A few of days ago I submitted a story about another high-profile game creator following Schafer's lead by using Kickstarter, but/. mods chose to post ads about Apple TV instead (because obviously Apple needs the help more than an indie team).
"..an independent team led by Chistian Allen (lead designer/creative director for games like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and Halo: Reach) has launched a Kickstarter for a new hardcore tactical shooter."
Am I the only one who senses that China/Russia are pushing for UN control of the internet because the US overstepped its bounds by enforcing its shitty copyright laws beyond its borders with domain seizures? We need to stop this, and before that happens we may need to force the US government to guarantee that it won't mess with internet infrastructure any more...
It's hilarious how surprised the devs' comments are. They expected the fundraiser would flop, and then they made their requested amount in less than a day... twice! I bet they are amazed and horrified that there was an actual business model there that everyone missed all this time.
Btw, to those who don't know who Tim Schafer is, he was the Lead Designer on Day of the Tentacle, Full Throttle and Grim Fandango. Ron Gilbert, who is also on the team, is the guy who designed Monkey Island. This is the stuff of legends, people. I never thought this could ever happen.. Kickstarter really works!
The flaw in your narrative is that you fail to account for when the breaking point is reached when we are forced to choose between the internet and IP enforcement. Internet freedom and IP laws are mutually exclusive, and the popular unrest worked up by SOPA/PIPA in the US mainstream and the massive ACTA protests in Europe indicate that the fate of this one-sided Prohibition on Copying is not as clear-cut as you assert.
The "Music industry"? The "Music industry" is doing great -- better than ever. You seem to be confusing it with the comparatively tiny "Recording industry".
Guess what... ACTA criminalises websites that "wilfully" infringe. And are the MAFIAA morons saying, quite clearly, that wilful infringement can't be proven. So why did you put it in ACTA, you sonsofbitches? Because you already know it can't be proven, that's why, so it opens the door to your next demands in the next undemocratic piece of crap legislation you write. Bollocks to this.
A political trick to allow the bill to get bi-partisan support, IMO. The Repubs want to vote against "Liberal Hollywood", but not when the bill is introduced by another Repub.
I've seen the patents and they're a joke. They've been discussed here before. What are my qualifications? Like many others here on/. I'm "in the trenches" so as far as I'm concerned I'm more qualified to have an opinion than the lawyers and judges that YOU'd consider "qualified" to make that kinda statement.
To be fair though, all of this is the result of google taking shortcuts in developing android instead of building their own product. No wonder they were able to create an os so quickly, then turn around and sell it for free.
You've got to be kidding. That sort of thinking not only undermines Google's effort of bringing a good product to market and making it so successful, it also undermines the very foundations of the OSS ideology.
The problem here isn't on Google's part, it's on the parts of the patent system (for allowing patents of highly questionable quality to be used in this way) and Microsoft (for being anti-competitive asshats as usual).
I support the core idea of SOPA while opposing the bill, and I suspect many others do too. If you don't read the damned thing, SOPA sounds like "let's reduce the rampant unchecked piracy online."
But why would reducing piracy be a good thing? Because the RIAA and MPAA lobbies are claiming trillions of dollars in imaginary losses? How can they be reporting record profits at the same time?
The fact is, piracy has been reduced to an emotional issue, where the beneficiaries of these laws claim ridiculous losses and lobby legislators for more regulations to "save the starving artists". SOPA, PIPA, ProIP, the DMCA and every other copyright law of recent years were flawed from the get-go, as they were based on shaky, emotional assumptions, not evidence of a real problem. But heck, I'm still waiting for evidence that the copyright monopoly itself is a net positive to society, let alone its various overreaching extensions.
That's the crux of this issue. The making of expressions is where the real value lies, not in the copying of them. Today's market artificially gives value to copies by banning copying, and the only way to ban copies is to control the flow of information. That's why copyright has become such a big deal: those who control copyright, control what expressions and ideas can be spread -- that's power.
s. 107 (2A) A person commits an offence who - makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work
Is that even English?? What the hell is it supposed to mean? The document has three different meanings of the word "article" being used all over the place, and it doesn't even look like it defines it properly... Does it mean you shouldn't make a website? A proxy? A book? A p2p program? A freaking magazine article? What?
Slashdot Mirror
Do sign, please. It may not help, but it can't hurt.
"..an independent team led by Chistian Allen (lead designer/creative director for games like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and Halo: Reach) has launched a Kickstarter for a new hardcore tactical shooter."
Their PR is nowhere as good as Schafer's, but tactical shooters deserve some love too!
That's what I read at first...
Am I the only one who senses that China/Russia are pushing for UN control of the internet because the US overstepped its bounds by enforcing its shitty copyright laws beyond its borders with domain seizures? We need to stop this, and before that happens we may need to force the US government to guarantee that it won't mess with internet infrastructure any more...
http://i.imgur.com/rtUGR.jpg
Haven't played that one. I'm not buying a console, even for a Tim Schafer game.
If the people filming a documentary about Nacho are at Tim's office, I suspect they're serious about it.
Sure, but Psychonauts was more of a platformer than a point-and-click adventure game.
It's hilarious how surprised the devs' comments are. They expected the fundraiser would flop, and then they made their requested amount in less than a day... twice! I bet they are amazed and horrified that there was an actual business model there that everyone missed all this time.
Fuck yeah!
Btw, to those who don't know who Tim Schafer is, he was the Lead Designer on Day of the Tentacle, Full Throttle and Grim Fandango. Ron Gilbert, who is also on the team, is the guy who designed Monkey Island. This is the stuff of legends, people. I never thought this could ever happen.. Kickstarter really works!
And lulz are had by all! :D
The flaw in your narrative is that you fail to account for when the breaking point is reached when we are forced to choose between the internet and IP enforcement. Internet freedom and IP laws are mutually exclusive, and the popular unrest worked up by SOPA/PIPA in the US mainstream and the massive ACTA protests in Europe indicate that the fate of this one-sided Prohibition on Copying is not as clear-cut as you assert.
The "Music industry"? The "Music industry" is doing great -- better than ever. You seem to be confusing it with the comparatively tiny "Recording industry".
Guess what... ACTA criminalises websites that "wilfully" infringe. And are the MAFIAA morons saying, quite clearly, that wilful infringement can't be proven. So why did you put it in ACTA, you sonsofbitches? Because you already know it can't be proven, that's why, so it opens the door to your next demands in the next undemocratic piece of crap legislation you write. Bollocks to this.
Yeah. Thankfully, the trick didn't work.
A political trick to allow the bill to get bi-partisan support, IMO. The Repubs want to vote against "Liberal Hollywood", but not when the bill is introduced by another Repub.
"Far" is a matter of perspective.
I've seen the patents and they're a joke. They've been discussed here before. What are my qualifications? Like many others here on /. I'm "in the trenches" so as far as I'm concerned I'm more qualified to have an opinion than the lawyers and judges that YOU'd consider "qualified" to make that kinda statement.
To be fair though, all of this is the result of google taking shortcuts in developing android instead of building their own product. No wonder they were able to create an os so quickly, then turn around and sell it for free.
You've got to be kidding. That sort of thinking not only undermines Google's effort of bringing a good product to market and making it so successful, it also undermines the very foundations of the OSS ideology.
The problem here isn't on Google's part, it's on the parts of the patent system (for allowing patents of highly questionable quality to be used in this way) and Microsoft (for being anti-competitive asshats as usual).
Hey, they're doing the same to Richard O'Dwyer but in reverse!
I support the core idea of SOPA while opposing the bill, and I suspect many others do too. If you don't read the damned thing, SOPA sounds like "let's reduce the rampant unchecked piracy online."
But why would reducing piracy be a good thing? Because the RIAA and MPAA lobbies are claiming trillions of dollars in imaginary losses? How can they be reporting record profits at the same time?
The fact is, piracy has been reduced to an emotional issue, where the beneficiaries of these laws claim ridiculous losses and lobby legislators for more regulations to "save the starving artists". SOPA, PIPA, ProIP, the DMCA and every other copyright law of recent years were flawed from the get-go, as they were based on shaky, emotional assumptions, not evidence of a real problem. But heck, I'm still waiting for evidence that the copyright monopoly itself is a net positive to society, let alone its various overreaching extensions.
Lamp oil! Rope! Bombs! You want it? It's yours my friend as long as you have enough Rubles! MMMMMMM
Actually making it - that's valuable
That's the crux of this issue. The making of expressions is where the real value lies, not in the copying of them. Today's market artificially gives value to copies by banning copying, and the only way to ban copies is to control the flow of information. That's why copyright has become such a big deal: those who control copyright, control what expressions and ideas can be spread -- that's power.
All the people here already know.
s. 107 (2A) A person commits an offence who - makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work
Is that even English?? What the hell is it supposed to mean? The document has three different meanings of the word "article" being used all over the place, and it doesn't even look like it defines it properly... Does it mean you shouldn't make a website? A proxy? A book? A p2p program? A freaking magazine article? What?