"Okay, I'm willing to accept that scarcity is a requirement for commerce, and that in this context, artificial scarcity is needed to keep the system alive. (link [wikipedia.org]) That doesn't change the fact that the copyright system is out of control. "
And how will mass piracy change that?
"Besides, most content producers could survive even without this artificial scarcity in place, by shifting to a business model centered around a resource that still is scarce."
Is your side always this self-destructive? Me personally as an artist wouldn't mind the maneuver. I still get to make a living free of the entitlement group's harassment. And your side gets taught a lesson that's been long overdue. Why is it suddenly that I get pushed into being on a "side"?
I don't argue that piracy is a good thing, or a bad thing, or morally right or wrong or whatever.
But thanks to the internet, widespread piracy (aka copyright infringement) is a _fact_. All I'm arguing is that a) this fact isn't necessarily fatal for content producers, b) the current implementation and enforcement of copyright is extreme enough to incite piracy in the first place, and c) it would probably be easier in the long run to adapt to this fact instead of (in my opinion futilely) trying to change it.
Please don't attribute stuff to me that I never said. Now that I can afford it, I actually buy most of the games I play, even though I'm not part of the target group (running Linux).
At a very low level, nobody cares about anything but himself. Compassion and empathy are social artifacts created to protect the group from the individual. That's not a bad thing, it's how humans work. I'm just a little more aware of it than most. Do you really think humans are naturally "nice"?
No, actually, I don't really give a fuck. Sorry for not weeping tears about the death of an industry branch. Should I be sad about a semi-natural process?
Also, it's not like games will magically vanish five years down the road - I'll still be able to play, say, my copy of Deus Ex (which I bought, by the way). But I don't have any particular emotional attachment to the software entertainment industry. That's a matter of perspective - I don't particularly care if species of animals survive either as long as their dying out doesn't damage the survival chances of my species. One could probably consider that a cold-hearted attitude, but that's okay. Even being a total arrogant(?) bitch, I'm still happy. And yes, I can sleep at night.:)
Your suggestion that all MMORPGs are level grinds is false. I recommend this excellent article on the topic which was linked on programming.reddit.com a bit back: link
Besides, there are plenty of ways to add unique value to a RPG without turning it into a MMORPG: support, global score lists (registration required), high-speed updates and mods, you get the idea.
The alternatively is people actually obey the law. What a concept eh? I'm not discussing what people should do, but what they are obviously doing.
A law is only as good as the degree to which it is being enforced.
the point he made is that it *was* a viable business model assuming people aren't illicit copiers. True; if people agree to keep a product scarce, selling it stays a valid business model. It's a bit risky to bet your business on people's cooperation though.
Even walmart does not have a viable business model if everyone becomes a shoplifter. Stop it with the shoplifting analogies. Sheesh. It's as annoying as it is false. The reasons for that have been iterated here on Slashdot hundreds of times.
By helping everyone become an illicit copier, file sharing has turned a once thriving market into a graveyard Yes, this is what happens when a market loses the basis it's built on. Again, there is no natural right to a viable business model.
Nice work pirates, you fucked up the industry you supposedly liked. The industry is changing. This is also known as "evolution": the species of Game Producers adapts to external pressure and a changing living space by assuming a new shape. What's so bad about that?
PS: Sorry for changing your wording, but since you obviously use words differently than the rest of us, I thought it adequate to translate them into English before quoting them in my English post.
No problem, glad to be of service *ignores sarcasm*
Remember, there's no such thing as a natural right to a viable business model. Besides, from the point where I could afford it, I bought pretty much every game I played regularly. Why? Let's take a look at Half-Life 2.
I downloaded a copy to see if it would work on my system. Discovering that it did, I played most of it, then noticed that I could neither install mods nor play online.
I then went out and bought a copy. This neatly demonstrates that it is very much possible for a company to survive in a time where information is not a scarce resource, by switching at least partially to a business model centered around things that are still scarce, like service or platform access. (That's similar to what copy protection does; trying to institute an artificial scarcity. Except it has been repeatedly demonstrated that copy protection doesn't really work. )
I consider the money I paid for Half-Life 2 only partially for the actual game, and mostly for stuff like easily available free upgrades and the ability to reinstall whenever I, say, change my computer.
If companies expect to be able to survive on a business model whose natural phase is over (the Internet has irrevocably ended scarcity of information), then it's hardly my fault if they fail.
Okay, I'm willing to accept that scarcity is a requirement for commerce, and that in this context, artificial scarcity is needed to keep the system alive. (link)
That doesn't change the fact that the copyright system is out of control. Besides, most content producers could survive even without this artificial scarcity in place, by shifting to a business model centered around a resource that still is scarce.
Remember, there is no such thing as a natural right to a viable business model.
If something is for sale, and you get your copy without paying. That's theft Not really.
theft: The act of stealing property.
to steal: (transitive) To illegally, or without the owner's permission, take possession of something by surreptitiously taking or carrying it away.
Learn to use a dictionary. Wiktionary on steal.
That
is
the common sense definition, however much you'd like to twist the facts.
How exactly do you expect people to produce new content if the target market all steals it. Oh my gosh. How could people ever survive without copyright. Verily, the market would completely collapse!
There was capitalism before the Berne Convention, you know. Also, many people here are not fundamentally against copyright, but against the perverted version Disney made of it.
Get your facts straight.
Slashdot Mirror
Upon reading this article, I can't help thinking of the NSF. What do these guys need supercomputers for?
.. Maybe I should play less Deus Ex :(
And how will mass piracy change that?
"Besides, most content producers could survive even without this artificial scarcity in place, by shifting to a business model centered around a resource that still is scarce."
Is your side always this self-destructive? Me personally as an artist wouldn't mind the maneuver. I still get to make a living free of the entitlement group's harassment. And your side gets taught a lesson that's been long overdue. Why is it suddenly that I get pushed into being on a "side"? I don't argue that piracy is a good thing, or a bad thing, or morally right or wrong or whatever.
But thanks to the internet, widespread piracy (aka copyright infringement) is a _fact_. All I'm arguing is that a) this fact isn't necessarily fatal for content producers, b) the current implementation and enforcement of copyright is extreme enough to incite piracy in the first place, and c) it would probably be easier in the long run to adapt to this fact instead of (in my opinion futilely) trying to change it.
Please don't attribute stuff to me that I never said. Now that I can afford it, I actually buy most of the games I play, even though I'm not part of the target group (running Linux).
At a very low level, nobody cares about anything but himself. Compassion and empathy are social artifacts created to protect the group from the individual. That's not a bad thing, it's how humans work. I'm just a little more aware of it than most. Do you really think humans are naturally "nice"?
No, actually, I don't really give a fuck. Sorry for not weeping tears about the death of an industry branch. Should I be sad about a semi-natural process?
:)
Also, it's not like games will magically vanish five years down the road - I'll still be able to play, say, my copy of Deus Ex (which I bought, by the way). But I don't have any particular emotional attachment to the software entertainment industry. That's a matter of perspective - I don't particularly care if species of animals survive either as long as their dying out doesn't damage the survival chances of my species. One could probably consider that a cold-hearted attitude, but that's okay. Even being a total arrogant(?) bitch, I'm still happy. And yes, I can sleep at night.
A law is only as good as the degree to which it is being enforced.
PS: Sorry for changing your wording, but since you obviously use words differently than the rest of us, I thought it adequate to translate them into English before quoting them in my English post.
No problem, glad to be of service *ignores sarcasm*
Remember, there's no such thing as a natural right to a viable business model. Besides, from the point where I could afford it, I bought pretty much every game I played regularly. Why? Let's take a look at Half-Life 2.
I downloaded a copy to see if it would work on my system. Discovering that it did, I played most of it, then noticed that I could neither install mods nor play online.
I then went out and bought a copy. This neatly demonstrates that it is very much possible for a company to survive in a time where information is not a scarce resource, by switching at least partially to a business model centered around things that are still scarce, like service or platform access. (That's similar to what copy protection does; trying to institute an artificial scarcity. Except it has been repeatedly demonstrated that copy protection doesn't really work. )
I consider the money I paid for Half-Life 2 only partially for the actual game, and mostly for stuff like easily available free upgrades and the ability to reinstall whenever I, say, change my computer.
If companies expect to be able to survive on a business model whose natural phase is over (the Internet has irrevocably ended scarcity of information), then it's hardly my fault if they fail.
Okay, I'm willing to accept that scarcity is a requirement for commerce, and that in this context, artificial scarcity is needed to keep the system alive. (link) That doesn't change the fact that the copyright system is out of control. Besides, most content producers could survive even without this artificial scarcity in place, by shifting to a business model centered around a resource that still is scarce.
Remember, there is no such thing as a natural right to a viable business model.
theft: The act of stealing property.
to steal: (transitive) To illegally, or without the owner's permission, take possession of something by surreptitiously taking or carrying it away.
Learn to use a dictionary. Wiktionary on steal.
That
- is
the common sense definition, however much you'd like to twist the facts.How exactly do you expect people to produce new content if the target market all steals it. Oh my gosh. How could people ever survive without copyright. Verily, the market would completely collapse!
There was capitalism before the Berne Convention, you know.
Also, many people here are not fundamentally against copyright, but against the perverted version Disney made of it.
Get your facts straight.