas you are naked to having others steal (copy) your work without putting any effort into it.

It is a very imperfect system. I challenge you to find a better one in this very imperfect world.

I'll be waiting for you to come up with the better way. I don't think I will live to see it though.

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth.

You call it technicalities, I call it the difference between holding a monopoly on a service and having protection for your ideas which are also your livelihood. You are the only one here defining it this way. Maybe you should think about that...

Now I really am done.

So over the Steam sale, I bought maybe about 15 PC games. I can install all of them to any (or even EVERY) PC I own, and they all work (assuming I meet the system specs).

It would take me weeks of dealing with unreliable torrent sites, risking infecting my computer with all manner of viruses and malware, struggling to get cracks working, and risking lawsuits, fines, and imprisonment to do the same illegally.

Since I can afford games, I don't want or need to put up with all the nonsense piracy entails. The only time it becomes necessary is when I can't get a game I want any other way. If Sony had the same service quality and depth of offerings as Steam, I'd buy their shit in a heartbeat. You'd think a company that sells hardware at a loss and makes all their money off software sales would have their primary fucking revenue steam as clean and efficient as Steam's is AT LAUNCH. That they're still getting their act together at this point is disgraceful.

Since he didn't say it this time, I will. Thank God for Jim.

jklinders:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Entitled:

jklinders:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Restricted travel and lack of reproduction techniques were their own security measures. The Printing press and later digital tech makes your argument such as it is invalid. :p

jklinders:

immortalfrieza:

jklinders:

So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.

NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.

Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.

You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident.

image

Have your last word.

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth. That's my entire point! Why can't you... Damn it... I'm getting out before I start swearing and insulting you and end up banned. In fact, that's probably what you're trying to invoke since you can't get the incredibly obvious point I've been making.

However, I will say one more thing. I am no troll, I'm making a legitimate point. "You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident."

I could say the same. Just because you aren't willing to admit that you are wrong and I am right doesn't make me wrong.

Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything. A lack of IP leaves anyone with original content naked to exploitation by the likes of Zynga. You know those industry parasites that rob everyone's ideas and copy them without giving any credit.

I don't want to live in a world where creativity is stifled by a lack of reward for hard sweat and work. IP is the only barrier we have to keep ideas flowing as without some mechanism to protect your ideas you are naked to having others steal (copy) your work without putting any effort into it.

It is a very imperfect system. I challenge you to find a better one in this very imperfect world.

I'll be waiting for you to come up with the better way. I don't think I will live to see it though.

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth.

You call it technicalities, I call it the difference between holding a monopoly on a service and having protection for your ideas which are also your livelihood. You are the only one here defining it this way. Maybe you should think about that...

Now I really am done.

jklinders is right, of course. Monopolies can only be had over an entire industry; IP protection hardly applies here.

You could make the argument that Sony consolidating so many IPs under their banner, making it easier for them to subject people interested in those IPs to anti-consumer business practices is similar to monopolizing an industry, but Sony hasn't gone far enough for it to count yet.

Not that it isn't still shitty for the end users, but there's a pretty substantial difference between businesspractices that are stupid and harmful, and those that are actually illegal.

DanDeFool:

jklinders:

immortalfrieza:

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth. That's my entire point! Why can't you... Damn it... I'm getting out before I start swearing and insulting you and end up banned. In fact, that's probably what you're trying to invoke since you can't get the incredibly obvious point I've been making.

However, I will say one more thing. I am no troll, I'm making a legitimate point. "You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident."

I could say the same. Just because you aren't willing to admit that you are wrong and I am right doesn't make me wrong.

Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything. A lack of IP leaves anyone with original content naked to exploitation by the likes of Zynga. You know those industry parasites that rob everyone's ideas and copy them without giving any credit.

I don't want to live in a world where creativity is stifled by a lack of reward for hard sweat and work. IP is the only barrier we have to keep ideas flowing as without some mechanism to protect your ideas you are naked to having others steal (copy) your work without putting any effort into it.

It is a very imperfect system. I challenge you to find a better one in this very imperfect world.

I'll be waiting for you to come up with the better way. I don't think I will live to see it though.

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth.

You call it technicalities, I call it the difference between holding a monopoly on a service and having protection for your ideas which are also your livelihood. You are the only one here defining it this way. Maybe you should think about that...

Now I really am done.

jklinders is right, of course. Monopolies can only be had over an entire industry; IP protection hardly applies here.

You could make the argument that Sony consolidating so many IPs under their banner, making it easier for them to subject people interested in those IPs to anti-consumer business practices is similar to monopolizing an industry, but Sony hasn't gone far enough for it to count yet.

Not that it isn't still shitty for the end users, but there's a pretty substantial difference between businesspractices that are stupid and harmful, and those that are actually illegal.

Thank you. I was beginning to think in the fog of cold medication and a nasty head cold I was the one who was deluded.

I've never argued that Sony were not a pack of smashed assholes but we are not compelled to deal with them for our video game entertainment. So they have no monopoly, they just own some desirable IPs. And not even a majority of those.

jklinders:

Entitled:

jklinders:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Restricted travel and lack of reproduction techniques were their own security measures. The Printing press and later digital tech makes your argument such as it is invalid. :p

And there probably were forms of IP protection before 1710. I doubt any renaissance artists could have copied other artists works and claimed they were their own original works without someone eventually doing something about it.

The ease with which different types of creative works can be copied and (more importantly) distributed makes it more important for IP law to be codified and enforced, but I figure the concept of "intellectual property" has been around since ancient times.

jklinders:

Entitled:

jklinders:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Restricted travel and lack of reproduction techniques were their own security measures. The Printing press and later digital tech makes your argument such as it is invalid. :p

Then their security measures were leakier than a Ubisoft DRM, because they copied each other's shit all the time.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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
Register for a free account here