PDA

View Full Version : Well. At least we can post stuff until after new-year


DahLliA
12-22-2011, 07:46 AM
SOPA postponed until 2012 (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114903-SOPA-Debate-Postponed-to-2012)

Sorry to say, but I hope it gets passed and all the major players move to Europe(or even better some random country in Africa) and remake the internet over here(there).

Maybe then the copyright-mafia and all the corrupt(stupid) politicians that support this will learn...

More likely though they'll simply break the entire Internet and force us back to "the stoneage".

For those of you want(and can) to try and stop it: Stop SOPA petition (https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%252F%21/petition/veto-sopa-bill-and-any-other-future-bills-threaten-diminish-free-flow-information/g3W1BscR#%21/petition/veto-sopa-bill-and-any-other-future-bills-threaten-diminish-free-flow-information/g3W1BscR)

Davian93
12-22-2011, 07:58 AM
Movie and music industry have more money than us...thus, they get to make the rules through their lackeys in Congress.

I love living in the 2nd Gilded Age.

fdsaf3
12-22-2011, 09:10 AM
let me say this first: SOPA is a sledgehammer trying to perform the act of a laser. It's poorly thought out, totally bending to the whim of industry, and almost totally lacks the foresight necessary to make a good policy.

With that said, I kind of agree with the sentiment behind it.

Let me 'splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

Piracy is a huge problem. As someone who has created creative works (seems redundant, but I don't know how to phrase it better), I would hate it if my works were pirated. I'm big into video games, and I don't know if any of you guys are as well. If you are, you might have noticed that there are a TON of "Let's play" video channels on Youtube these days. These are people who simply record themselves playing a video game and upload it to Youtube. Now, I kind of have a problem with that. If I want to know the plot of a game without buying it, I can simply load up these videos and find out. I'm getting the entire experience of the game without paying for it. There's something inherently wrong with that, I believe. Then when you factor in the fact that some people are getting paid to make these videos...yeah, I can see why a game publisher would have a problem with that.

I do think that the industry has gone too far in pushing for "no use" of their products in things like Youtube videos. Individuals have been forced to fight fair use complaints against corporations with lawyers devoted to the task of getting the offending videos taken down. It's an unfair fight. I'd have much more sympathy for the industry if they weren't being such dicks about going after individual Youtube video producers.

The video game industry has lost any sympathy it might have had from me. Music and movie industries aren't far behind. I hate that these industries are raking in money hand over fist, and yet they are still trying to figure out more ways to squeeze dollars out of us. I do concede that piracy is a problem. I just don't think the proposed legislation really does much to fight piracy per se. There are ways to fight this which are more direct and more effective than SOPA. I hope the feds do the right thing and rethink this proposal from the ground up.

ShadowbaneX
12-22-2011, 04:54 PM
The movie & music industry had it pretty good through the 20th Century. They got to make all the profits while screwing over everyone else pretty badly. Now things have progressed to the point where the transfer has outpaced them. Think back during the 40s & 50s where a good portion of the news was delivered in movie theaters, where now we can get it on cellphones.

Those industries have outdated business models, but they've still got billions or more from the last century. Rather than try to adapt to the changing game they're spending their money on politicians to force everyone to hold to their outdated system. It's bs and I cannot wait for them to become as obsolete as 8-tracks.

Mort
12-22-2011, 05:37 PM
Piracy is a huge problem. As someone who has created creative works (seems redundant, but I don't know how to phrase it better), I would hate it if my works were pirated. I'm big into video games, and I don't know if any of you guys are as well. If you are, you might have noticed that there are a TON of "Let's play" video channels on Youtube these days. These are people who simply record themselves playing a video game and upload it to Youtube. Now, I kind of have a problem with that. If I want to know the plot of a game without buying it, I can simply load up these videos and find out. I'm getting the entire experience of the game without paying for it. There's something inherently wrong with that, I believe. Then when you factor in the fact that some people are getting paid to make these videos...yeah, I can see why a game publisher would have a problem with that.


I get what you are saying, but the example of uploading videos to youtube doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I do not believe that videogames are like movies or a book, that by someone telling you the ending, story or details about it really ruins the experience. You want to experience the game itself, play it by yourself.

If I were interested in playing a game, I wouldn't go and watch a youtube video of a guy playing through the whole game. What I would do is watch bits to see how the gameplay looks like, be psyched about it and then go and buy the game.

I think videogame creators and publishers have nothing but to gain of videogames uploaded to youtube, bits or otherwise.

Concerning music and videos, it's all about how you are able to consume media today. There is a reason brick and mortar video stores are struggling for example. We shouldn't fight the change and force people go back to brick and mortar stores, we should embrace change and go with the flow. The music and movie industry for the most part want to do the opposite.

SOPA on the other hand needs to be fought tooth and nail. It is a very real danger to the whole internet structure.

Zombie Sammael
12-22-2011, 05:46 PM
From one point of view of video game marketing, uploading user videos that show how to play and beat the game to YouTube is actually helpful to developers, since it helps players to finish games more quickly and thus move on to the next game, paying their money (one way or the other) to the game manufacturers. So they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to stop things like Let's Play or GameFAQs (although a game walkthrough surely involves enough original effort to qualify as a protected work). What bugs me more is the sudden fear game publishers have developed of the after-market, by which they try to stop people playing pre-owned games. It's like a book that self-destructs after you read it once (though that might be something e-readers make possible and book publishers will no doubt get greedy about at some point).

Mort
12-22-2011, 06:19 PM
I just realized I checked some video content for Portal 2 when I couldn't finish a level, but I'd already bought the game and just wanted some help.

When it comes to movies and music, I believe price or decaying morals aren't what are the root cause of piracy ( although price at least has to be factored in somewhat). It's availability. It's easier to download a movie than to buy/rent it, for the most part. Stuff like Netflix is part of the solution here, but studios are still fighting that change, sometimes complying somewhat, but makes it unavailable in some instances by using weird platforms, DRM or other types of half-measures they think must be there to keep up their profits. The next step is the pricing structure of that old and new model.

In a longer perspective, with all these changes coming with higher demands for easy and cheap media, we might even see a paradigm away from the super profits studios make, and the pay a really famous actor gets. Almost like today, many musicians sales are down and what they survive on are concerts and other appearances, only the really large players today makes the big bucks, and they might be the only ones who are gonna.

Sinistrum
12-22-2011, 09:44 PM
I don't see most of what goes on via the internest as any different than a friend loaning you a hard copy of a movie or book to watch/read. Either way, you are getting the enjoyment of the "copyrighted work" without having to pay for it. And I have yet to see any serious discussion of a crack down on that kind of behavior.

DahLliA
12-23-2011, 01:03 AM
I don't see most of what goes on via the internest as any different than a friend loaning you a hard copy of a movie or book to watch/read. Either way, you are getting the enjoyment of the "copyrighted work" without having to pay for it. And I have yet to see any serious discussion of a crack down on that kind of behavior.

if they could, they would :p

GonzoTheGreat
12-23-2011, 02:40 AM
Piracy is a huge problem. As someone who has created creative works (seems redundant, but I don't know how to phrase it better), I would hate it if my works were pirated. I'm big into video games, and I don't know if any of you guys are as well. If you are, you might have noticed that there are a TON of "Let's play" video channels on Youtube these days. These are people who simply record themselves playing a video game and upload it to Youtube. Now, I kind of have a problem with that. If I want to know the plot of a game without buying it, I can simply load up these videos and find out. I'm getting the entire experience of the game without paying for it. There's something inherently wrong with that, I believe. Then when you factor in the fact that some people are getting paid to make these videos...yeah, I can see why a game publisher would have a problem with that.
All right, so there are two different and obvious solutions to this:

1. Outlaw youtube. Also outlaw wikipedia, while you're at it, as that too may contain an outline of the game story. Then outlaw "cheat books" (I've seen books with descriptions of a dozen or more video games), or more simply: books. Also prohibit speech, as it is possible to transmit the information which you find objectionable in oral form.

2. Do not watch the bloody videos if you want to experience the game yourself. I never saw any of them myself, which can be explained in part at least by the fact that I never bothered to search for them; but at least it proves that this solution can work.

Now, as you may have guessed, I would be in favor of option 2. You, on the other hand, seem to be favoring returning to a time before the invention of the printing press, though while keeping your gameboy (or whatever play computer you have).

Zombie Sammael
12-23-2011, 04:25 AM
You, on the other hand, seem to be favoring returning to a time before the invention of the printing press, though while keeping your gameboy (or whatever play computer you have).

I'm pretty sure they had Gameboys around the time of the invention of the printing press.

fdsaf3
12-23-2011, 08:16 AM
I don't see most of what goes on via the internest as any different than a friend loaning you a hard copy of a movie or book to watch/read. Either way, you are getting the enjoyment of the "copyrighted work" without having to pay for it. And I have yet to see any serious discussion of a crack down on that kind of behavior.

My personal reaction is that it's a difference of scale. A person uploading content to Youtube might get hundreds or thousands (or more) of people who watch their videos. Some of the more popular "Let's Play" people on Youtube average 50,000 views per video. While some of those are repeat viewers, that's still tens of thousands of people who have seen that content without the publisher paying a dime.

I know (at least I think I know) what you are going to say: the issue is experiencing copyrighted product without paying. I guess I see what you're saying, but I'm not convinced it's an apples to apples comparison. Loaning a movie or video game to a friend means that one person you know is getting to experience that content without paying. Uploading a video to Youtube means tens of thousands of people experience that same content without paying. Maybe it's too subtle of a distinction, or maybe I'm wrong. This is just my gut reaction to your post, so I reserve the right to change my mind. :D



All right, so there are two different and obvious solutions to this:



Oh good, time for a ridiculous oversimplification of my post. I'm looking forward to this.

1. Outlaw youtube. Also outlaw wikipedia, while you're at it, as that too may contain an outline of the game story. Then outlaw "cheat books" (I've seen books with descriptions of a dozen or more video games), or more simply: books. Also prohibit speech, as it is possible to transmit the information which you find objectionable in oral form.



I think I'm going to start adopting what others have stated to be their policy towards your posts. Read maybe one a year, ignore the rest. I don't know how you think what you wrote is fair or even close to accurate, but let's dig in.

Nothing I said indicates that I'm opposed to Youtube or anything else that you said. My point was that I can simply load up Youtube right now and find the ending to pretty much any video game I want. As you may or may not know (I don't know if you're a gamer like I am), watching a game being played is barely removed from playing the game itself. Of course I'd rather play a game that I'm interested in playing. But if I'm just curious about the ending of a game and don't want to buy it and play it, I know I can simply look it up on Youtube. I think this is a huge problem for video game publishers. Video games are much like movies: watching someone play one gives almost the complete experience.

Another example other than Youtube is live streams on twitch.tv or justintv. People were live streaming L.A. Noire before it came out (there are other examples, but I personally know someone who was told to cease and desist their steam of the game). Again, the problem is that I, as a moderately interested person who has no intention of buying the game, can simply load up the stream and essentially experience the game being played without paying a dime.

It's not really a problem of Youtube or the streaming sites. I'm not opposed to those staying open. All I'm saying is that I can appreciate how a publisher wants to protect their product by limiting how many people can experience the content without paying for it. Again, let's not go overboard and suggest that I am advocating closing down Youtube and all other video uploading sites. That's ridiculous.

2. Do not watch the bloody videos if you want to experience the game yourself. I never saw any of them myself, which can be explained in part at least by the fact that I never bothered to search for them; but at least it proves that this solution can work. [/quote=]

This is missing the point, although to be fair I can't tell if it's intentional or not. The point is that tens of thousands of people DO watch these videos, thus tens of thousands of people who otherwise might end up buying the game very little incentive to do so. They have seen the game played, they know how it ends. What's the point in shelling out $60 at that point?

[quote=]Now, as you may have guessed, I would be in favor of option 2. You, on the other hand, seem to be favoring returning to a time before the invention of the printing press, though while keeping your gameboy (or whatever play computer you have).

Now you're way off the mark.

Just off the top of my head, here is a policy I would find acceptable for video game content. Adjust to other industries as applicable.

1. Video game publishers agree not to file any copyright infringement cases against video content creators who have legitimate fair use claims to the material. I'm thinking particularly of video game reviewers who have had a hard time with DMCA claims.

2. In return, Youtube cracks down on unfair use. This would largely be people who stream video games and/or upload large sections or complete games to video sharing sites like Youtube.

Since I don't think that streaming older games is that big of a deal, I'd say make it illegal to upload these types of videos for a certain period of time after the game's initial public release. Say 18 months. After that, individual content creators would be free to do what they do.

This way the publishers are happy and individual content creators should be happy. There are obviously flaws with this, but from where I stand it seems like a reasonable fix.

From one point of view of video game marketing, uploading user videos that show how to play and beat the game to YouTube is actually helpful to developers, since it helps players to finish games more quickly and thus move on to the next game, paying their money (one way or the other) to the game manufacturers. So they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to stop things like Let's Play or GameFAQs (although a game walkthrough surely involves enough original effort to qualify as a protected work).


I disagree. I think most video game consumers have more discretionary income than ever before, and thus are buying games without necessarily having finished the previous game they bought. Combined with the fact that games take an average of maybe 10-12 hours to complete and you're looking at people who could potentially buy multiple new releases every year. I remember growing up that I got one, maybe two, new video games per year. One on my birthday and maybe one for Christmas. Other than that, it was renting them from the store or borrowing from a friend. I'd be really interested to see how many games people buy in a year. Might be an interesting policy research question...

What bugs me more is the sudden fear game publishers have developed of the after-market, by which they try to stop people playing pre-owned games. It's like a book that self-destructs after you read it once (though that might be something e-readers make possible and book publishers will no doubt get greedy about at some point).

I totally agree with this. 100%. Not much more to add here. :D

DahLliA
12-23-2011, 08:29 AM
As you may or may not know (I don't know if you're a gamer like I am), watching a game being played is barely removed from playing the game itself.Video games are much like movies: watching someone play one gives almost the complete experience.

Watching porn gives almost the complete experince of having sex? :p

Again, the problem is that I, as a moderately interested person who has no intention of buying the game, can simply load up the stream and essentially experience the game being played without paying a dime.

So you go from having no intention of buying the game to having no need to buy the game? That's clearly a lost sale :p

The point is that tens of thousands of people DO watch these videos, thus tens of thousands of people who otherwise might end up buying the game very little incentive to do so.

If there was a way of getting reliable numbers, I'm pretty sure out of 10,000 people hardly any of them would have bought the game anyway.

I'm sorry, but unless the copyright-mafia can come up with some reliable, independent research that actually shows that piracy/streaming/summaries/etc. actually lead to reduces sales(and not increased which seems more likely) they will be seen as greedy dickheads that would rather watch the world burn than adapt.

fdsaf3
12-23-2011, 08:40 AM
All I can say is that I agree with what you are saying. I can openly admit that I have none of the answers for this. It's a prickly problem with complex concerns on both sides.

All I've been doing is trying to express why the video game industry might not be totally bat shit insane by asking for this bill. As I said in my first post in this thread, I think the proposed bill is misguided and in serious (serious) need of revision and overhaul. But I can see where the industry is coming from. I'm not trying to stick up for the video game industry or anything like that. I hope I'm making myself clear and not just the guy who takes the opposite side of a debate just for fun.

Also:



Watching porn gives almost the complete experince of having sex?

If this is true, I have almost had sex hundreds of times. I am almost such a slut.

DahLliA
12-23-2011, 08:49 AM
All I can say is that I agree with what you are saying. I can openly admit that I have none of the answers for this. It's a prickly problem with complex concerns on both sides.

All I've been doing is trying to express why the video game industry might not be totally bat shit insane by asking for this bill. As I said in my first post in this thread, I think the proposed bill is misguided and in serious (serious) need of revision and overhaul. But I can see where the industry is coming from. I'm not trying to stick up for the video game industry or anything like that. I hope I'm making myself clear and not just the guy who takes the opposite side of a debate just for fun.

sorry if it seeemed like I was ripping into you. it's just that I've had this discussion so many times. and read it even more.

and I still haven't seen a single argument against piracy that isn't either completely retarded or completely unproven.

even the "the artists should get paid" argument falls through since there's no proof piracy leads to less sales and not more. and the record company/distribution companies are the ones taking most of the money anyway.

fdsaf3
12-23-2011, 09:03 AM
One thing I've learned here at TL is that I shouldn't post unless I mean it. I don't take anything you've said personally, so no worries.

I try to remain objective and dispassionate unless I have a horse in the race, so to speak. Since I don't in this case, all I can do is offer my opinion. If someone disagrees with me, or this type of discussion breaks out, then I have no reason to complain. I actually really like these kinds of threads - it gives me an excuse to think about things in a new way. As long as you're not ranting about how I'm an idiot or something (kind of like Gonzo did), we will not have a problem. :D

GonzoTheGreat
12-23-2011, 10:40 AM
I know (at least I think I know) what you are going to say: the issue is experiencing copyrighted product without paying. I guess I see what you're saying, but I'm not convinced it's an apples to apples comparison.
Suppose that I buy an apple from an apple seller. Now suppose further that I eat most of that apple, but plant the pips. Then suppose that an apple tree grows from that, and I start eating those apples rather than buying new.
Now, should that be prohibited?

This, as you no doubt realise, is indeed comparing apples to apples.

Note: while I don't do that with apples (the apple tree we used to have gave very bad apples), I have been doing it with chili peppers for a couple of years now.

Nothing I said indicates that I'm opposed to Youtube or anything else that you said. My point was that I can simply load up Youtube right now and find the ending to pretty much any video game I want. As you may or may not know (I don't know if you're a gamer like I am), watching a game being played is barely removed from playing the game itself. Of course I'd rather play a game that I'm interested in playing. But if I'm just curious about the ending of a game and don't want to buy it and play it, I know I can simply look it up on Youtube. I think this is a huge problem for video game publishers. Video games are much like movies: watching someone play one gives almost the complete experience.
Then those games are bad.
A good game lets the player decide how to do things himself, so that if you and I would not be handling it in the same way. If the player has no possibility of deciding how to handle what the game throws at him, then why should it be any fun to play it?

Compare it with a play:
Extremely young kids can have fun interacting with what is going on on stage (shouting warnings, giving information to the main characters, wishing Tinker Bell to live, and so forth), but when they get older, they figure out there's no point to that. Mature audiences of Jesus Christ Superstar would not be shouting that Jesus shouldn't trust Judas, nor would they expect Jesus to fail to rise from the dead if they don't pretend to wish him alive.
A game should not be like that; it should allow the player to make his mark.

Just off the top of my head, here is a policy I would find acceptable for video game content. Adjust to other industries as applicable.

1. Video game publishers agree not to file any copyright infringement cases against video content creators who have legitimate fair use claims to the material. I'm thinking particularly of video game reviewers who have had a hard time with DMCA claims.

2. In return, Youtube cracks down on unfair use. This would largely be people who stream video games and/or upload large sections or complete games to video sharing sites like Youtube.

Since I don't think that streaming older games is that big of a deal, I'd say make it illegal to upload these types of videos for a certain period of time after the game's initial public release. Say 18 months. After that, individual content creators would be free to do what they do.

This way the publishers are happy and individual content creators should be happy. There are obviously flaws with this, but from where I stand it seems like a reasonable fix.
Youtube is already pulling videos (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/umg-we-have-the-right-to-block-or-remove-youtube-videos.ars) whenever someone makes a claim.
In the case I linked to, the company making the claim (Universal Music Group, UMG) has no rights whatsoever to the pulled video, which was made as a promotional video by another company. That second company had specifically made this video for putting it on youtube, having had the music written for that specific purpose, and without any other infringement on copyright from anyone else too. From that link:
UMG insists that it had a right to take down the videoŚnot under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as Megaupload had assumed, but under a private contractual arrangement between UMG and YouTube.
So if you put a video of yourself singing a song you've written yourself on YouTube, then apparently UMG has the right to have that video removed. Even if you've paid YouTube for their service of putting your video on their website.

That is with the current legislation already, not under the new proposal. So why would even more power for the music industry be needed?

Terez
12-23-2011, 12:05 PM
There was this guy named Marriland who had the most awesome Tetris Attack video in the world on YouTube. It wasn't quite the world record for time on Endless Mode, but it was close, and the record was a stupid fuzzy video. This one was awesome, and it had Zelda music (not the copyrighted kind - the kind done by a cover band). I used to watch it regularly.

Marriland also did a bunch of Pokemon videos, apparently showing people how to get through the game(s). Of course, that was irrelevant for Tetris Attack because it has no real plot (it has a fake plot in Story Mode, but each level is just the same puzzle game, a little harder). Marriland did that for years, and had a humongous following of Pokeheads, but eventually Nintendo cracked down and he had to remove all of his videos from the net, including the Tetris Attack one. Now, that just makes no sense whatsoever. It's a puzzle game; you don't prevent people from buying it by showing them how awesome it is. Granted, it's a SNES game, so maybe Nintendo was just embarrassed that they don't make games that awesome any more. (And they thoroughly ruined it by trying to make it into Pokemon Puzzle League with the next system, whatever it was; even Marriland agreed.)

Sei'taer
12-23-2011, 03:24 PM
Go Reddit! (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111222/13292217173/sopa-supporters-learning-slowly-that-pissing-off-reddit-is-bad-idea.shtml)

Ivhon
12-23-2011, 03:58 PM
Go Reddit! (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111222/13292217173/sopa-supporters-learning-slowly-that-pissing-off-reddit-is-bad-idea.shtml)

I think that Reddit has a rather inflated opinion of it's leverage. 1000+ GoDaddy accounts? Big Whoop. 3M seems totally unfazed. The cosequences of pissing off Reddit seem only slightly mire dire than the consequences of pissing off...me. Effectively zilch.

Mort
12-23-2011, 04:00 PM
1000 acc from ONE customer, then several else. Tai'shar Reddit!

Sei'taer
12-23-2011, 04:04 PM
I think that Reddit has a rather inflated opinion of it's leverage. 1000+ GoDaddy accounts? Big Whoop. 3M seems totally unfazed. The cosequences of pissing off Reddit seem only slightly mire dire than the consequences of pissing off...me. Effectively zilch.

Supposedly, GoDaddy dropped their support for SOPA.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/victory-boycott-forces-godaddy-to-drop-its-support-for-sopa.ars

GonzoTheGreat
12-24-2011, 03:16 AM
I think that Reddit has a rather inflated opinion of it's leverage. 1000+ GoDaddy accounts? Big Whoop. 3M seems totally unfazed.
Well, duh!

Do you have any idea how many people no longer buy Scotch Tape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_Tape), but instead illegally download it using bittorrent?
Obviously, Internet piracy is a huge threat to 3M's business model.