That's a good point. For example the Wii Balance Board has been a complete disaster for Nintendo. And those crazy guitar shaped controllers also bankrupted their creators.
Hmmm... oh wait, it turns out Nintendo makes a crap-load of money by creating new hardware to sell.
That's a nice list of games that a mature demographic can play, but most of them suck. Okami is good. I haven't played Metroid yet. Comparing that list to what is available for the other systems (or the PC) is laughable though. The developers (and even Nintendo themselves) are just not putting money into developing good Wii games.
I essentially bought my Wii because I assumed a great boxing game would have to come out within a few years. There have been a few but they were awful. This is partially because the controls aren't as good as was originally claimed. Perhaps holding two Wii Mote + Motion Control controllers will allow the Wii to have a game that is at least as good as Fight Night (not graphically tough, of course).
To be clear, there have been really good games on the Wii, but most of them didn't really take advantage of the motion control. Boom Blox did, and it was really fun. Mario Galaxy was great, but a lot of the motion control got in the way. Rock Band\Guitar Hero are fun, but not as good on the Wii. Even Okami, which allowed you to paint with the Wiimote, also through in super annoying waggle combat. You have to admit that shaking your Wiimote to attack was just awful. Also, the graphics were muddy.::sigh::
My dad -- who couldn't figure out how to play golf on the Xbox because of all the different button combinations -- had no problems playing golf on the Wii
Hmm... I find this statement odd, since I do have a hard time playing golf on the Wii. Or, at least, I have a hard time playing well. The controls are just way too finicky. I'd have a much easier time basing the power of my shot on one or two wildly swinging meters that I have to hit a button combination to stop at the right point. Every time I swing the Wii remote I seem to get a somewhat different response. And then theres putting. Then again, maybe this makes the game more like real golf.
Also, I might just be dense, but the way the game displays the direction of the wind is just confusing to me. In most game I usually get the idea right away. The wind is blowing towards me. But Wii Sports Golf forces me to turn my character to face the wind to have a good idea of where it is going.
There are similar complaints for bowling or almost any other Wiimote-centric Wii game.
Memes aside, I really am a bit offended by this. Not so much what youngone wrote, but the fact that it was modded 5, Insightful. The inference that someone joins a church just because they are an idiot should bother most people. He also failed at HTML and made a terrible joke. How is this a 5? And below, someone got marked a Troll just because they gave a simple defense of his accusations.
I don't want my house, garden, neighborhood and face plastered all over the web for everyone to gawk at. You don't want it. Nobody wants it.
Speak for yourself. I don't mind it all. In fact, I'm somewhat annoyed that half of my street still shows as unfinished in Google Earth. I wish they would rescan us. Street View is a little more up to date, but I wish they could do that more too. It is very useful.
Taking pictures from a public place is not a human right. The rules about it are based on laws. If enough people get paranoid about this sort of thing then they can encourage their representatives to change the law to stop this. However, that isn't going to happen since the super-majority of people do want this. Or at least if they don't want it, they aren't telling anyone.
Shortly after I showed Google Earth to my Mom, she came to me with a question. A friend of hers wanted to know if I could get photos of someone who broke into her house. That's right; satellite images of a specific time (at night!) that were good enough that you could actually identify the people in them, on google, for free. Now, maybe the CIA can do this....
I remember being amazed at what was offered on Google Earth when it first came out. It is always surprising when someone else thinks that a technology can do something that is insanely more complicated than what I was amazed by.
We drag 'em to the back, 'n' SHOW 'em their hard drive.
Ugg, that's the last thing I want to happen with car repairs. I just stand their nodding and waiting for the information I really want. How much will this cost? The rest of the time I'm just nervous that I'll have to try to respond to what they are saying in an intelligent manner. If I want to know about how a car works I'll look it up. I don't want to suddenly be given a lesson when I'm worrying about how to get to work tommorow.
I know you're joking, but the thing I always laugh at when I read these things is the fact that the "in whole or in part" completely ignores fair use. For example, you (or a publisher that attaches similar boilerplate) can go ahead and try to prosecute me "to the fullest extent allowable by law" for quoting part of your post, but the case would be tossed out in short order.
Unfortunately you are wrong here. Sure, you can do all kinds of stuff and claim that it is a "fair use", but this won't stop someone (or some corporation) from suing you. And it will not simply get "thrown out" of court. You will have to spend a whole lot of money on a lawyer, a whole lot more than they would be trying to extort from you. Determining "fair use" is not cut and dry at all. This is a major problem.
For example, in Lessig's Free Culture, there is a story about a guy who made a documentary about a production of Wagner's Ring Cycle. At one point he filmed some employees hanging out in the pit (or somewhere) playing chess. In the background was a TV playing an episode of the Simpsons. The scene has nothing to do with the Simpsons, it is a short clip, on a TV in the background, but that was still enough for Fox to request ten thousand dollars to allow it. He did feel it was important for it to be in the scene, but in the end had to digitally remove it. Was this a fair use? Definitely. Could he possibly distribute the film without removing the scene? Definitely not. No one will distribute a film that is open to a copyright infringement lawsuit.
If you don't defend a trademark, you can lose it. I'm not sure how this applies to copyright.
It doesn't apply at all for copyright, which is a big problem. If something was made after 1930 or so it is probably covered by copyright law. It doesn't matter if the original writer is dead and his estate is unaware that he even wrote it. In Free Culture, Lessig explain how insanely hard it is to make a collection of clips involving Clint Eastwood. You have to clear the copyright for every actor, every script, every piece of music, etc. that is in every clip that you use. Figuring out who owns these copyrights is a huge problem. If you don't figure it out then you leave the door open to getting sued and losing everything you made on the product. Someone could figure out you used a bit of their music 10 years after the product was released and they could still sue you. If it is possible for you to get sued then you won't get insurance. No insurance, no distribution and the project is dead.
Oh, BTW, it doesn't matter if the person can actually win the lawsuit. Defending against a copyright infringement claim is very expensive and so companies just avoid it altogether.
Long live copyright maybe your great great great grandchild might be able to enjoy it on their death bed when it falls into public domain.
It is refreshing to see such a positive statement about copyright issues here on slashdot. It is usually so doom and gloom. But occasionally an AC comes along to brighten up your day.
I think I'll spend the rest of the day dreaming about content actually entering the public domain again. I guess my dreams are a bit clouded when I try to figure out how Disney finally failed in getting copyright extended over and over again. To think, to dare to dream, of a world where drawing Mickey Mouse is not a crime.
I really hope this is true. If they can actually finish the game then they can always sell it themselves through some form of digital distribution.
When I heard it was cancelled I was really upset. Games will never advance without mature subjects being addressed. That can't happen when Wal*Mart and EBGames won't sell controversial titles. The forces of the market make it impossible for a real AO game to be sold on the shelves.
Of course, our saviour is the internet. If a game like this can make money without a major publisher through digital distribution then just about any kind of game can be made and sold. Then we may be able to enter a "golden age" of gaming, and the next generation will laugh at the idea of games not being art.
What would people say if this was done on their phone lines?
They would say, "I'm not saying or doing anything illegal, so why should I care if they listen in on me? They can probably capture more terrorists and criminals by doing this. I have nothing to hide." Most people don't understand our civil rights and why they are important.
as for the rest of what you say, you are completely wrong. the way it works economically now is a band puts there stuff out there, for free. and they make money when people show up at their concerts and pay a covercharge/ entrace fee/ ticket to get in.
So, what you are saying is that games and movies are screwed, right? I don't really want to go see Valve designing or playing Half-Life 2 at a concert. They can still survive on the "tip jar" system, but I can't see this not creating a huge drop in revenue. This means no more multi-million $ movies and games. There are definitely plenty low-budget indie films and games. Er, well, in the game category there are a few at least (braid, goo, etc.). But I definitely want to see big budget stuff. I guess there is no solution though, huh?
If it's good enough to seek out a pirate copy, then it's good enough to buy. $28 is NOT a lot to pay for something
No. It IS a lot to pay for a indie computer game that has been out for a year or more. I recently picked up King's Bounty for like $10. That game has nice graphics, fun combat, and a terrible (although sometimes funny) storyline. I just got Left 4 Dead for $25 from Steam. Looking at the game, I can't imagine paying for than $10 for it, unless playing the demo reveals it to be something extremely special.
CAN I pay $28 to support an indie developer? I guess, but I don't care about this guy. My first impression is that he wants way too much for his game. So, I just forget about it and play one of the many other games I already own. If I was a loyal fan, I would pay the $28, probably in the first month or so. So, why doesn't he drop the price after a few months to get generate some new interest?
No, apparenlty you do. We think we have a representative republic.
It's no different in the UK or Australia. We're all being frog boiled, and we're too stupid and have too short memories to see it.
Ya, but at least we are allowed access to guns. We can at least do some pew-pewing before we finally croak.
I agree that lobbyists (ie, big corporations) have way too much power, but it isn't all that bad. Take RIAA, for example. For all the power they have, they keep losing. They've given up on going after individuals now. You can see their grip slipping every day. If it somehow becomes impossible for me to access media via bittorrent one day I'll believe you, but I don't see this happening. For all their complacency, when enough people are affected by something you actually see some change. It is a slow process, but eventually the will of the voters is heard.
Re:Steam pricing is the weak point
on
The Age of Steam
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is starting to build up a lack of trust for customers, games on Steam are often more expensive even though it costs less to sell than a physical box
The production cost of an item has little to do with how much it is sold for. The selling price is determined by how much people are willing to pay for it. Why should Steam offer lower prices when people are buying the games at a higher price? There's no need for Valve to pass along the digital distribution savings to their customers. The best example of this (ie, capitalism) is text messaging. That basicaly costs nothing, but the cell phone companies charge up to $.25. Why? Because hordes of morons pay for it.
Valve does a pretty good job about listening to its customers, but when it comes to pricing, they aren't going to listen to a few forum users boo-hooing about it.
Why, in this day and age, are physical boxed copies retailing for less than the digital variant?
Easy, because that is what people are willing to pay. The cost of a product has little to do with how much it cost to create or distribute it. It only matters what people are willing to pay. Why should Steam charge $25 for Empire Total War when people will pay 49.99 for it?? That would be idiotic. Now, maybe they will actually make more money by selling it for less. I'm sure somebody looks into that and they may or may not be right.
Just look at text messaging. It costs the cell phone companies basically.00 and they charge up to $.25. That's how much droves of morons are willing to pay.
The pricing is already "sorted out" by basic market forces.
Because you have a passion for writing?? Why do people bother to spend hours updating Wikipedia? Why do people have to be paid for everything that they do?
Copyright is good, and we need it. Many have argued and manipulated the system to change the amount of time - but that is another story.
When copyright is perpetually extended, the manipulation of the system is the main story. Nothing created after 1920 will ever enter the publice domain again unless the creator releases it. Copyright is now a legal instrument for a small number of people to control all of our culture.
Many have argued about how much of what one creates can be controlled, and how - and we have fair use cases that cover exactly that.
"Fair use" no longer exists either. You can claim something is a fair use all you want, but the MAFIAA are the ones who decide what is fair use now. If the content is "encrypted" you cannot use it even if you have a fair use because the DMCA made circumventing the encryption method illegal. If this isn't a problem, then you still risk getting sued. It will cost thousands of dollars to protect your "fair use", and you won't get that money back even if you win.
Copyright once served a useful purpose, but it no longer does. It does exactly the opposite of what the Constitution intended it to do.
Thankfully, at least in the U.S., the courts have defended games in terms of free speech against various legislative attacks.
In the article it states that the Comic Code was created because of the possibility of legislation/courts becoming involved. At first I thought, "Wow, I'm glad we don't have anything like the comic code." But the ESRB is like the comic code. When the ESRB rates a game AO, they have killed the game. No major studio is going to put major funding into an AO game. And AO != NC-17*. AO is more of a middle to strong R rating. This is a huge problem.
For example, could you make an accurate video game of The Sopranos. No. It would get an AO because of the Badda Bing and other scenes involving sex. I'm guessing there are levels of violence that will get an AO too; especially if the story makes the violence have an impact on the player.
*NC-17 is of course a censorship structure for movies. What's wrong with us as a country that we force Stanley Kubrick to butcher his final film just to get it in theatres??
Wow, cliffski, I think piracy is actually starting to have an affect on your brain. That's not what the parent said at all. If copyright were removed it doesn't mean that we all just run around taking everything for free. IP is NOT a basic human right. I'm sure if people like your games then they are going to support you. There doesn't need to be threats of being disconnected from the rest of the world for them to do that. Well, unless your games are terrible and you mainly earn money by marketing them really well. I'm not saying you do that. I'm under the impression that you think your games are good, or at least better than mainstream crap. Well, people will pay you to keep making them whether they are forced to do so or not.
I can only imagine that piracy will continue to get much, much easier. You need to stop worrying about pirates or think of them as "underserved customers" or whatever. Otherwise you might spend the rest of your life very unhappy for no reason. You gained a lot of credit for asking pirates why they do it. You've pretty much thrown that away. Every time I see a post like this I literally say "cliffski again!" out loud. I'm guessing many people pirate your stuff just to annoy you now.
In case you didn't know we actually did have music and art before you could set on your ass and draw a check for 150+ years because you wrote a one hit wonder. It was called patronage and live performances.
How does the maker of a video game or movie survive on patronage and "live performances" though? That is a good solution for music, but it doesn't solve the overall problem of copyright. The other IP industries don't need 150 years to make a profit, but they do need a limited time (15 years).
Yeah, thanks to websites like Myspace, terrorist groups like "Fans of Panic at the Disco" have been able to organize and terrorize the rest of the web.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point. For example the Wii Balance Board has been a complete disaster for Nintendo. And those crazy guitar shaped controllers also bankrupted their creators.
Hmmm... oh wait, it turns out Nintendo makes a crap-load of money by creating new hardware to sell.
That's a nice list of games that a mature demographic can play, but most of them suck. Okami is good. I haven't played Metroid yet. Comparing that list to what is available for the other systems (or the PC) is laughable though. The developers (and even Nintendo themselves) are just not putting money into developing good Wii games.
I essentially bought my Wii because I assumed a great boxing game would have to come out within a few years. There have been a few but they were awful. This is partially because the controls aren't as good as was originally claimed. Perhaps holding two Wii Mote + Motion Control controllers will allow the Wii to have a game that is at least as good as Fight Night (not graphically tough, of course).
To be clear, there have been really good games on the Wii, but most of them didn't really take advantage of the motion control. Boom Blox did, and it was really fun. Mario Galaxy was great, but a lot of the motion control got in the way. Rock Band\Guitar Hero are fun, but not as good on the Wii. Even Okami, which allowed you to paint with the Wiimote, also through in super annoying waggle combat. You have to admit that shaking your Wiimote to attack was just awful. Also, the graphics were muddy. ::sigh::
Hmm... I find this statement odd, since I do have a hard time playing golf on the Wii. Or, at least, I have a hard time playing well. The controls are just way too finicky. I'd have a much easier time basing the power of my shot on one or two wildly swinging meters that I have to hit a button combination to stop at the right point. Every time I swing the Wii remote I seem to get a somewhat different response. And then theres putting. Then again, maybe this makes the game more like real golf.
Also, I might just be dense, but the way the game displays the direction of the wind is just confusing to me. In most game I usually get the idea right away. The wind is blowing towards me. But Wii Sports Golf forces me to turn my character to face the wind to have a good idea of where it is going.
There are similar complaints for bowling or almost any other Wiimote-centric Wii game.
I'm a Mormon, you insensitive clod!
Memes aside, I really am a bit offended by this. Not so much what youngone wrote, but the fact that it was modded 5, Insightful. The inference that someone joins a church just because they are an idiot should bother most people. He also failed at HTML and made a terrible joke. How is this a 5? And below, someone got marked a Troll just because they gave a simple defense of his accusations.
Speak for yourself. I don't mind it all. In fact, I'm somewhat annoyed that half of my street still shows as unfinished in Google Earth. I wish they would rescan us. Street View is a little more up to date, but I wish they could do that more too. It is very useful.
Taking pictures from a public place is not a human right. The rules about it are based on laws. If enough people get paranoid about this sort of thing then they can encourage their representatives to change the law to stop this. However, that isn't going to happen since the super-majority of people do want this. Or at least if they don't want it, they aren't telling anyone.
Shortly after I showed Google Earth to my Mom, she came to me with a question. A friend of hers wanted to know if I could get photos of someone who broke into her house. That's right; satellite images of a specific time (at night!) that were good enough that you could actually identify the people in them, on google, for free. Now, maybe the CIA can do this....
I remember being amazed at what was offered on Google Earth when it first came out. It is always surprising when someone else thinks that a technology can do something that is insanely more complicated than what I was amazed by.
Ugg, that's the last thing I want to happen with car repairs. I just stand their nodding and waiting for the information I really want. How much will this cost? The rest of the time I'm just nervous that I'll have to try to respond to what they are saying in an intelligent manner. If I want to know about how a car works I'll look it up. I don't want to suddenly be given a lesson when I'm worrying about how to get to work tommorow.
Unfortunately you are wrong here. Sure, you can do all kinds of stuff and claim that it is a "fair use", but this won't stop someone (or some corporation) from suing you. And it will not simply get "thrown out" of court. You will have to spend a whole lot of money on a lawyer, a whole lot more than they would be trying to extort from you. Determining "fair use" is not cut and dry at all. This is a major problem.
For example, in Lessig's Free Culture, there is a story about a guy who made a documentary about a production of Wagner's Ring Cycle. At one point he filmed some employees hanging out in the pit (or somewhere) playing chess. In the background was a TV playing an episode of the Simpsons. The scene has nothing to do with the Simpsons, it is a short clip, on a TV in the background, but that was still enough for Fox to request ten thousand dollars to allow it. He did feel it was important for it to be in the scene, but in the end had to digitally remove it. Was this a fair use? Definitely. Could he possibly distribute the film without removing the scene? Definitely not. No one will distribute a film that is open to a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Sorry, but "fair use" is almost completely dead.
It doesn't apply at all for copyright, which is a big problem. If something was made after 1930 or so it is probably covered by copyright law. It doesn't matter if the original writer is dead and his estate is unaware that he even wrote it. In Free Culture, Lessig explain how insanely hard it is to make a collection of clips involving Clint Eastwood. You have to clear the copyright for every actor, every script, every piece of music, etc. that is in every clip that you use. Figuring out who owns these copyrights is a huge problem. If you don't figure it out then you leave the door open to getting sued and losing everything you made on the product. Someone could figure out you used a bit of their music 10 years after the product was released and they could still sue you. If it is possible for you to get sued then you won't get insurance. No insurance, no distribution and the project is dead.
Oh, BTW, it doesn't matter if the person can actually win the lawsuit. Defending against a copyright infringement claim is very expensive and so companies just avoid it altogether.
It is refreshing to see such a positive statement about copyright issues here on slashdot. It is usually so doom and gloom. But occasionally an AC comes along to brighten up your day.
I think I'll spend the rest of the day dreaming about content actually entering the public domain again. I guess my dreams are a bit clouded when I try to figure out how Disney finally failed in getting copyright extended over and over again. To think, to dare to dream, of a world where drawing Mickey Mouse is not a crime.
I really hope this is true. If they can actually finish the game then they can always sell it themselves through some form of digital distribution.
When I heard it was cancelled I was really upset. Games will never advance without mature subjects being addressed. That can't happen when Wal*Mart and EBGames won't sell controversial titles. The forces of the market make it impossible for a real AO game to be sold on the shelves.
Of course, our saviour is the internet. If a game like this can make money without a major publisher through digital distribution then just about any kind of game can be made and sold. Then we may be able to enter a "golden age" of gaming, and the next generation will laugh at the idea of games not being art.
They would say, "I'm not saying or doing anything illegal, so why should I care if they listen in on me? They can probably capture more terrorists and criminals by doing this. I have nothing to hide." Most people don't understand our civil rights and why they are important.
So, what you are saying is that games and movies are screwed, right? I don't really want to go see Valve designing or playing Half-Life 2 at a concert. They can still survive on the "tip jar" system, but I can't see this not creating a huge drop in revenue. This means no more multi-million $ movies and games. There are definitely plenty low-budget indie films and games. Er, well, in the game category there are a few at least (braid, goo, etc.). But I definitely want to see big budget stuff. I guess there is no solution though, huh?
Have you heard of this little known website called myspace?
Posting FTW!!
No. It IS a lot to pay for a indie computer game that has been out for a year or more. I recently picked up King's Bounty for like $10. That game has nice graphics, fun combat, and a terrible (although sometimes funny) storyline. I just got Left 4 Dead for $25 from Steam. Looking at the game, I can't imagine paying for than $10 for it, unless playing the demo reveals it to be something extremely special.
CAN I pay $28 to support an indie developer? I guess, but I don't care about this guy. My first impression is that he wants way too much for his game. So, I just forget about it and play one of the many other games I already own. If I was a loyal fan, I would pay the $28, probably in the first month or so. So, why doesn't he drop the price after a few months to get generate some new interest?
No, apparenlty you do. We think we have a representative republic.
Ya, but at least we are allowed access to guns. We can at least do some pew-pewing before we finally croak.
I agree that lobbyists (ie, big corporations) have way too much power, but it isn't all that bad. Take RIAA, for example. For all the power they have, they keep losing. They've given up on going after individuals now. You can see their grip slipping every day. If it somehow becomes impossible for me to access media via bittorrent one day I'll believe you, but I don't see this happening. For all their complacency, when enough people are affected by something you actually see some change. It is a slow process, but eventually the will of the voters is heard.
The production cost of an item has little to do with how much it is sold for. The selling price is determined by how much people are willing to pay for it. Why should Steam offer lower prices when people are buying the games at a higher price? There's no need for Valve to pass along the digital distribution savings to their customers. The best example of this (ie, capitalism) is text messaging. That basicaly costs nothing, but the cell phone companies charge up to $.25. Why? Because hordes of morons pay for it.
Valve does a pretty good job about listening to its customers, but when it comes to pricing, they aren't going to listen to a few forum users boo-hooing about it.
Easy, because that is what people are willing to pay. The cost of a product has little to do with how much it cost to create or distribute it. It only matters what people are willing to pay. Why should Steam charge $25 for Empire Total War when people will pay 49.99 for it?? That would be idiotic. Now, maybe they will actually make more money by selling it for less. I'm sure somebody looks into that and they may or may not be right.
.00 and they charge up to $.25. That's how much droves of morons are willing to pay.
Just look at text messaging. It costs the cell phone companies basically
The pricing is already "sorted out" by basic market forces.
Because you have a passion for writing?? Why do people bother to spend hours updating Wikipedia? Why do people have to be paid for everything that they do?
When copyright is perpetually extended, the manipulation of the system is the main story. Nothing created after 1920 will ever enter the publice domain again unless the creator releases it. Copyright is now a legal instrument for a small number of people to control all of our culture.
"Fair use" no longer exists either. You can claim something is a fair use all you want, but the MAFIAA are the ones who decide what is fair use now. If the content is "encrypted" you cannot use it even if you have a fair use because the DMCA made circumventing the encryption method illegal. If this isn't a problem, then you still risk getting sued. It will cost thousands of dollars to protect your "fair use", and you won't get that money back even if you win.
Copyright once served a useful purpose, but it no longer does. It does exactly the opposite of what the Constitution intended it to do.
In the article it states that the Comic Code was created because of the possibility of legislation/courts becoming involved. At first I thought, "Wow, I'm glad we don't have anything like the comic code." But the ESRB is like the comic code. When the ESRB rates a game AO, they have killed the game. No major studio is going to put major funding into an AO game. And AO != NC-17*. AO is more of a middle to strong R rating. This is a huge problem.
For example, could you make an accurate video game of The Sopranos. No. It would get an AO because of the Badda Bing and other scenes involving sex. I'm guessing there are levels of violence that will get an AO too; especially if the story makes the violence have an impact on the player.
*NC-17 is of course a censorship structure for movies. What's wrong with us as a country that we force Stanley Kubrick to butcher his final film just to get it in theatres??
Wow, cliffski, I think piracy is actually starting to have an affect on your brain. That's not what the parent said at all. If copyright were removed it doesn't mean that we all just run around taking everything for free. IP is NOT a basic human right. I'm sure if people like your games then they are going to support you. There doesn't need to be threats of being disconnected from the rest of the world for them to do that. Well, unless your games are terrible and you mainly earn money by marketing them really well. I'm not saying you do that. I'm under the impression that you think your games are good, or at least better than mainstream crap. Well, people will pay you to keep making them whether they are forced to do so or not.
I can only imagine that piracy will continue to get much, much easier. You need to stop worrying about pirates or think of them as "underserved customers" or whatever. Otherwise you might spend the rest of your life very unhappy for no reason. You gained a lot of credit for asking pirates why they do it. You've pretty much thrown that away. Every time I see a post like this I literally say "cliffski again!" out loud. I'm guessing many people pirate your stuff just to annoy you now.
How does the maker of a video game or movie survive on patronage and "live performances" though? That is a good solution for music, but it doesn't solve the overall problem of copyright. The other IP industries don't need 150 years to make a profit, but they do need a limited time (15 years).
Yeah, thanks to websites like Myspace, terrorist groups like "Fans of Panic at the Disco" have been able to organize and terrorize the rest of the web.