surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Hey, you know that Child Porn act I mentioned a few comments ago? Doesn't even need SOPA as a rider. Czech the analysis:
"At issue is how to catch child pornographers. It's too hard now, say the bill's backers, and I can sympathize. It's their solution that appalls me: under language approved 19 to 10 by a House committee, the firm that sells you Internet access would be required to track all of your Internet activity and save it for 18 months, along with your name, the address where you live, your bank account numbers, your credit card numbers, and IP addresses you've been assigned.
Tracking the private daily behavior of everyone in order to help catch a small number of child criminals is itself the noxious practice of police states. Said an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation: "The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American." Even more troubling is what the government would need to do in order to access this trove of private information: ask for it.
I kid you not -- that's it.
As written, The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 doesn't require that someone be under investigation on child pornography charges in order for police to access their Internet history -- being suspected of any crime is enough"
"At issue is how to catch child pornographers. It's too hard now, say the bill's backers, and I can sympathize. It's their solution that appalls me: under language approved 19 to 10 by a House committee, the firm that sells you Internet access would be required to track all of your Internet activity and save it for 18 months, along with your name, the address where you live, your bank account numbers, your credit card numbers, and IP addresses you've been assigned.
Tracking the private daily behavior of everyone in order to help catch a small number of child criminals is itself the noxious practice of police states. Said an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation: "The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American." Even more troubling is what the government would need to do in order to access this trove of private information: ask for it.
I kid you not -- that's it.
As written, The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 doesn't require that someone be under investigation on child pornography charges in order for police to access their Internet history -- being suspected of any crime is enough"
big issue I have with megaupload they where basically profiting from pirated material.
one example if some one wanted to watch a pirated movie or tv series they would have a 75 min limit where only some one with a megaupload account can bypass it. so in a way they basically profit off pirated material with there megaupload accounts.
also it just annoys me how good games get sales taken away by pirates . people vote with there wallet and these companies generally seem to decide if they will fund another game from the developer by sales. it is kind of annoying to see a good game like the wither only get 1 million sales but pirated over 2 million times. I want the games I like to make money and show that people play things other then cod.
one example if some one wanted to watch a pirated movie or tv series they would have a 75 min limit where only some one with a megaupload account can bypass it. so in a way they basically profit off pirated material with there megaupload accounts.
also it just annoys me how good games get sales taken away by pirates . people vote with there wallet and these companies generally seem to decide if they will fund another game from the developer by sales. it is kind of annoying to see a good game like the wither only get 1 million sales but pirated over 2 million times. I want the games I like to make money and show that people play things other then cod.
@Tyler Youngblood
Which is why copyright infringement is a crime.
But should that copyright extend to the authors lifetime AND 70 years beyond that?
Obviously that 70 years is a moving target and gets extended everytime Steamboat Willie is about to be in the public domain. Can't stop Disney still profiting on that one! Sure it's raking it in.
Which is why copyright infringement is a crime.
But should that copyright extend to the authors lifetime AND 70 years beyond that?
Obviously that 70 years is a moving target and gets extended everytime Steamboat Willie is about to be in the public domain. Can't stop Disney still profiting on that one! Sure it's raking it in.
amazing points :D
this is why some games i can only play through piracy.
the publishers owning the IP are either dead or are just left in the vaults rotting the hell away(Killer 7, God Hand, Bloody Roar, Chaos Legion etc...)
and yes FUCK EM and THANK GOD FOR JIM FUCKING STERLING!
this is why some games i can only play through piracy.
the publishers owning the IP are either dead or are just left in the vaults rotting the hell away(Killer 7, God Hand, Bloody Roar, Chaos Legion etc...)
and yes FUCK EM and THANK GOD FOR JIM FUCKING STERLING!
::"And in other news...
A 300 pound man has been reported missing. Local county investigators have discovered as quickly as 1 week ago that a Mr. James Sterlig, a self-proclaimed "Video Games Journalist" has gone missing from his Louisiana home and was last seen having finished his latest video blog. A charity event sponsored by the ESA will be held to commemmorate his loss...
And moving over to real games, lets head over to Reggae for sports!"::
A 300 pound man has been reported missing. Local county investigators have discovered as quickly as 1 week ago that a Mr. James Sterlig, a self-proclaimed "Video Games Journalist" has gone missing from his Louisiana home and was last seen having finished his latest video blog. A charity event sponsored by the ESA will be held to commemmorate his loss...
And moving over to real games, lets head over to Reggae for sports!"::
@Elsa
You always make great points and i agree with you for the most part here.
I dont know if i am as convinced the theoretical artist has other options than being an employee and losing out on his/her work though. I mean yes these companies hire ppl to create something, or because they have something the company wants, but to lose control over your material when there was no other option is not right either.
Of course this is sort of grey area because there are many artists that work on these large projects and then it becomes who owns what?
and sure there is some naivete to this argument but what can you get into for 8 minutes and still be entertaining? Jim did a good job imo
You always make great points and i agree with you for the most part here.
I dont know if i am as convinced the theoretical artist has other options than being an employee and losing out on his/her work though. I mean yes these companies hire ppl to create something, or because they have something the company wants, but to lose control over your material when there was no other option is not right either.
Of course this is sort of grey area because there are many artists that work on these large projects and then it becomes who owns what?
and sure there is some naivete to this argument but what can you get into for 8 minutes and still be entertaining? Jim did a good job imo
@Elsa: Do you know how many other companies have done the same thing? Microsoft, Disney, CBS, like half of the companies that were initially supporting SOPA and PIPA made MILLIONS off of file sharing software. NOW that everyone knows how to use it they're all butthurt because they aren't making all the money from it.
If Megaupload can be held responsible for that shit then so should all those other cunts!
@Jim: Thank you! I've been trying to make these points to people for SO LONG now!
If Megaupload can be held responsible for that shit then so should all those other cunts!
@Jim: Thank you! I've been trying to make these points to people for SO LONG now!
Jim Sterling I LOVE YOU. Please, I want you to enter me...
The "Publisher" model is outdated. I like the way Minecraft did things, word of mouth popularity and consumers funding the project while it was still in development.
The "Publisher" model is outdated. I like the way Minecraft did things, word of mouth popularity and consumers funding the project while it was still in development.
So you're saying more piracy is a good thing for people who work, writing, coding, developing, new video games? I don't get it? I look at the music industry, now that there's really only 1 or 2 record companies, and it fucking sucks. The internet is so full of MySpace type bands, it's impossible for the really great ones to rise to the top. And how would they? All their music is free anyway? Be careful what you wish for Jim. I loved Metal Arms too, but if we all pirated Skyrim, why would they make another one? Shadows of the Damned, Dark Souls, will we still see games like these in 5 years? Or will the video games be as disposable as the music.
@Hasney
I like how they slapped Child Porn on that bill to grab attention, and to make it easier for the general public to knee-jerk except it. The easiest way to fight this bill would be to come up with another one to combat it.
I like how they slapped Child Porn on that bill to grab attention, and to make it easier for the general public to knee-jerk except it. The easiest way to fight this bill would be to come up with another one to combat it.
I'll echo Peteru's recommendation, read Stephan Kinsella's (he's an IP lawyer) Against Intellectual Property, just goggle it he has provided a free pdf.
Hey Jim, here's a positive comment from me.
Not a bad first episode. You had some solid points. However, I think you need to be wary of something; publishers do have a place in marketing. Take Nintendo for example, who published Steel Divers and Pushmo. Publishers can give small developers a chance to become successful. There is a good side to publishers just as there is a bad side to them.
Also I think you should be more careful with your wording about your lack of outrage toward piracy because while you even say you don't intend it, it sounded as if you were encouraging piracy. Whichever way you look at it, piracy (whether physical or digital) is a crime and it results in a content owner (whether creator or owner) not receiving due profit from a potential sale. Remember a woman was sued for quite a lot of money for allegedly downloading eight mp3s or so.
There are times where a publisher is deserving of that profit and it's not fair to take that away for selfish reasons (ex: not paying for it when you have the ability to do so), particularly when the economy is not in the most stable of conditions and the gaming industry as a whole needs every cent it can earn.
No, this does not mean 6 million dollars going to Activision over the next Call of Duty. This means that publishers and developers, new and old, skilled or inexperienced, deserve a fair shot at selling their art. Hollywood makes so much money it can stand to suffer financial losses over major films. I would like to see the gaming industry in the same state. That's just my two cents.
Also google the name "Nina Paley" and her indie animated movie "Sita Sings the Blues." Not only is it a wonderful film, but Nina the director and that movie are victims of loopholes in current copyright laws. It's worth taking a look-see if you're interested in researching the issue.
Not a bad first episode. You had some solid points. However, I think you need to be wary of something; publishers do have a place in marketing. Take Nintendo for example, who published Steel Divers and Pushmo. Publishers can give small developers a chance to become successful. There is a good side to publishers just as there is a bad side to them.
Also I think you should be more careful with your wording about your lack of outrage toward piracy because while you even say you don't intend it, it sounded as if you were encouraging piracy. Whichever way you look at it, piracy (whether physical or digital) is a crime and it results in a content owner (whether creator or owner) not receiving due profit from a potential sale. Remember a woman was sued for quite a lot of money for allegedly downloading eight mp3s or so.
There are times where a publisher is deserving of that profit and it's not fair to take that away for selfish reasons (ex: not paying for it when you have the ability to do so), particularly when the economy is not in the most stable of conditions and the gaming industry as a whole needs every cent it can earn.
No, this does not mean 6 million dollars going to Activision over the next Call of Duty. This means that publishers and developers, new and old, skilled or inexperienced, deserve a fair shot at selling their art. Hollywood makes so much money it can stand to suffer financial losses over major films. I would like to see the gaming industry in the same state. That's just my two cents.
Also google the name "Nina Paley" and her indie animated movie "Sita Sings the Blues." Not only is it a wonderful film, but Nina the director and that movie are victims of loopholes in current copyright laws. It's worth taking a look-see if you're interested in researching the issue.
"So you're saying more piracy is a good thing for people who work, writing, coding, developing, new video games? I don't get it? I look at the music industry, now that there's really only 1 or 2 record companies, and it fucking sucks. The internet is so full of MySpace type bands, it's impossible for the really great ones to rise to the top. And how would they? All their music is free anyway? Be careful what you wish for Jim. I loved Metal Arms too, but if we all pirated Skyrim, why would they make another one? Shadows of the Damned, Dark Souls, will we still see games like these in 5 years? Or will the video games be as disposable as the music."
Except people did pirate skyrim, it still sold magnificently.
Except people did pirate skyrim, it still sold magnificently.
I dunno Jim, you seem to be putting too much emphasis on "copyright infringement" and not piracy. And really oversimplifies the issue. There are some ridiculous personal damages claims (the "my meal was cold - pay me 20 mill" type) in US courts. There's also some shocking ("they systematically harrassed/physically abused my son for years leading to his suicide") personal damages claims . Shall we trash the system entirely to weed out the self serving crap? Just because Company x is making money of somebody's intellectual workings (which is usually broken down into 1000's of smaller shares, and hey, often developers are cut in!), which in turn, they PAID for and Dev x SOLD to them - does that mean intellectual property (except for the coolest edgiest obscure indie titles) is fair game?
Metal Arms, whie being a sole example, doesn't represent the whole. The IP negotiations for this game are in no means representative of the bulk of the industry, and either way, it still addresses the fact that IP has value. Dev creates game, sells IP for money - which is what keeps the world ticking, even though we'd love to believe art and magic are made by rainbows and sparkles entirely. If I plan and build a house, get paid for it, and agree to the sale of said house halfway through the build, - hell, I might even agree at the time of sale to never build another house like it - when do my creator rights revert back to me? When can I knock on the owners door and say "x number of years is up, my house again! Pack yer bags."
The way it was was either -
a) you get no Metal Arms at all -
or b) Publisher buys IP rights and publishes it, maybe not the best negotiation from the dev, or publisher bullying in the negotiations- but - bam! deal is done - there's your Metal Arms - the only one you get, but still, you get it.
Yes copyright law can be Draconian and Orwellian. Copyright is abused by big corporatins to hold on to IPs sometimes a hundred years after it has been released. But guess what - if houses were free, wouldn't nobody be building them. In an arse backwards kind of way, the fact that companies PAY for IP (and then act like a bunch of arses to extend that lease, which is entirely another issue) - allowing devs to actually spend their lives creating, while being paid to do it - actually gives the IP (not the finished product itself) a value, which often the creators can use as a makeweight/bartering tool to get paid before the work is even complete (or to resell down the line, whatever).
In a parallel - these days everyone is selling naming right to their football stadiums - you can see Arsenal lay at The Emirates Stadium, or Bolton at The Reebok Stadium. Sure, it takes a lot of the character away, sure it's a bit crass, callous, and most of the time - the name of the stadium reflects nothing of their clubs/history. But that (naming rights) money, while being bullshit economics/money out of thin air/all that is wrong withe economics today (which I heartily agree with) is also money that goes to the club, which they can then spend on players/development/expenses. By giving this "idea" a price, and selling it - you are also giving it a value. See also - the art world.
So in agreeing that while their are some benefits for the "creators" , but far more for the "publisher" (who also keeps a line in bullshit IP extension/exploitation) , and many of these publisher benefits are sustained by extending old IP rights - the fact is that the bulk of piracy is for media released in the last 12 months (look at the torrent charts) - the fiscal year that the publisher looks at sales returns, then plans what that studio can do next based on that. Sure, you're not hurting the dev DIRECTLY and sticking it to the evil publisher man, but that's a bit like shooting not just the messenger, but the whole postal system. By "copyright infringing" you're not just a moral crusader (see also "killing in the name of god", sure , you're doing it for a "higher true cause", but you're also, y'know, killing), you're actually hurting the "value" of their creation - and probably kneecapping them for future IP negotiations - sure MS owns the Halo IP due to some previous business, but going into negotations for their new project, did you think Bungie were throwing in IP rights carte blanche?
Anwyay Jim, you've surprised me. Normally your case is a bit more thoroughly thought out, but here, it seems you've narrowed your mind a little. Maybe that's why there is a part 2 coming?
Metal Arms, whie being a sole example, doesn't represent the whole. The IP negotiations for this game are in no means representative of the bulk of the industry, and either way, it still addresses the fact that IP has value. Dev creates game, sells IP for money - which is what keeps the world ticking, even though we'd love to believe art and magic are made by rainbows and sparkles entirely. If I plan and build a house, get paid for it, and agree to the sale of said house halfway through the build, - hell, I might even agree at the time of sale to never build another house like it - when do my creator rights revert back to me? When can I knock on the owners door and say "x number of years is up, my house again! Pack yer bags."
The way it was was either -
a) you get no Metal Arms at all -
or b) Publisher buys IP rights and publishes it, maybe not the best negotiation from the dev, or publisher bullying in the negotiations- but - bam! deal is done - there's your Metal Arms - the only one you get, but still, you get it.
Yes copyright law can be Draconian and Orwellian. Copyright is abused by big corporatins to hold on to IPs sometimes a hundred years after it has been released. But guess what - if houses were free, wouldn't nobody be building them. In an arse backwards kind of way, the fact that companies PAY for IP (and then act like a bunch of arses to extend that lease, which is entirely another issue) - allowing devs to actually spend their lives creating, while being paid to do it - actually gives the IP (not the finished product itself) a value, which often the creators can use as a makeweight/bartering tool to get paid before the work is even complete (or to resell down the line, whatever).
In a parallel - these days everyone is selling naming right to their football stadiums - you can see Arsenal lay at The Emirates Stadium, or Bolton at The Reebok Stadium. Sure, it takes a lot of the character away, sure it's a bit crass, callous, and most of the time - the name of the stadium reflects nothing of their clubs/history. But that (naming rights) money, while being bullshit economics/money out of thin air/all that is wrong withe economics today (which I heartily agree with) is also money that goes to the club, which they can then spend on players/development/expenses. By giving this "idea" a price, and selling it - you are also giving it a value. See also - the art world.
So in agreeing that while their are some benefits for the "creators" , but far more for the "publisher" (who also keeps a line in bullshit IP extension/exploitation) , and many of these publisher benefits are sustained by extending old IP rights - the fact is that the bulk of piracy is for media released in the last 12 months (look at the torrent charts) - the fiscal year that the publisher looks at sales returns, then plans what that studio can do next based on that. Sure, you're not hurting the dev DIRECTLY and sticking it to the evil publisher man, but that's a bit like shooting not just the messenger, but the whole postal system. By "copyright infringing" you're not just a moral crusader (see also "killing in the name of god", sure , you're doing it for a "higher true cause", but you're also, y'know, killing), you're actually hurting the "value" of their creation - and probably kneecapping them for future IP negotiations - sure MS owns the Halo IP due to some previous business, but going into negotations for their new project, did you think Bungie were throwing in IP rights carte blanche?
Anwyay Jim, you've surprised me. Normally your case is a bit more thoroughly thought out, but here, it seems you've narrowed your mind a little. Maybe that's why there is a part 2 coming?
The point made about rights reverting to the creators is the one takeaway in this rant against publishers and the inadequacies of copyright laws (the piracy thing was just pure headline grabbing - shame on you Sterling).
The reason we can "look forward to" to the upcoming Superman and Spiderman films this year is solely because the movie studios involved have to produce them, or lose the license. If those movies aren't made within a certain timeframe, the rights revert to DC and Marvel. In an ideal world, said rights would revert to Jerry Seigel/Joe Shuster and Stan Lee/Steve Ditko or their estates.
On a side note, piracy is not a new thing. Charles Dickens spent a good number of his later years in legal wrangles over American publishers reprinting his works and selling them without paying a penny to the author. America was held with the same disdain that we now reserve for China or Russia.
The reason we can "look forward to" to the upcoming Superman and Spiderman films this year is solely because the movie studios involved have to produce them, or lose the license. If those movies aren't made within a certain timeframe, the rights revert to DC and Marvel. In an ideal world, said rights would revert to Jerry Seigel/Joe Shuster and Stan Lee/Steve Ditko or their estates.
On a side note, piracy is not a new thing. Charles Dickens spent a good number of his later years in legal wrangles over American publishers reprinting his works and selling them without paying a penny to the author. America was held with the same disdain that we now reserve for China or Russia.
the games industry is in a shit enought situation as it is with more and more genres becoming unvaible as AAA titles, thats why the indie industry is fluishing as they continue to pick up more genres and sub genres.
Pirating AAA games will make this decline even worse. In the end all that will be left will be online mutilplayer and facebook games
Sure many AAA publisher are scum but I stil enjoy some of their games and would hate to see them go away. In a perfect world the indies would grow to AAA size just like valve but likely wont happen, atleast for a while anyway
Pirating AAA games will make this decline even worse. In the end all that will be left will be online mutilplayer and facebook games
Sure many AAA publisher are scum but I stil enjoy some of their games and would hate to see them go away. In a perfect world the indies would grow to AAA size just like valve but likely wont happen, atleast for a while anyway
I love how you referenced Nine Inch Nails's album. I used to like them back when I was a stupid little shit who thought that The Slip was totally not a couple hours worth of electronic feedback. It was still a noble cause on NIN's part, though, to release that album for free despite how much shit it sucked. But that may have been no coincidence.
But Jim, once again, makes good points. I've always felt that it's a low blow to pirate indie games, or games sold on services like Humble Bundle. Though with my growing apathy in the industry, my jaded attitude only swelling up even more as I see how much Extortion Arts is allowed to get away with, I just can't bring myself to care anymore. I've grown tired of fighting battles like this and, come to think of it, maybe that's all the industry wants.
But Jim, once again, makes good points. I've always felt that it's a low blow to pirate indie games, or games sold on services like Humble Bundle. Though with my growing apathy in the industry, my jaded attitude only swelling up even more as I see how much Extortion Arts is allowed to get away with, I just can't bring myself to care anymore. I've grown tired of fighting battles like this and, come to think of it, maybe that's all the industry wants.
Bribo - It's a tricky pickle the old creators thing. So Marvel lose the rights to their characters. Does Steve Ditko go into publishing? He's getting on in years a bit, so I can't see him giving me my monthly Spidey fix. Would we have seen some Madueira or Ramos Spidey in 2011? Do Marvel publish Spider-Man and pay Ditko a fee? Then decide to focus on newer in-house characters to cut overheads? Or better yet Marvel just do an "image birth" and create a whole gaggle of characters the reader has no attachment to?
Do Kirby's children take on FF and Captain America? Or do they just expect a paycheque for work their grandfather did 50 years ago, that they invested zero hours in publishing/promoting/developing, like some trust fund kiddies? Or can they draw up a storm and realise amazing worlds in ink like their old man?
Sure that's extreme - and I'm not sure entirely what side of the fence I sit on - but just making you aware, that it's a more complex issue than "the estate gets all the money business as usual". And it wouldn't necessarily be good for people who like to read those characters.
Do Kirby's children take on FF and Captain America? Or do they just expect a paycheque for work their grandfather did 50 years ago, that they invested zero hours in publishing/promoting/developing, like some trust fund kiddies? Or can they draw up a storm and realise amazing worlds in ink like their old man?
Sure that's extreme - and I'm not sure entirely what side of the fence I sit on - but just making you aware, that it's a more complex issue than "the estate gets all the money business as usual". And it wouldn't necessarily be good for people who like to read those characters.
Bribo - It's a tricky pickle the old creators thing. So Marvel lose the rights to their characters. Does Steve Ditko go into publishing? He's getting on in years a bit, so I can't see him giving me my monthly Spidey fix. Would we have seen some Madueira or Ramos Spidey in 2011? Do Marvel publish Spider-Man and pay Ditko a fee? Then decide to focus on newer in-house characters to cut overheads? Or better yet Marvel just do an "image birth" and create a whole gaggle of characters the reader has no attachment to?
Do Kirby's children take on FF and Captain America? Or do they just expect a paycheque for work their grandfather did 50 years ago, that they invested zero hours in publishing/promoting/developing, like some trust fund kiddies? Or can they draw up a storm and realise amazing worlds in ink like their old man?
Sure that's extreme - and I'm not sure entirely what side of the fence I sit on - but just making you aware, that it's a more complex issue than "the estate gets all the money business as usual". And it wouldn't necessarily be good for people who like to read those characters.
Do Kirby's children take on FF and Captain America? Or do they just expect a paycheque for work their grandfather did 50 years ago, that they invested zero hours in publishing/promoting/developing, like some trust fund kiddies? Or can they draw up a storm and realise amazing worlds in ink like their old man?
Sure that's extreme - and I'm not sure entirely what side of the fence I sit on - but just making you aware, that it's a more complex issue than "the estate gets all the money business as usual". And it wouldn't necessarily be good for people who like to read those characters.
BRILLIANT MR. STERLING! I COULD HAVE NEVER ARGUE HOW SINISTER OUR COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE AS GOOD AS YOU HAVE CARED TO DEMONSTRATE IN YOUR LATEST JIMQUISITION EPISODE. YOU HAVE SHONE A LIGHT IN THIS OBSCURE AND BADLY EXPLAINED ISSUE IN THE WORLD OF DIGITAL CONTENT. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE FUCKING US CONGRESSMAN/CONGRESSWOMAN THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE AS WELL INFORMED AS YOURSELF IN THIS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT MATTER.
JIM, YOU ARE AN AMBASSADOR TO ALL CREATORS OF ART (LET'S NOT FUCKING ARGUE ABOUT GAMES NOT BEING ART, THEY SIMPLY FUCKING ARE). THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL OF BRAVE SOULS THAT WOULD TRULY STEP UP AND ADVOCATE FOR GAME DEVELOPERS. YOU SPEAK WORDS OF WISDOM WITH RELENTLESS HONESTY. I DON'T ALWAYS ENJOY YOUR BITCHING AND WINNING ON STUPID AND MEANINGLESS HEADLINES. BUT IF THESE WORDS MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU, I SINCERELY RESPECT YOU FOR THE WORK YOU DO BEYOND THE PAYCHECK.
I AM TOUCHED AND HONORED ON HOW DEEPLY YOU CARE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. THANKS FOR NOT BEING A PHONY. AND IF I AM WRONG ABOUT YOU, THEN I GUESS I WAS WRONG AS WELL.
ps. caps were utilized to enhance the intensity of my words with the sole purpose of capturing your attention. Also,cocks.
JIM, YOU ARE AN AMBASSADOR TO ALL CREATORS OF ART (LET'S NOT FUCKING ARGUE ABOUT GAMES NOT BEING ART, THEY SIMPLY FUCKING ARE). THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL OF BRAVE SOULS THAT WOULD TRULY STEP UP AND ADVOCATE FOR GAME DEVELOPERS. YOU SPEAK WORDS OF WISDOM WITH RELENTLESS HONESTY. I DON'T ALWAYS ENJOY YOUR BITCHING AND WINNING ON STUPID AND MEANINGLESS HEADLINES. BUT IF THESE WORDS MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU, I SINCERELY RESPECT YOU FOR THE WORK YOU DO BEYOND THE PAYCHECK.
I AM TOUCHED AND HONORED ON HOW DEEPLY YOU CARE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. THANKS FOR NOT BEING A PHONY. AND IF I AM WRONG ABOUT YOU, THEN I GUESS I WAS WRONG AS WELL.
ps. caps were utilized to enhance the intensity of my words with the sole purpose of capturing your attention. Also,cocks.
What's going on is creative destruction. Going from agriculture to industrialization back in the 1700s-1800s would be an example of what this entails. Right now we're in the midst of another shift, only this time from industrialization to computer/internet. Of course when this happens it causes a massive upheaval in terms of the economy and in terms of social values.
The major thing is that the internet is quickly making people better informed, and makes it much easier to disseminate information and makes it even harder to hide. Naturally what the internet ultimately represents is a blank slate for old forms of business to be done in new ways and for entirely new businesses to take hold. This frightens the Old World Establishment because they are unable or unwilling to adapt to these new values in order to survive.
Of course the main reason they can't or won't do this is because they either lacked the foresight to see these changes coming, or lack the emotional strength to adjust their values to match the new norms that are emerging in society. So they are repeatedly missing the bus that the rest of us have no trouble catching.
Let's take the music industry, for example. Before the internet, the music industry had no qualms about charging whatever they wanted for their music, regardless of what the public thought it was worth, because they were ultimately the only deal in town. Then the internet came along and they panicked. The smart thing was to adapt and adjust to this new tool and ride it to prosperity. But doing so would have required an attitude shift. It would have required taking paycuts. It would have required buying a Ferrari instead of owning a Jetliner. It would have required not having as many extravagant parties or other embellishments. It would have required them to live closer to reality. Emotionally they couldn't deal with that, and that's why a few years later iTunes and other services would come along and render them obsolete by decentralizing how music is distributed, and in a way that is both more fair and respectful to the musician and the customer.
This is why SOPA/PIPA/ACTA are really happening. The old world industries are unwilling/unable to adjust to these new changes. So since they are unable or unwilling to change, they instead try to attack the New World but legislating against those elements which are destroying them. But this is the Cycle of Progress these people are fighting. They may as well be standing in front of a avalanche because you'd have a better chance stopping that with your arms outstretched than massive tidal wave that they are facing now.
SOPA/PIPA/ACTA, the congressmen and businessmen crying and panicking are all just symptoms of a greater fundamental change that is occurring all over the Earth today, affecting both economy and society.
The major thing is that the internet is quickly making people better informed, and makes it much easier to disseminate information and makes it even harder to hide. Naturally what the internet ultimately represents is a blank slate for old forms of business to be done in new ways and for entirely new businesses to take hold. This frightens the Old World Establishment because they are unable or unwilling to adapt to these new values in order to survive.
Of course the main reason they can't or won't do this is because they either lacked the foresight to see these changes coming, or lack the emotional strength to adjust their values to match the new norms that are emerging in society. So they are repeatedly missing the bus that the rest of us have no trouble catching.
Let's take the music industry, for example. Before the internet, the music industry had no qualms about charging whatever they wanted for their music, regardless of what the public thought it was worth, because they were ultimately the only deal in town. Then the internet came along and they panicked. The smart thing was to adapt and adjust to this new tool and ride it to prosperity. But doing so would have required an attitude shift. It would have required taking paycuts. It would have required buying a Ferrari instead of owning a Jetliner. It would have required not having as many extravagant parties or other embellishments. It would have required them to live closer to reality. Emotionally they couldn't deal with that, and that's why a few years later iTunes and other services would come along and render them obsolete by decentralizing how music is distributed, and in a way that is both more fair and respectful to the musician and the customer.
This is why SOPA/PIPA/ACTA are really happening. The old world industries are unwilling/unable to adjust to these new changes. So since they are unable or unwilling to change, they instead try to attack the New World but legislating against those elements which are destroying them. But this is the Cycle of Progress these people are fighting. They may as well be standing in front of a avalanche because you'd have a better chance stopping that with your arms outstretched than massive tidal wave that they are facing now.
SOPA/PIPA/ACTA, the congressmen and businessmen crying and panicking are all just symptoms of a greater fundamental change that is occurring all over the Earth today, affecting both economy and society.
@JimmyDanger: Unfortunately they're trying to make it so that (to use your example) you can't build a house that looks the same, or even uses the same techniques used to build the house they own the "license" for.
It's not conducive to a prosperous intellectual community.
It's not conducive to a prosperous intellectual community.
I actually would like to point out a random fact. if you look at industries that create things such as cars and planes, copyrights would be a fucking nightmare. Old cars back before the 80's, you define as domestic and import 100%. now if you look carefully, you see toyota engines in chevy cars, american labels on japanese cars.
aircrafts such as planes, helicoptors, space shuttles,etc now are a huge collaborations by major and private industries. It would be like Activision and EA working together to create a single game.
If video game CEOs started allowing this, i wonder what direction games would head... maybe good games that would then in turn produce revenue. WHAT AN ABSTACT CONCEPT huh?
aircrafts such as planes, helicoptors, space shuttles,etc now are a huge collaborations by major and private industries. It would be like Activision and EA working together to create a single game.
If video game CEOs started allowing this, i wonder what direction games would head... maybe good games that would then in turn produce revenue. WHAT AN ABSTACT CONCEPT huh?
EXACTLY.
Copyright terms for computer software should be MUCH shorter, because it loses its commercial value very quickly and after that all these long terms are doing is causing creative works to be lost forever. The publishers just sit on the rights, so no-one can preserve them, but don't give a sh*t about it themselves.
And while we're on the subject, why the f*ck should these parasite corporations and their distributors in other countries get to set exploitative prices on their titles? 50USD? I'm in Australia, and they want bloody 100USD ON STEAM for Arkham City. They can f*ck right the hell off.
Copyright terms for computer software should be MUCH shorter, because it loses its commercial value very quickly and after that all these long terms are doing is causing creative works to be lost forever. The publishers just sit on the rights, so no-one can preserve them, but don't give a sh*t about it themselves.
And while we're on the subject, why the f*ck should these parasite corporations and their distributors in other countries get to set exploitative prices on their titles? 50USD? I'm in Australia, and they want bloody 100USD ON STEAM for Arkham City. They can f*ck right the hell off.
I only steal indie games, the devs don't deserve to have any control over what they create #righttopirate
@Jim... you are both right and wrong in this situation. You are right that pirating Metal Arms today will not affect the developer and publishers can be scumbags for holding onto IP's but there is NO doubt that Piracy hurts every developer regardless of who the publisher is or what deal they made with the developer!
I've seen too many good developers go under because of low sales and if piracy didn't exist it could have generated enough sales to have been saved (Metal Arms included). You are wrong to think that Pirates are not thieves, they are cheap bastards that don't deserved to be playing the game in the first place. Never mind the poor excuse of "I wouldn't have purchases it anyway" so no harm no foul...yeah right douchebag.
I've seen too many good developers go under because of low sales and if piracy didn't exist it could have generated enough sales to have been saved (Metal Arms included). You are wrong to think that Pirates are not thieves, they are cheap bastards that don't deserved to be playing the game in the first place. Never mind the poor excuse of "I wouldn't have purchases it anyway" so no harm no foul...yeah right douchebag.
Jim Sterling: A professional troll and a biased reviewer. However I will say that Jim's views on the game industry and his ideology on how it should be approached are absolutely brilliant (to me) if a bit radical. In this case, though I agree wholeheartedly on the whole big Publishers are self serving asshats and that piracy's only "victim" would be those selfish bastards, I'm not entirely certain that they are completely obsolete.
The publisher is where the money that makes the game comes from, and for all these big budget modern day titles, they are a necessary evil. Its a shame, but very few creative devs can publish themselves and still bring in the cash to pay for their games. I think (though it would never happen) the whole "rent an IP" copyright policy would be the most fair.
The publisher is where the money that makes the game comes from, and for all these big budget modern day titles, they are a necessary evil. Its a shame, but very few creative devs can publish themselves and still bring in the cash to pay for their games. I think (though it would never happen) the whole "rent an IP" copyright policy would be the most fair.
wow, way to bring a new perspective into this whole Piracy topic. never really thought of it like that.
I think you need to fix the links under the video.
The Escapist : Jimquisition : Piracy Episode One - Copyright
The last one always is an improper link being:
http://www.destructoid.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5268-Piracy-Episode-One-Copyright
When it should be...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5268-Piracy-Episode-One-Copyright
Just thought I'd bring that up, dunno if anyone mentioned that before but I noticed that in all of your links to the following Jimquisition episode.
The Escapist : Jimquisition : Piracy Episode One - Copyright
The last one always is an improper link being:
http://www.destructoid.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5268-Piracy-Episode-One-Copyright
When it should be...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5268-Piracy-Episode-One-Copyright
Just thought I'd bring that up, dunno if anyone mentioned that before but I noticed that in all of your links to the following Jimquisition episode.
Always stipulate in your contract that you have sole creative rights to the product. They may have distribution rights and a right to copy your work but you still have creative ownership of it. Anytime they want to do anything new with that I.P. they have to come to you and pay you to use it.
Anything you want actually, can be put in the contract. You want the copyright and distribution rights back after a certain time? put it in the contract. Though they may not want to sign it. It's a give and take.
Anything you want actually, can be put in the contract. You want the copyright and distribution rights back after a certain time? put it in the contract. Though they may not want to sign it. It's a give and take.
I gotta disagree with a few of Jim's points.
In a lot of publishing deals, the developer will get royalties once the development budget has been recouped. Most of the time the budget doesn't get recouped, but when a game sells pretty well, the developer can benefit from each sale. So you are hurting the creator in a lot of cases if you opt to pirate the game. Small Arms is an example where the budget was probably never recouped. So at this point in time, one lost sale is probably moot for that game. But if you look at the guys who made Bastion or Scribblenauts, despite having a publisher like Warner Brothers involved, they seems to be doing okay.
Publishers are a necessity in a lot of cases. The money has to come from somewhere. And as other people said, they are taking a lot of the risk.
The relationship between a publisher and a developer is not all that different than the relationship between a developer and one of its employees. The employee's creations are owned by the developer and the employee may get little reward if a game sells well. The employee doesn't expect to reclaim ownership of the work they were paid to do, regardless of what happens to that work.
In a lot of publishing deals, the developer will get royalties once the development budget has been recouped. Most of the time the budget doesn't get recouped, but when a game sells pretty well, the developer can benefit from each sale. So you are hurting the creator in a lot of cases if you opt to pirate the game. Small Arms is an example where the budget was probably never recouped. So at this point in time, one lost sale is probably moot for that game. But if you look at the guys who made Bastion or Scribblenauts, despite having a publisher like Warner Brothers involved, they seems to be doing okay.
Publishers are a necessity in a lot of cases. The money has to come from somewhere. And as other people said, they are taking a lot of the risk.
The relationship between a publisher and a developer is not all that different than the relationship between a developer and one of its employees. The employee's creations are owned by the developer and the employee may get little reward if a game sells well. The employee doesn't expect to reclaim ownership of the work they were paid to do, regardless of what happens to that work.
@Bribo
The same way that Jerry Seigel/Joe Shuster and Stan Lee/Steve Ditko gave up their IP to DC and Marvel, for the right price, the movie studios could also permanently own Superman and Spiderman.
The same way that Jerry Seigel/Joe Shuster and Stan Lee/Steve Ditko gave up their IP to DC and Marvel, for the right price, the movie studios could also permanently own Superman and Spiderman.
follow
