I note that Valve has been using free stuff to make money with TF2, to the point where they're now giving the game away. I might have the history slightly wrong but as I understand it:
- Originally they just had the standard weapons.
- Later they added new weapons and hats you could get through achievements or random drop.
- Much later they added a whole ecosystem. You can now trade most items, and you can also buy them directly from Steam. They also randomly drop "crates" that sometimes include special items that can be purchased directly but are never dropped directly. It costs $2.49 to purchase a key to open a crate.
- At some point they added a special "gift wrap" item that lets you trade things that are untradeable.
- Somewhere in there they started adding items for special events. Some are for holiday events, but there are also promotional items; buy game X and get a hat or weapon from that game, and vice-versa. (For example I have Mr. Foster's gas mask and tie on my TF2 Pyro and the Pyro model in my Killing Floor game because I bought Killing Floor in the specified time period. I also have the OS X ear buds, and no, sorry, I won't trade them. Not even for all the items in your backpack. :)
You can play the game perfectly well without spending a dime; they balance the weapons pretty well so that there's no clear advantage to having any particular weapon. Given time you'll get enough weapons and hats and crates through random drops to trade to other people for the weapons and hats you want. Yet they make enough money from the store that they've gone ahead and made the game free.
Well, be fair, $20 up front doesn't represent a constant income. But $1 here and $10 there adds up. So they've made the game free to play, which encourages a lot more people to join up that otherwise wouldn't have -- and spend money on keys.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Punitive v. Non-Punitive Damages
We're pretty sure that her sharing these files caused a gazillion other people to share them. Furthermore, we've proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that we're pretty sure each of those constitutes a lost sale. Since each lost sale costs us $2, we want $750 million for each one, because that's fair, don't you think? 750 million times a gazillion is larger than the number of atoms in the universe, but we're willing to settle for everybody in the world paying us all the money they have.
After all, we're the good guys.
...Sorry, I got lost in the silliness.
"We're pretty sure" doesn't constitute proof. But apparently it's enough to screw somebody of every dollar they've ever made and ever will make because of a minor copyright violation.
Your analogy needs work. Are you really equating copyright violation with mass murder?
One million people re-sharing your file is at most contributory copyright violation on your part. Yet you're equating it with directly and maliciously putting people in harm's way. Moreover, you are completely ignoring the other 1 million people whose actions had the same effect as yours. Why don't they count? Is it because you're setting an example? Is it because you don't know who they are?
I think your "loaded gun in a playground" analogy is a weak and transparent attempt to generate an emotional response.
You know, a decades-old Gahan Wilson cartoon would fit right in here. Unfortunately it won't be part of our culture for at least another 70 years (seeing as how Mr. Wilson hasn't died yet), so unless you go out and buy his books, you can't see it.
"This is part of an ongoing pattern - a more cynical person might even call it a campaign - in which copyright will be extended until it never expires."
Uh huh. On the other hand, "It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."
Actually it's slightly lower than 5% since 64 isn't evenly divisible. After all, I wouldn't want to rob Mr. Nash of his duly owed wages by quoting 4 characters.
Oh wait... he's been dead for 40 years. Still, present copyright laws will encourage him to continue to produce for at least another 30 years. Meantime, we're not allowed to quote him, except for fair-use excerpts.
I'm sure you can see the man's cleverness and wit from this excerpt. Enjoy!
P.S. Here's an excerpt from another Ogden Nash poem:
""
Sorry, 5% of that one is less than one character. Let's see who can quote the entire poem first!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like the opt-out part: assumes rights in itself.
"Prove absolutely that they are orphaned."
Wow, that's a pretty high bar. "Absolutely." There's no room in your world view for due diligence or "beyond a reasonable doubt", is there? Even murder trials don't require absolute proof.
"...a significant level of proof..."
Wait a second. First you say "absolutely" and now you say "significant level". You can't have it both ways. Either it's absolute, or it isn't.
"Who is choosing what is really orphaned? What is the legal definition?"
That's the problem: there isn't a legal definition. Nobody who has the power to make a legal definition is interested. Nobody who is interested has the power. So those who have a need to use the works in question are trying to force the issue.
I'm sorry this offends you personally. If it sticks in your craw that much, perhaps you should get a job as a congresscritter and pass laws criminalizing this behavior.
Re: Your "should" constrains too much: /can be/, so will be.
"And now I ask again, presumably rhetorically: are you going to download if might get tossed into jail?"
It has been proven time and time again that jail is an effective deterrent. Obviously it works because we have so few jails and they're practically empty! The poor guards and wardens are bored stiff with nothing to do but play Parcheesi all day.
On the post: Internet Troll Jailed In The UK For Being A Jerk Online
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides, he's probably part of the nobility. ;)
On the post: Guy Who Created The TSA Says It's Failed, And It's Time To Dismantle It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Completely Effective
On the post: Indie Game Developer Posts Game on Pirate Bay, Sees Positive Results
Making money by giving stuff away
- Originally they just had the standard weapons.
- Later they added new weapons and hats you could get through achievements or random drop.
- Much later they added a whole ecosystem. You can now trade most items, and you can also buy them directly from Steam. They also randomly drop "crates" that sometimes include special items that can be purchased directly but are never dropped directly. It costs $2.49 to purchase a key to open a crate.
- At some point they added a special "gift wrap" item that lets you trade things that are untradeable.
- Somewhere in there they started adding items for special events. Some are for holiday events, but there are also promotional items; buy game X and get a hat or weapon from that game, and vice-versa. (For example I have Mr. Foster's gas mask and tie on my TF2 Pyro and the Pyro model in my Killing Floor game because I bought Killing Floor in the specified time period. I also have the OS X ear buds, and no, sorry, I won't trade them. Not even for all the items in your backpack. :)
You can play the game perfectly well without spending a dime; they balance the weapons pretty well so that there's no clear advantage to having any particular weapon. Given time you'll get enough weapons and hats and crates through random drops to trade to other people for the weapons and hats you want. Yet they make enough money from the store that they've gone ahead and made the game free.
Well, be fair, $20 up front doesn't represent a constant income. But $1 here and $10 there adds up. So they've made the game free to play, which encourages a lot more people to join up that otherwise wouldn't have -- and spend money on keys.
Just another way to monetize free.
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Punitive v. Non-Punitive Damages
After all, we're the good guys.
...Sorry, I got lost in the silliness.
"We're pretty sure" doesn't constitute proof. But apparently it's enough to screw somebody of every dollar they've ever made and ever will make because of a minor copyright violation.
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Punitive v. Non-Punitive Damages
One million people re-sharing your file is at most contributory copyright violation on your part. Yet you're equating it with directly and maliciously putting people in harm's way. Moreover, you are completely ignoring the other 1 million people whose actions had the same effect as yours. Why don't they count? Is it because you're setting an example? Is it because you don't know who they are?
I think your "loaded gun in a playground" analogy is a weak and transparent attempt to generate an emotional response.
On the post: Canada Plans To Re-Introduce Bad Copyright Plan, With Damaging Digital Locks Provisions, With No Additional Consultation
On the post: Reasonable Anger In Europe Over Ridiculous Copyright Extension
Re:
On the post: Reasonable Anger In Europe Over Ridiculous Copyright Extension
Re:
On the post: Reasonable Anger In Europe Over Ridiculous Copyright Extension
Uh huh. On the other hand, "It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."
On the post: Court Says Law Blocking Blogger From Displaying County Logo On Stories Violates The First Amendment
I'm confused
On the post: DailyDirt: Hacking The Brain... Not Into Bits
Distinct features of autistic brain revealed in novel Stanford/Packard analysis of MRI scans
...since we're talking about brains.
Or:
http://www.scarygoround.com/sgr/ar.php?date=20030218
and
http://www.schlockmercena ry.com:8080/2006-10-31
if we're talking about braaaaaaains.
On the post: How Confusion & Lack Of Clarity In Copyright Law Make Reviewing Poems Difficult
"God"
Actually it's slightly lower than 5% since 64 isn't evenly divisible. After all, I wouldn't want to rob Mr. Nash of his duly owed wages by quoting 4 characters.
Oh wait... he's been dead for 40 years. Still, present copyright laws will encourage him to continue to produce for at least another 30 years. Meantime, we're not allowed to quote him, except for fair-use excerpts.
I'm sure you can see the man's cleverness and wit from this excerpt. Enjoy!
P.S. Here's an excerpt from another Ogden Nash poem:
""
Sorry, 5% of that one is less than one character. Let's see who can quote the entire poem first!
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re: Re:
You should have it done by Tuesday. Wednesday morning at the latest.
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re: Re: Re: Recycling Old Lacks Innovation
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like the opt-out part: assumes rights in itself.
Wow, that's a pretty high bar. "Absolutely." There's no room in your world view for due diligence or "beyond a reasonable doubt", is there? Even murder trials don't require absolute proof.
"...a significant level of proof..."
Wait a second. First you say "absolutely" and now you say "significant level". You can't have it both ways. Either it's absolute, or it isn't.
"Who is choosing what is really orphaned? What is the legal definition?"
That's the problem: there isn't a legal definition. Nobody who has the power to make a legal definition is interested. Nobody who is interested has the power. So those who have a need to use the works in question are trying to force the issue.
I'm sorry this offends you personally. If it sticks in your craw that much, perhaps you should get a job as a congresscritter and pass laws criminalizing this behavior.
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re:
On the post: Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable
Re: Of course it hasn't made a profit!
I guess this is my fault, then.
On the post: Officials In The Philippines Want To Criminalize Downloading
Re: Your "should" constrains too much: /can be/, so will be.
It has been proven time and time again that jail is an effective deterrent. Obviously it works because we have so few jails and they're practically empty! The poor guards and wardens are bored stiff with nothing to do but play Parcheesi all day.
On the post: That Anonymous Coward's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Giberish
"That was the most incoherent bunch of nonsense I've read in a long time."
Really? You should get out more.
On the post: US Gov't Continues Indicting People For File Sharing; 5 Indicted For NinjaVideo
Re: Re:
Uh, it's early Monday and I haven't had my tea yet. Yeah, that's it.
Next >>