It is good to see that a developer sees being pirated as a sort of badge of honor: If your game is worth being pirated, it (probably) is worth being played.
Because if a game is not worth being played, it is definetely not worth being bought.
Well, I guess in this case you're absolutely right. But I don't think that hating the enforcement of a broken law is that bad.
I mean, there was a time when there were laws regulating slavery. And there was the enforcement of these laws. Luckily, enough people hated it and did something to change things. The rest is history.
I really hope it doesn't need a civil war to change copyright law.
No - I don't think it is morally disgusting. AND I understand the human need to ensure that one's offsprings will have the best possible (financial) future.
And yes, where to put the threshold is yet an unresolved question.
"What right do others have to condemn someone who gains wealth through inheritance?"
Well, certainly no legal right, but maybe a moral right?
Don't get me wrong, I admire and respect anyone who goes from "nobody" to "Richie Rich rich" through his or her own work. But I definetely can't say the same about their heirs. They were just lucky enough to be born in the "right" family. Of course this should not be a reason to condemn them. But putting certain limits to the advantages that such family-ties bring does not seem wrong to me.
Consumer's Free <> Hollywood's Free - it's that simple.
To me entertainment freedom means I get to watch what I want, when I want, where I want, on the device I want without any advertisment, without any fbi-warning, with the means to make backups - this sort of freedom is certainly worth a few of my bucks.
A DRM-, advertisment-, fbi-warning-laden construct is worthless to me.
Dear Hollywood, get back to me when you got some offer that is worth the name...
Well... here on techdirt we have a button called report. Sure. It's not censoring in an absolute sense, because a comment is "only" hidden that way, but still...
We appreciate means to have a say about what we like (hint to facebook) or dislike. And therefore, there are various degrees of censoring.
Maybe by getting racist content officially off-line, that's our way of showing our dislike. Because, lets be honest, the net never forgets. Even if such apps are being taken offline, once they've been spread they will continue to digitally exist in more shady areas of the web.
AND it can act as an economic booster, which - financially speaking - is the best thing that could happen to an app-dev.
Filmmakers who use crowd-funding are more successful in not being ripped off than your retrograde hollywood studios.
And if you've got evidence that the majority of the filmmakers using crowdfunding get ripped off instead of enjoying the privilege of getting paid, post it.
Don't jump to conclusions by using yourself as referential example...
"absolve yourselves of stealing other people's work"
No absolution needed for a crime not commited.
"You need a formula"
Nope, we don't. Industry does - where you need to streamline your production. But I doubt that nowadays we need an industrial organisation to spread arts.
And hey, if I had THE formula, I wouldn't tell you - you might STEAL it, you THIEF!
But I know why "the old" entertainment industry doesn't go that route: Definite scarce can only be sold ONCE. After you sold it you have to produce NEW definite scarce before fresh money comes in.
While I agree that, generally speaking, artificial copying barriers do more harm than good, I'm not quite sure if the fashion world can be compared to the computer world without some... restrictions.
As stated in the article the fashion world works around (and follows) trends. The computer world does it too in some cases (entertainment apps, videogames, etc.) but there are also parts in the computer world where trends play a smaller role. Some software should rather be "useful" than "trendy". To give a simple example: You'd rather buy the software which enables you to perform a certain task with 3 clicks instead of 7.
Don't misundestand me. I still think the computer world would benefit if the slowing mechanisms named "patent" and "copyright" weren't in place - but for different reasons.
True, because I failed to make you understand it. Maybe I should have given you a few historical examples how "creative work" or "entertainment service" was financed pre-copyright - but you ain't worth the effort.
See, service is a "here and now" thing. It's direct and one on one.
Ugh, so what exactly is "one on one" when the police patrols our streets? Here? Can't see any policemen around... And now? Don't know, as I've said, they ain't around but... it's still a service right? To "serve" and protect us, right?
"Writing is none of that."
Of course it is. Writing is a process - not a finished product.
"It's writing and book and then SELLING THE BOOK."
Only because you forcefully link two different and independent stages:
1. Writing
2. (Printing and) Selling the book.
The first stage is where the (marketable) scarcity comes from. The second stage is the one that has become obsolete because there is no regulable scarcity in it. That you can't see that is not me redefining reality, it's you being BLIND to reality.
"Yes, and without a structure under which he could sell that book, he is left with nothing except a nice feeling and probably a day job."
He is not selling "the book", he is selling the service of writing the book. He could sell that service with or without copyright in existence. People like Stephen King will always be in high demand, because they have something scarce that other people want: They have the ability to express interesting thoughts and bring them into a form compelling to others.
Copyright has nothing to do with the scarce part. It only seemed as if, because the distribution channels were scarce too: Printing was (and still is) a costly business. Only a few people had the means to do it and therefore copyright was a useful and enforceable tool to convey the initial creator's scarcity into a sellable scarce product.
Nowadays the distribution channels aren't scarce anymore. Anyone with a decent cellphone holds the capability to endlessly replicate a written piece in his or her hands. Where there once were a manageable number of publishers you now have countless legions of potential publishers. In such a scenario copyright is neither useful nor enforceable.
"If you can't see the problem, you are willfully blind."
Or not obtuse enough to think it is perfectly reasonable that the ones who build and mantain the streets should be made liable for bankrobbers using cars...
Innocent until proven guilty, sounds familiar? I know you prefer it the other way around - but only when it suits your interests. I bet you'd cry bitter tears if you got caught up in a system where you get accused and have to prove you're innocent...
"Can you imagine the cost and effort required to deal with a single blatant copyright infringement case, as well as the time it would take to get the job completed?"
Because pirates pirate for one reason, and one reason alone:
THEY WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE
Damn freeloaders...
They wouldn't pirate because:
- The title is not available in their country.
- They want a digital version of their bought paper version.
- The buyable digital version comes with unpleasant restrictions like DRM.
- They deem the pricing of the digital version unfair.
- They just want a sneek peek to see if the book is to their liking.
No, no, no. They just pirate because THEY WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE!
(untitled comment)
It is good to see that a developer sees being pirated as a sort of badge of honor: If your game is worth being pirated, it (probably) is worth being played.
Because if a game is not worth being played, it is definetely not worth being bought.
Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
I mean, there was a time when there were laws regulating slavery. And there was the enforcement of these laws. Luckily, enough people hated it and did something to change things. The rest is history.
I really hope it doesn't need a civil war to change copyright law.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't seem fair to me...
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yes, where to put the threshold is yet an unresolved question.
Re: Re:
Well, certainly no legal right, but maybe a moral right?
Don't get me wrong, I admire and respect anyone who goes from "nobody" to "Richie Rich rich" through his or her own work. But I definetely can't say the same about their heirs. They were just lucky enough to be born in the "right" family. Of course this should not be a reason to condemn them. But putting certain limits to the advantages that such family-ties bring does not seem wrong to me.
(untitled comment)
To me entertainment freedom means I get to watch what I want, when I want, where I want, on the device I want without any advertisment, without any fbi-warning, with the means to make backups - this sort of freedom is certainly worth a few of my bucks.
A DRM-, advertisment-, fbi-warning-laden construct is worthless to me.
Dear Hollywood, get back to me when you got some offer that is worth the name...
(untitled comment)
We appreciate means to have a say about what we like (hint to facebook) or dislike. And therefore, there are various degrees of censoring.
Maybe by getting racist content officially off-line, that's our way of showing our dislike. Because, lets be honest, the net never forgets. Even if such apps are being taken offline, once they've been spread they will continue to digitally exist in more shady areas of the web.
AND it can act as an economic booster, which - financially speaking - is the best thing that could happen to an app-dev.
Re:
Filmmakers who use crowd-funding are more successful in not being ripped off than your retrograde hollywood studios.
And if you've got evidence that the majority of the filmmakers using crowdfunding get ripped off instead of enjoying the privilege of getting paid, post it.
Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!
Don't jump to conclusions by using yourself as referential example...
"absolve yourselves of stealing other people's work"
No absolution needed for a crime not commited.
"You need a formula"
Nope, we don't. Industry does - where you need to streamline your production. But I doubt that nowadays we need an industrial organisation to spread arts.
And hey, if I had THE formula, I wouldn't tell you - you might STEAL it, you THIEF!
The definite scarce IS what sells
Re:
"Trendy" vs. "useful"
As stated in the article the fashion world works around (and follows) trends. The computer world does it too in some cases (entertainment apps, videogames, etc.) but there are also parts in the computer world where trends play a smaller role. Some software should rather be "useful" than "trendy". To give a simple example: You'd rather buy the software which enables you to perform a certain task with 3 clicks instead of 7.
Don't misundestand me. I still think the computer world would benefit if the slowing mechanisms named "patent" and "copyright" weren't in place - but for different reasons.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course! The only problem is: The public is doing it illegaly...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, because I failed to make you understand it. Maybe I should have given you a few historical examples how "creative work" or "entertainment service" was financed pre-copyright - but you ain't worth the effort.
See, service is a "here and now" thing. It's direct and one on one.
Ugh, so what exactly is "one on one" when the police patrols our streets? Here? Can't see any policemen around... And now? Don't know, as I've said, they ain't around but... it's still a service right? To "serve" and protect us, right?
"Writing is none of that."
Of course it is. Writing is a process - not a finished product.
"It's writing and book and then SELLING THE BOOK."
Only because you forcefully link two different and independent stages:
1. Writing
2. (Printing and) Selling the book.
The first stage is where the (marketable) scarcity comes from. The second stage is the one that has become obsolete because there is no regulable scarcity in it. That you can't see that is not me redefining reality, it's you being BLIND to reality.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He is not selling "the book", he is selling the service of writing the book. He could sell that service with or without copyright in existence. People like Stephen King will always be in high demand, because they have something scarce that other people want: They have the ability to express interesting thoughts and bring them into a form compelling to others.
Copyright has nothing to do with the scarce part. It only seemed as if, because the distribution channels were scarce too: Printing was (and still is) a costly business. Only a few people had the means to do it and therefore copyright was a useful and enforceable tool to convey the initial creator's scarcity into a sellable scarce product.
Nowadays the distribution channels aren't scarce anymore. Anyone with a decent cellphone holds the capability to endlessly replicate a written piece in his or her hands. Where there once were a manageable number of publishers you now have countless legions of potential publishers. In such a scenario copyright is neither useful nor enforceable.
Deal with it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or not obtuse enough to think it is perfectly reasonable that the ones who build and mantain the streets should be made liable for bankrobbers using cars...
Re: Re: Re:
Re:
Due process is a bitch, isn't it? ...
Re: Re: Re: The Pirates Are Just Lying In Wait
Re: The Pirates Are Just Lying In Wait
THEY WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE
Damn freeloaders...
They wouldn't pirate because:
- The title is not available in their country.
- They want a digital version of their bought paper version.
- The buyable digital version comes with unpleasant restrictions like DRM.
- They deem the pricing of the digital version unfair.
- They just want a sneek peek to see if the book is to their liking.
No, no, no. They just pirate because THEY WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE!
With one exemption: prostitutes.
More comments from explicit coward >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by explicit coward.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt