Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

Not to interrupt the current discussion, but something funny:

A study suggests that games having a demo makes them lose out on about 50% of sales otherwise
(Schell Games CEO's D.I.C.E. presentation or just google, trailer+nodemo sells twice as well as trailer+demo).

Need citations of that 'study'.

Marketing and pricing are not created equal and/or the demo of the game presents it as a piece of shite.

[Loud Whispers]

People using statistics to make statements about games make me cry out in despair to see the soul sucked out of joy.

The problem with most games are the publishers who know only marketing and nothing to do with gaming. They see a certain narrow aspect of one game that sells well, and they throw it onto the press and print it to infinity with a different name each time.

[alexandertnt]

1) Copyright is undesireable because copyright enforcement involves coersion and force. Saying that it's "nice" for people who provide things for us to benefit from doing so is is all well and good, but when you start fining people and throwing them in jail for benefitting without paying for that benefit...that becomes an imposition on free will, which is something I prefer to avoid.

Most people do not break these laws, so it is generally not an issue. At the end of the day, copyright gets enforced like any other law, so it seems odd to pick specifically on copyright laws for being enforced like laws. Free will (like all of these "freedoms") is reasonably limited by law.

I agree that the punishment for copyrights can be overkill. I see personal infringement as stealing an apple. Illegal, but not worth much more than a slap-on-the-wrist (except in extreme circumstances, like mass-commercial copyright infringement).

2) The "bad" that copyright in theory seeks to prevent isn't really bad. Copying is not stealing because it doesn't take something away from somebody. If you have a bicycle and I take your bicycle, you now no longer have a bicycle. If you make a song, and I copy the song...you still have the song. I haven't taken anything away from you. And, in case anyone wants to go there...yes, if I could push a button and "copy" your bike via a star-trek replicator or something, that wouldn't be "stealing" either.

Bycicles take labour and materials to produce. If you could duplicate them than these necessities would no longer exist and bycicles would no longer take labour or materials for people to aquire. However, games, movies, music etc take labour and materials despite their ability to be duplicated.

So someone washes your car, and you drive away without paying them. You have taken their time and labour away from them, exactly what happens when you pirate software, moveis etc.

3) I am not comfortable with the idea that the person who brings something into the world is entitled to prevent others from having it. It seems reasonable to me to suggest that they're not obligated to provide it to others...but to me, suggesting that they're entitled to stop others from having it just because they brought it into the world...that's just not how I would want to run a society.

As a software developer (and I literally am), I am not comfortable with the idea that people can lay-claim to what is rightfully mine. It is the fruits of my labour (producing software is damn hard work. I would expect that people use my software in a way that I feel is appropriate because its mine. If I put in the work, why should I not own it?

For example, imagine the first human to discover fire. What if the social convention at the time had been that, since he discovered it...nobody else could have it without his permission. And if anyone watched what he did and "copied" the method, third parties would came and take it away and hurt them unless they gave the number of rocks or seashells that the guy who discovered it wants in exchange for his permission to have fire.

You are legally allowed to backwards engineer a process by law for this reason. Ontop of that, you cannot own trivial processes, so banging two rocks together would not be copyrightable. So this is just not a valid comparison.

If you make a song, or a game or whatever...somehow this entitles you to stop others from reproducing it, and if they do...even though they haven't taken it from you...you're now allowed to have somebody else steal money from them and/or throw them in jail for you.

They have taken my time and effort away from me. Producing this stuff is hard work. Ontop of that, there are circumstances where reproducing work is legal and reasonable. Backups etc.

When you people imply things like that it's more important for you to have games like Skyrim than it is to live in a world where people don't kick down your door and throw you in jail if you don't give people money...I...all I can say is that your worldview and mine are not entirely compatible.

I dont think many people here want people to be thrown in jail in this circumstance. This is just a strawman.

[Vattic]

Most people do not break these laws, so it is generally not an issue.

Really? Most people I know own at least one pirated film or album including those without computers. One of the main indirect sources of piracy during my youth was people making mixtapes for their crushes. On top of that you have people unknowingly listening to pirated music on YouTube which was a big problem, if less so now.

[Frumple]

Most people do not break these laws, so it is generally not an issue. At the end of the day, copyright gets enforced like any other law, so it seems odd to pick specifically on copyright laws for being enforced like laws.

Copyright law gets enforced incredibly selectively, and an absolutely ridiculous portion of -- at the very least -- the States population has broken copyright at some point or another, if not necessarily via online/computer stuff. I'd wager at this point that a literal majority of the world's population has (because remember, copyright violations extend hella' far beyond the computer.). So... those two statements are kinda' wrong, just on those aspects (there's more besides).

[Bauglir]

For example, imagine the first human to discover fire. What if the social convention at the time had been that, since he discovered it...nobody else could have it without his permission. And if anyone watched what he did and "copied" the method, third parties would came and take it away and hurt them unless they gave the number of rocks or seashells that the guy who discovered it wants in exchange for his permission to have fire.

You are legally allowed to backwards engineer a process by law for this reason. Ontop of that, you cannot own trivial processes, so banging two rocks together would not be copyrightable. So this is just not a valid comparison.

More than that, if we grant that the comparison is valid (which I'm not necessarily doing), I'd still expect Grod (a name I'm choosing for no particular reason) here to be compensated for the time and effort put into inventing a method for producing fire, instead of hunting and gathering. Otherwise, Grod is effectively being punished compared to his or her fellows. Also, this is patent law, not copyright, but I'll admit that in spirit it's fairly similar.

[Loud Whispers]

I dont think many people here want people to be thrown in jail in this circumstance. This is just a strawman.

I don't think you know what the copyright laws are.

[Neonivek]

My basic belief is that the effect of piracy is overblown and the games most affected by it are games that are bad, which to me I have absolutely no sympathy for.

If your game is terrible and because people pirated it and told other people that it was terrible (because it was) then you deserved to have lousy sales even if without piracy you would have actually made a profit because of your excellent marketing skills.

[Loud Whispers]

More than that, if we grant that the comparison is valid (which I'm not necessarily doing), I'd still expect Grod (a name I'm choosing for no particular reason) here to be compensated for the time and effort put into inventing a method for producing fire, instead of hunting and gathering. Otherwise, Grod is effectively being punished compared to his or her fellows. Also, this is patent law, not copyright, but I'll admit that in spirit it's fairly similar.

Replace the method with the idea of fire making, the analogy stands.

Grod wants compensation, and if compensation is what Grod needs to be motivated to create these fire making ideas then Grod should have this compensation.
Let's say Grod makes his fire. Sod wants to light a branch with Grod's fire. Sod is not taking Grod's fire away, but is making a new one that would not have existed without Grod's original fire. Grod demands payment of corn for allowing Sod to make this copy.
This goes on for a decade, with Grod living off this corn. Pod is looking on making a new idea, and fire is needed to help make it come to fruition. Pod doesn't go to Grod, but goes to Sod and makes a new fire from his one. Grod is angry, and says to Sod that a decade is not enough time, Sod needs to give Grod corn for compensation, otherwise Grod is effectively being punished. So he punishes Sod and Pod by sending them to prison and giving them a corn debt larger than what they'll make in a lifetime.
30 years later Grod has grown fat on his pile of corn. He's made a throne out of the cobs. He hears that someone in the neighbouring village has been showing other people how to make fire. So he sends his hired Chieftains to bring him to his prison. Grod also hears of someone who is giving away charcoal so that many people have the ability to make fire. The audacity! So he sends his Chieftains again. Grod, now very rich on corn has started hiring other people to make sure he receives his corn as well. He hears there are people using his fire idea to cauterize wounds. Don't the fools know by not giving him corn they're stifling creativity? They must be selfish.
Grod hears that people are using his fire. They put it in furnaces and begin smelting. But where is Grod's corn? Grod hears that people are sending things through a series of inter connected tubes. Grod thinks someone said something about fire there. Shut it down. Some people say they were doing nothing that involved fire at all, but Grod gags them anyways.
10 years later Grod has created a fire empire. Everything that the sun falls upon, everything that combusts is his. His compensation. People go about cooking, careful to make sure they never so much as get a single molecule of oxygen in their heat or heat in their fuel or else they are punishing Grod and are going to have to pay corn or pay the price.
Grod dies eventually, but the people are still fucked because Grod still needs compensation 60 years after he's died.


The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator.
The usage of copyright is to exploit the created.
The price of copyright is the stifling of creativity.

But the intention of copyright is to encourage creators to create.

[Bauglir]

Never did say I agree with every conceivable implementation of copyrights.

[Loud Whispers]

Never did say I agree with every conceivable implementation of copyrights.

My arguments do not hinge on your identity.

Although if we want to be specific about what you said, why would giving to the collective be punishment? It is interesting to me, I want to know whether or not my taxes are punishing.

[Bauglir]

Never did say I agree with every conceivable implementation of copyrights.

My arguments do not hinge on your identity.

I don't actually know what you mean here. What I meant was that you posted an elaborate strawman. As much as that term's overused, you've taken a statement that "I think some type of copyright system needs to exist in the current economic system" to mean "I support every possible abuse of the idea of copyright".

Although if we want to be specific about what you said, why would giving to the collective be punishment? It is interesting to me, I want to know whether or not my taxes are punishing.

If you invent fire instead of gathering food, and then share that fire, and nobody shares food with you in return, you are worse-off than everyone else because you did something for their benefit. If you pay taxes, you benefit from the things those taxes pay for, including a society that supports your way of life (notably, you benefit more from a society that accepts your money the more money you have, so there's an argument for progressive tax rates if you want one). These are different situations.

[Loud Whispers]

Never did say I agree with every conceivable implementation of copyrights.

My arguments do not hinge on your identity.

I don't actually know what you mean here. What I meant was that you posted an elaborate strawman. As much as that term's overused, you've taken a statement that "I think some type of copyright system needs to exist in the current economic system" to mean "I support every possible abuse of the idea of copyright".

There should be no confusion. There is no strawman here, there is no misrepresentation of the opposing position. The only confusion here is in that you think the declaration of your opinion or identity is important. Unless you are copyright laws incarnate, it isn't. Stop defending yourself when no one is attacking you.

Although if we want to be specific about what you said, why would giving to the collective be punishment? It is interesting to me, I want to know whether or not my taxes are punishing.

If you invent fire instead of gathering food, and then share that fire, and nobody shares food with you in return, you are worse-off than everyone else because you did something for their benefit.

So this person lives in a society where everyone is out for themselves, yet has shared the fire nonetheless for the betterment of society. Ignoring the anomaly that is selfless people...

You are not defending the right to distribute your fire. You are defending the right to ensure no one else learns how to make their own fires.

And then what of the people who are capable of gathering and discovering fire? Well, the latter is ruled out certainly. Hell, if you applied the state of modern copyright law to this analogy you wouldn't even be able to use fire if some selfish arsehat discovered how to make it first. Which sadly, is the case in the medical 'industry.'

[alexandertnt]

Most people do not break these laws, so it is generally not an issue. At the end of the day, copyright gets enforced like any other law, so it seems odd to pick specifically on copyright laws for being enforced like laws.

Copyright law gets enforced incredibly selectively, and an absolutely ridiculous portion of -- at the very least -- the States population has broken copyright at some point or another, if not necessarily via online/computer stuff. I'd wager at this point that a literal majority of the world's population has (because remember, copyright violations extend hella' far beyond the computer.). So... those two statements are kinda' wrong, just on those aspects (there's more besides).

Yeah, perhaps I was somewhat wrong about the whole "Most people dont break copyright". I was more referring to significantly breaking copyright (ie more than accidently watching a copyrighted video or downloading a song) but should have clarified this.

I did not say "Copyright gets enforced like any other law" to imply that there is nothing wrong with the way it is enforced, but rather to point out that "copyright enforcement involves coersion and force" can apply to any law, and I dont see how this point on its own is an argument against a specific law. Again, I did not speak clearly here and apologise for this.

I agree that Copyright gets enforced selectively, and in general the enforcement of it is pretty crappy at the moment. Copyright enforcement involves too much coersion and force, yes. But I see this as a reason to fix copyright laws, not to eliminate it.

For example, imagine the first human to discover fire. What if the social convention at the time had been that, since he discovered it...nobody else could have it without his permission. And if anyone watched what he did and "copied" the method, third parties would came and take it away and hurt them unless they gave the number of rocks or seashells that the guy who discovered it wants in exchange for his permission to have fire.

You are legally allowed to backwards engineer a process by law for this reason. Ontop of that, you cannot own trivial processes, so banging two rocks together would not be copyrightable. So this is just not a valid comparison.

More than that, if we grant that the comparison is valid (which I'm not necessarily doing), I'd still expect Grod (a name I'm choosing for no particular reason) here to be compensated for the time and effort put into inventing a method for producing fire, instead of hunting and gathering. Otherwise, Grod is effectively being punished compared to his or her fellows. Also, this is patent law, not copyright, but I'll admit that in spirit it's fairly similar.

Your right, it would be patent law. So the whole "inventing fire" thing doesnt really have anything to do directly with copyright. I should have pointed this out, but mistakenly mushed the two together in my mind . If the process of inventing fire is quite a complex one in that particular circumstance, then I see nothing wrong with Grod being compensated for his work if others want to use his process. But, he does not own fire itself, and others can re-invent the process (or invent new ones) and use fire too without having their legs broken.

I dont think many people here want people to be thrown in jail in this circumstance. This is just a strawman.

I don't think you know what the copyright laws are.

Now I could understand "You misinterpreted LordBucket's statement". Maby I did (and if I did I would want someone to point out why so I can better understand the argument). But how does that statement suggest that I dont know what copyright laws are? That statement itself wasnt even related to copyright law. It was to show that the statement "that it's more important for you to have games like Skyrim than it is to live in a world where people don't kick down your door and throw you in jail if you don't give people money" is something I dont think many people were implying. And to suggest that a world where it is possible that games like skyrim exist and not having overly-enforced laws are not at odds with each other.

[Zyxl]

Do you have a link to the methodology for that data?

Need citations of that 'study'.

It's almost like I didn't cite where I read it in the post you're replying to. If you can be arsed to google, you'll find the cited presentation cited their graph from EEDAR, which is a research and consultant company that was tracking sales of, get this: Xbox games. Console. Now we can assume consoles are relatively secure from most piracy compared to PC, at least effectively immune. Immune enough for the whole "devs flocking to console because we don't want our games pirated" anyway.

So taking this as the best example of sales, with piracy not affecting or skewing results, we can argue for something hilarious given how insane a near ~50% drop in sales correlated with having a demo is:
Something as simple as having a demo is more damaging to sales than piracy.