Your opinion on piracy?

liudr:
So Nick, once you can log on, tell us something about the game. I'm mainly interested in the business model.

Do they do in-game purchase like apple's in-app purchase? Say you want a big ax, instead of beating 10,000 minions to get gold to purchase it, you just pay $10 cold hard cash with your credit card and get it instantly. It's a "new" trend I discovered. People used to play for hours and beat Baal time after time to get that magical item with lottery luck.

They have a new idea ... a "real money" auction house. In the past people would trade in-game stuff surreptitiously (eg. through eBay) so now they built it into the game. The idea is, you find some cool hear that you personally can't use (eg. it's for a different class of character) so you auction it, either for in-game gold, or real-life cash. I think Blizzard takes a cut, not sure. If they do, that's their business model. ... yes they do. They charge for the listing, and they charge for the actual sale, if any.

Now in a sense that's fair, because some people have time on their hands (eg. kids) and some have money, so if you only have time it seems a bit unfair you can get good gear by playing all weekend, while people who have real jobs, can't afford to spend the time, but may have a bit of spare cash.

Does the USB stick do anything special?

Apart from looking cool, it has a copy of Diablo II on it, and you get an unlock key in the box.

I take the point of entertainment argument. Fair enough, you pay to get entertained. This auction thing, though, is a very slippery slope. If I were Blizzard, I would create a bunch of pretense accounts, load up with unlimited random good gears and try to sell them off like a regular player is selling them. I could also be a hacker and keygen some items to sell off to get real money. It's still ok with your? :wink: I think people still sell WOW or other characters off ebay. Very interesting market, just like what they say "you can buy and sell anything".

To think more dark side, a class of players called man hunters, can be created with special gears and enslave others players and auction them off as slaves or ask for ransom (curse you evil thoughts). This did happen in dark and middle ages, right? Then you pay real or virtual money to ransom your virtual character. I wonder if the police would be interested in such cases, where a teenager robs a gas station to get real money to ransom his virtual character from some man hunters. Just thoughts. I'll stop sipping ginger ale.

focalist:
http://arduino.cc/forum/index.php/topic,104353.0.html

This poster just came for advice on how to implement a project..

A project for which he linked to an illegal PDF copy of Simon Monk's 30 Evil Genius Projects for Arduino book, which was given to him by his teacher.

Simon's a regular poster here. I certainly hope he doesn't make his income from writing, because even teachers don't give a crap about literary copyright. These people are taking book royalties directly out of his pocket. Let's all hope it's not how Simon feeds his family. How many copies has that ONE advisor given away? How many copies of that PDF then are sent around by the students? Why would Simon waste his time and efforts ever again, KNOWING that people with no talent of their own will steal his work, and in many cases make profit on it behind his back?

But by all means, you have a right to whatever you want, just because you want it.

Why not tell Simon yourself that his work has no value beyond how fast you can copy it? Here's his site...
http://www.arduinoevilgenius.com/

That goes to show...
Doesnt mattter what he does for a living...
Fact is he invested lots of time (which is money) and lots of money as well, im sure, to release it (unless her managed to get someone to do it for him, in which case there will be two people losing money).
So why should he be ripped off his own work, over someone elses profit( and not necessarily financial profit, as theres other ways of profiting from it) who has done nowt to deserve it ?!?.

For anyone who is interested, you might find this book interesting:

"It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty."

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

It is an ever so difficult subject... Until the law is prepared to deal with it in another manner, we should enforce the laws we have. Any other argument that says the rightful owner should be ripped off doesnt make sense.
Maybe we should all pay an extra included in the TV licensing( where aplicable) or just pay a fixed tax for music services... Doesnt sound very nice i agree, but maybe then artists losing their money from their works will make more sense.
The thing is, the few people defend music being free dont see them interested in free music at all ( read royalties free or under commons license)...And when that happens, only established names call the crowds... Which tends to be a one off. In that sense the commons license brought a lot to us all... But only in the way of being able to promote a bit better.

iyahdub:
Any other argument that says the rightful owner should be ripped off doesnt make sense.

Yes, but the other side of the coin is, the rightful purchaser being ripped off.

For example, I bought Diablo 3 yesterday. Paid full price. Have an official box and everything. Even posted a photo of the mascot I got with it. But because of the DRM I can't play it. It took an hour of "server busy" before I could "connect" ... to a server for a single-player game. Then after playing for a while I get random "disconnected from server" during gameplay. But I shouldn't need a server. One quest I tried 5 times and every time got disconnected at the completion, and thrown back to where I was before. Another quest I just can't complete.

This is the consumer being ripped off, not the owner of the digital "rights". But what do they care? I've paid for it. The money's in the bank.

The notion that the owner of the copyright is "in the right" and the purchaser is "guilty until proven innocent" violates various principles of law that we have fought for 1000 years to establish.

Let me put it like this ...

Say you just bought a Ford motor car. But after taking delivery it took an hour to start it while it tried to "connect to the server" at the Ford company, to validate you were the correct owner.

And then once you did that - and bearing in mind you have better things to do with your life than spend an hour starting your car - it stopped half-way to your destination because it "lost connection to server".

Should your purchase, legally and properly done, be dependent on the strength of the local Internet connection? Or whether the Ford "validation servers" are busy or overloaded? I think not.

It will never be technically possible to have a system similar to the old one of physical goods. As soon as your dealing with information it all changes. This is a good and a bad thing depending on who you are. Bottom line if you can replicate it without changing the original an infinite number of time's you can forget about wanting to own it in the same way we did before. Maybe this is Jung coming back to bite everyone in the arse. Nobody really owns any idea because our fundamental understanding of the nature of the brain and the way the mind works is wrong.

Thats why music quality has gone down quite a bit in the last years...
Of course i been sharing my point of view from the MUSIC and music artists perspective. Different industries will have their own quirks related to this issue !!
Like Nick's case !

Things are getting done a bit more recently- Some examples...
-UK we had the high court rule that BT must remove all links to torrent sight Newzbin2.
-At the same(around November last year) time France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that they want to Tax ISPs to fund music, as well as add streaming to their three strikes law (*GOOD IDEA !!! has to be a massive tax off course, so that they will be forced to pass the cost to the consumer...Maybe then everyone starts to see it as an EVERYONE PROBLEM instead of just a musicians problem...*sarcasm lol).
-Australian ISPs came out yesterday and announced ISP’s volunteered to police piracy.

All this happened within a couple of months last year.
More work is being done. Theres even authorities booking time on recording studios, even home made ones that make their services available for mastering, producing, recording etc and catch them red handed with their DAW pirate copies... Needless to say most of their gear is seized and used to start paying their debt to( lets say as an example) Steinberg, as Mr.X had a Cubase pirate copy.
More and more cases of P2P users are being caught in the UK, ending up paying nasty sums for the average Joe...Most cases, its their parents who end up paying, as its their responsibility.

So, slowly things getting in shape... So, goes to show, at least regarding music, games, etc the law is interpreted as always been.

PS- dont read too much into my random sarcastic comments here and there, as they supposed to be funny actually and not for real as you might think at first !!

You still need to come up with a cogent response as to why a content producer (like Simon Monk with his book, or David Jones with his music, or me as a photographer) would bother making the time, money, and effort investment in creating things when those creations are simply taken with no compensation. All of the hundreds of hours learning and mastering a skill, the time to produce, the items required being purchased.. none of it has any worth, because spoiled kids (and that is who we are talking about generally) have gotten SO spoiled and SO demanding of instant gratification with no cost to themselves that they actually feel that they have some kind of RIGHT to steal the work of others. I just spent over two thousand dollars buying new camera gear to replace broken equipment and get a few needed items. I won't make a penny back on my art photography, as usual.. it gets copied too quickly to be profitable. The only profit I can make is photos of private people's functions and that sort of thing. Even then, the money must now be gotten up front, instead of printing fees (as normally is done) because of the theft after the fact by duplication. Used to be the sitting was free and the prints were the cost to customer. Now, I don't even bother, I give the "digital original" to the customer and charge them HUGE up front. This is quite a shock to some, but it's the only way I won't eat every penny of my equipment as a loss. Keep in mind, I need to do all this even as a skilled hobbyist. A professional who makes their income at it... they are struggling to survive what has become a culture of theft.

Content protection schemes (like Nick's game) often backfire.. just like he's experiencing. Now one could argue that's the cost of protecting the content.. and make a reasonable argument. What is the alternative? If the company wants to make "X" dollars per sale, the only way to do it is make sure each install is actually a sale... either that, or you need to make up for the lost revenue to theft by charging more money to those that do pay. Not fair either. However, if you want people to take the time and effort to create a Diablo III game, those people will need to be paid.

The real problem is of course (once again) entitled kids that have gotten so used to being spoiled and given everything they want, that they feel as if somehow the world at large owes them something.

ok, this might turn out quite long, but I have been thinking about this for a while, so here goes:
(oh, and I am not trying to justify pirating, I am trying to understand and analyse whats actually going on here. I also am not trying to claim that the creative sector should work for love, light and air)


Problem: Many goods, which traditionally have been scarce (i.e. paintings) or quasi-scarce (recordings, novels, games, to some extent ideas) have become virtually non-scarce due to digitization. (which leads to filesharing etc. and eventually to what is referred to here as piracy.)

Now, many of you are saying "this does not change anything - I still need to get paid" (which is a very reasonable request.)

I believe however, that this changes everything: Markets, by definition, deal in scarce goods. As soon as you are dealing with non-scarce goods, markets fail. The reaction then is, to make these non-scarce goods artificially scarce (i.e. DRM, or forcing people to play online in Diablo III), and by artificially enforcing the scarcity by "cracking down on pirates".

This introduction of a new class of non-scarce goods is in fact a huge cultural revolution. People will be talking about this in 1000 years (if there will be people). What is happening right now, is that the status-quo is judged and assessed by moral values and ideals which where not created to deal with this situation. This is why people are attempting to have a functioning market with non-scarce goods (I am repeating myself, but... I think its important to note the absurdity of it.)


That's in very general terms the actual problem, imo. In the specifics there are many more weird things going on

i.e.

What do we pay people for? (Focalist touches on this topic - I think his observations are spot on - I just think this notion needs to be taken further...) Should people be payed for the work they put into a product, or should people be payed for the impact their product has? As a musician, I might be payed to perform. Then I might receive additional royalties from the recording that is made of the performance. Artists (and I count myself in here too) claim that what they do is a job, like any other job. However, they have this dual income (I am not saying artists are rich, mind you). One comes from the work they put into it, and the other comes from the impact of their work.

This is wierd. A mechanic for example is payed for the hours of work they put into their job. No one would think of paying the mechanic a fraction of the benefit that a working car gives them. A secretary is payed for making somebodies work-life easyer. The secretary is payed for the work he or she puts into it. No one would expect the secretary to receive additional benefits, if his work ended up enabling her boss to get dirt rich.

I believe this dual income is nothing else than an excuse not to pay artists for the work they actually do. If artists are payed for a scarce good (i.e. their time) rather than a non scarce good (i.e. listening to a recording) the issue of the failing market vanishes together with the issue of the dual income.

Being an Artist is cool. Everyone wants to play in a band, wants to be a writer etc. It is fun, it is fulfilling. So what happens, is that we have a market, which is completely over-saturated. In addition to the non-scarce media, the scarce good an artist has to offer (their time) completely exceeds the demand. This leads to the simple truth.

If somebody is put off by Focalists high up-front fee, they can probably find a relative who does a job which is almost as good. Not being a photographer themselves, they probably wont even notice the difference in quality.

Being an artist is tough and will probably not make you rich. Thats just the way it is. Yelling for copyright will not change this.

Now. this makes no statement over the value of their work. I strongly believe that there can not be such a thing as too much art. However, there can be too much art for the market and that's where we are at. In other words, the market is unable to appropriately value Art. There is nothing we can do to fix this. As with the problem of the scarce good, it is simply not within the markets reach. (Which suggests, that they should be payed through other distributive measures, such as a cultural tax, but this is only one possible solution.)

Art is created within a context. No one makes original art, I repeat: Not a single recognized artist can claim their art to exist independent of other artist. Even Schönbergs 12-tone music (which I consider to be the most original thing which happened to music in the last 1000 years) is only understandable in the context of a reaction to his contemporaries. It has no easthetic value for somebody who does not understand in what musical tradition it is to be placed. (the same is true for Burzum and Lady Gaga).

Art is a dialogue. Jule Verne, for example freely uses figures and settings created by Edgar Allen Poe. The same figures, incidentally which lead Lovecraft to write his Mountains of Madness. Should Lovecraft and Verne pay royalties to Poe? Should Poe in turn pass them on to Hoffmann and Shelly?

(oh, and dont get me started on patents. With patents the situation is even worse, but that would be an essay in itself)

I believe not, I believe this dialogue is the very essence of art. Interrupting these processes by copyright laws can in fact very well backfire on the artists themselves. And it gets even more ridiculous: The german "Urheberrecht" automatically protects "your" "intellectual proporty" for 100 years. iyahdub: What benefit will you have if your music is protected in 100 years from now? There are people who benefit from these laws ... but they are not the artists.

I believe my main point is:

a) Some of the problems are due to techno/cultural change (non-scarce goods). Many of them are due to the art industry (over-saturation of the market, weird double payment systems). Either way - piracy is a symptom, and its odd to blame the customer for the symptom of a problem which they have nothing to do.

b) Many aspects of current copyright law are designed without any regards to what art is and what the artist needs. Rather they are designed for the benefit of the distribution industry. Artist and consumer should not be fighting here, but rather together attempt to get rid of the distribution industry, which in our time is nothing less than an outdated concept.

ok. there. thats what I meant to say.
Has anyone worked their way down? If so, please comment - I would love to get some reactions to the things I point out.

regards

p.

focalist. don't blame the kids :stuck_out_tongue:

ah - and the fact that a teacher hands out pirated documents is a little shocking. After all I have said - I do have to state that I find that wrong.

fkeel:
...I might be payed to perform. Then I might receive additional royalties from the recording that is made of the performance. Artists (and I count myself in here too) claim that what they do is a job, like any other job. However, they have this dual income (I am not saying artists are rich, mind you). One comes from the work they put into it, and the other comes from the impact of their work...

Where do you see being payed twice ?!? One is a payment from a live performance, another is a payment for each copy sold... One doesnt mix with the other...

Apart from that, i agree, in a general way with you.
But until other ways are found, we need to keep the current laws in motion, and enforce them to the best of our abilities, which more and more attention is being given to that( at least in some countries, and UK is an example of that, lately)

The other side of the equation doesn't get much examination -

How much of the complaints about "PIRACY" are more involved with keeping the system like it was before the changes took place. Recently heard of an organization that works with a number of media sources to police YouTube. As you know, folks tend to post scenes from movies or TV shows. Some companies choose to pursue this from the legal side and pay their lawyers to pursue the posters. Some have made the choice to work within the new media, they find a offending video and they reclaim it, out an advertisement at the beginning and then repost it. Meanwhile they are already doing this with their clients products as a way of generating advertising for their movies and shows and generating a little revenue for Youtube and themselves. They figure that if someone posts a scene they missed then it must be something that will generate views, along with some revenue. And by policing Youtube they also learn what peole might want to see and that will advertise their product. They keep control of their product, and don't spend a lot of time spreading ill will among potential customers.

The media industry cried a river of tears about how VHS recorders would ruin the industry. Yeah, there was some copying, bu there was also more views of some of the ads that were in the shows, and there were more views of some shows that were run at times when some couldn't watch. Net Gain/Loss? about 0.

Technology has always brought change, and change has always meant we have to adapt to a new way of doing things. Some will ALWAYS resist change and eventually disapear because they could/would not adapt. Has the RIAA helped their cause, or have they become perceived as an archaic organization that is badly out of touch and is actually spreading ill will among it's ultimate customers. You may be right, but is no-one wants your product because you are a bully and obnoxious have you won or lost?

Microsoft and others are still trying to fight Open Source. Has it hurt their profits? no, but they still think they are right when the market has changed and they are still trying to stuff it back in a bottle it no longer fits inside of...

I know at times i might have come acrss as only thinking about money im losing or might lose...NOT AT ALL ! If the same government and authorities stop charging me for the right to release it lawfully i will happy accept the so called loss and give it away at the price of cost !! The problem is they wont. How many of you here has a slight idea how much it costs to release something ?!? A single, an album, even a dvd ?!? And while burning some CD's at home might be a short term solution for promotional purposes at a small scale its not viable as a serious artist at all !
So, waiver the right to ask me to pay taxes and for the privilege of releasing my music, and ill give my music away at the price of cost... That way we will all be happy !! And sooth our spirit with good music !!

iyahdub

I asked you that before. what exactly do you mean by 'cost of releasing a an album etc.'?

Could you explain that to me?

(again, my questions are not a rhetoric tool. I really am interested in what you mean)

Sorry, didnt realised youd asked it.
Well, in a general way for you to release something musical wise you need a code for it( each music has a code that will identify it, a bit like a fingerprint): that involves money. Copyrighting everything in order to secure authorship involves money. Recording it and producing it involves A LOT OF MONEY ( Dont tell me you can do it with a computer, because we both know thats a lie...At least if you want a quality recording a computer alone wont be enough). Wear and tear ...Money
Should i continue, or stop here ?!?
Im not even go to the cost of the pressing itself( be it CD's, Vynils, or even the cost of maintaining an online shop or selling points through other online distributors).
I have invested far larger sum than 40 grand in my own studio and still havent reached a good recording studio quality... Maybe decent !!
So, maybe youd like to explain me where your doubt was ?!?!
I though that was an easy part to answer... even without detailed knowledge of the details !

As about the big labels ripping the artists off- What if you work for yourself ?!? Then the only ripping OFF is from the shared music...

Just because big labels rip off artists it dose not mean it is morally fine for anyone to do it, just as it is wrong for the big labels to do it.
I have known personally many musicians, some household names, some that you think would be rich, very few are. The ones that are tend to be only the ones who have had three of four albums after there "big" one. A band with only one big album will make no big money for it, only the same as they would get on the dole (U.S. readers read welfare).

If you want to listen to it you should want to pay for it and a fairer way must be found to make that happen. Whether it is pay per listen or some other way I don't know but because it is possible to rip something off doesn't mean it has to be done.
It is like a car thief justifying his crime by saying, "I had to the car was left unlocked". There are many things that are possible, it doesn't mean you have to do them. If you do then you are scum, simple as that.

Note that many big corporations give truth to the observation that scum always rises to the top.

Grumpy_Mike- I work and know several of the legends in reggae and most had to have day jobs to live, so they could feed themselves and family and at same time try to invest themselves in releasing stuff to get rid of the middle man... Even the onest that did it big enough to live just off mmusic are now having BIG PROBLEMS in surviving at all with JUST MUSIC !!
So , that deffo proves your point.
About your last statement, Ozzy Osbourne said in his bio that when he was first big( before his wife took over his management) he used to have just ask for things- Jaguars last model, houses, even drugs... But none of it were ever in his name, and ever saw much more than pennies compared to what he was doing in numbers ( he says he had to sell some of that stuff through "tricks" to actually afford his first house to his first wife)!!