The scene, intellectual property and double standards
category: offtopic [glöplog]
Quote:
Or what if only a few people paid and the rest were hanging outside the partyplace, having their own shadow party and one guy inside streamed the compos to the ones at the parking lot?
on that note, replace "parking lot" with "internet" and you have another fun discussion about sofasceners.
Back in the days people organized parties for fun, competition and not profit like they do nowadays. It makes me sad to see how demo parties are now tied to monetary compensation and success. Also, you should be able to experience the party first hand before deciding whether it was worth the entrance fee. Also, the beer should really be free after paying the entrance fee that was already quite high...
okkie: erm, less originality in big budget summer hits, AAA games and pop songs is a fact. they constrain the creativity of big budgets to known formulas to minimize the risk of a flop. i think that was wysiwtf's point: on indie releases you find more creativity. and it's true.
Preacher: who the fuck organizes demoparties for profit?
Anyone who expects entrance fee. Demoparty attendance should be free and there should be some kind of a a new model for voluntary demoparty funding that's fair to both the organizer and the attendee.
(for clarity's sake: I was being sarcastic. Though Icons 2007 that we organized managed to make something like 100 euros profit or so after we sold all our beer. We organizers splurged on that money like the capitalistic vultures we are and spent it at a restaurant after the party...)
(for clarity's sake: I was being sarcastic. Though Icons 2007 that we organized managed to make something like 100 euros profit or so after we sold all our beer. We organizers splurged on that money like the capitalistic vultures we are and spent it at a restaurant after the party...)
preacher: curiously enough inércia had free entrance, videos available from previous editions and some free beer aswell :p no stream for the sofasceners though :(
Quote:
new model for voluntary demoparty funding that's fair to both the organizer and the attendee
despite the sarcasm this part sounds interestingly viable. breakpoint's system of a couple years ago was somewhat inline with that aswell :) the more you pay the more features you get :) if you dont pay at all you wouldnt even get a breakpoint
well obviously im speaking for myself and not the other orgas but IF we had a sponsor who would cover all of the costs i would love to make it free entrance for everybody.
the entry fee is bowing down to realism, its not about selling the "product" of the party experience.
if people see it as a product and decide solely on costs/gain it would most likely kill a lot of smaller parties, heck i payed almost as much entrance for outline as for revision.
(not saying revision is the better party but it surely has a longer checklist of features).
preacher:
this. this mindset is what im talking about. if people would stay outside the party place to jump the entry fee it would be
a) stupid and shortsighted because the event happening again after a big financial loss is unlikely and
b) not the demoscene as we know it
the costs/gain calculation is so deeply anchored in some people it scares me
the entry fee is bowing down to realism, its not about selling the "product" of the party experience.
if people see it as a product and decide solely on costs/gain it would most likely kill a lot of smaller parties, heck i payed almost as much entrance for outline as for revision.
(not saying revision is the better party but it surely has a longer checklist of features).
preacher:
this. this mindset is what im talking about. if people would stay outside the party place to jump the entry fee it would be
a) stupid and shortsighted because the event happening again after a big financial loss is unlikely and
b) not the demoscene as we know it
the costs/gain calculation is so deeply anchored in some people it scares me
The response to Gargaj's point is simple. Let me just play devil's advocate here:
Fear nobody will pay the entrance fee to your party? Then don't hold it. Nobody will pay for your software? Then don't write it. Unable to make a living off your music or writing? Well tough, get a fucking job and balance it with your artistic drive somehow.
You can argue all you want about the technicalities of "IP", "stealing", etc - in the end it's a simple business decision: Do I get enough reward, financially or otherwise, for what I'm about to do, yes or no? There's lots of independent game developers out there who still make games in spite of perfectly knowing in advance that the piracy rate will be 90% or higher. Tens of thousands of bands exist, record albums and go on tours despite knowing they'll probably never make a living off it. People are exploring other business models from crowdfunding via F2P to what the heck ever exactly because they know the old "make immaterial product and sell it" route won't get them anywhere. Some are successful, some are not. That's just how things are. What's not how things are however, is that there's anything like a right to profit. Or intellectual property for that matter (no sane lawmaker even thought of using this term before 2000ish, and for very good reason).
Bottom line: You don't earn enough moneys? GTFO.
Fear nobody will pay the entrance fee to your party? Then don't hold it. Nobody will pay for your software? Then don't write it. Unable to make a living off your music or writing? Well tough, get a fucking job and balance it with your artistic drive somehow.
You can argue all you want about the technicalities of "IP", "stealing", etc - in the end it's a simple business decision: Do I get enough reward, financially or otherwise, for what I'm about to do, yes or no? There's lots of independent game developers out there who still make games in spite of perfectly knowing in advance that the piracy rate will be 90% or higher. Tens of thousands of bands exist, record albums and go on tours despite knowing they'll probably never make a living off it. People are exploring other business models from crowdfunding via F2P to what the heck ever exactly because they know the old "make immaterial product and sell it" route won't get them anywhere. Some are successful, some are not. That's just how things are. What's not how things are however, is that there's anything like a right to profit. Or intellectual property for that matter (no sane lawmaker even thought of using this term before 2000ish, and for very good reason).
Bottom line: You don't earn enough moneys? GTFO.
(or don't GTFO and do it for the art)
Quote:
okkie: erm, less originality in big budget summer hits, AAA games and pop songs is a fact. they constrain the creativity of big budgets to known formulas to minimize the risk of a flop. i think that was wysiwtf's point: on indie releases you find more creativity. and it's true.
or maybe its because piracy is so rife that the budget has to be focused on the markets where there's likely to be such huge sales that you get a good return despite piracy - thereby constraining creativity to known formulae. or on cultivating acts which are likely to sell big numbers for live shows (which are, as you might imagine, difficult to pirate).
Smash: But that's actually not piracy's fault other that that it's such an easy target to blame. When you look at the actual numbers piracy is in most cases pretty much proportional to sales, be it a small indie album or GTA5 for that matter. Which puts the risk squarely on the quality and market reach of your product. The more people you excite, the more you sell. Piracy doesn't change that.
Quote:
i would be completely ok with people coming in for free as long as our costs are covered.
And how do you ensure the game developer/music group/film company etc. behind the stuff you wanna have get their costs covered and perhaps release future stuff you would enjoy? Exactly: By buying the stuff! If you get it for free you are jointly responsible for such companies closing down.
smash: investors follow profit. piracy only makes the profit margin potentially slimer.
if your idea is so insanely over creative that no investor is willing to take the risk then its up to you as a producer to either:
a) do it with your own money to prove them wrong or
b) lower the budget or
c) increase the profit margin to make it viable
indies go for a) and b)
big dev houses seem to only see option c)
and its not like crowdsource funding hasnt been invented yet either.
i wouldn't blame lack of originality on piracy, but i do see how it's a convenient excuse for the investors to deny projects that promise dubious returns. and yet those industries keep growing.
if your idea is so insanely over creative that no investor is willing to take the risk then its up to you as a producer to either:
a) do it with your own money to prove them wrong or
b) lower the budget or
c) increase the profit margin to make it viable
indies go for a) and b)
big dev houses seem to only see option c)
and its not like crowdsource funding hasnt been invented yet either.
i wouldn't blame lack of originality on piracy, but i do see how it's a convenient excuse for the investors to deny projects that promise dubious returns. and yet those industries keep growing.
Quote:
What's not how things are however, is that there's anything like a right to profit.
we're not talking about "the right to profit" (which would mean you automatically get paid once you made something and there's no "sale" involved) but "the right to claim profit", i.e. whether it's valid to cry foul once you fulfilled your side of the deal and provided something, and the other side aren't holding up their end.
(and GTA5 is still in development, btw.)
Of course it's absolutely valid to cry foul. You don't have a "deal" with the other side per se but luckily the government stepped in and defined some rules that the other side then broke.
It's just... how well did all the crying turn out again? Considering the big picture? You won't get far by first ignoring piracy and then complaining about it afterwards.
(and yes, this in conclusion means that everything we need to do is stop complaining. The rest is working out pretty well actually. So much for the devil's advocate part)
(Also, I'd be very surprised if GTA5, once it's out, performed vastly differently than all other games in that part of the market, piracy rate wise)
It's just... how well did all the crying turn out again? Considering the big picture? You won't get far by first ignoring piracy and then complaining about it afterwards.
(and yes, this in conclusion means that everything we need to do is stop complaining. The rest is working out pretty well actually. So much for the devil's advocate part)
(Also, I'd be very surprised if GTA5, once it's out, performed vastly differently than all other games in that part of the market, piracy rate wise)
the thread, as far as i understand, is less about the complaining about piracy, and more about the justification / hypocrisy / denial of piracy.
gaspode:
believe it or not but i get that concept of people wanting to get paid for the work they invest, its not only the case with software.
what IS the case with software, however, is that it is technically possible to multiply it and the only resource it costs is the power the circuits need to perform that (and manufacturing/shipping costs if you want to go down that road).
but instead of putting this ability to good use you are criminalized for doing so. instead of embracing the technical achievements of our human race they are cut down to protect the investment of the copyright holders.
see your iphone and xbox? perfectly suited examples of locked down machines with the sole purpose of maximizing the developers companies profit.
im not saying "steal all the things" but "think of clever ways to enable more people to enjoy and benefit from the technical possibillities we have while making sure the developers still enjoy doing it and make a living".
how to do that?
if i knew that id prolly not having this discussion but the idea of a "cultural flatrate" seems very promising to me.
of course it comes with problems like fair distribution and control but i dont think those are unsolvable.
believe it or not but i get that concept of people wanting to get paid for the work they invest, its not only the case with software.
what IS the case with software, however, is that it is technically possible to multiply it and the only resource it costs is the power the circuits need to perform that (and manufacturing/shipping costs if you want to go down that road).
but instead of putting this ability to good use you are criminalized for doing so. instead of embracing the technical achievements of our human race they are cut down to protect the investment of the copyright holders.
see your iphone and xbox? perfectly suited examples of locked down machines with the sole purpose of maximizing the developers companies profit.
im not saying "steal all the things" but "think of clever ways to enable more people to enjoy and benefit from the technical possibillities we have while making sure the developers still enjoy doing it and make a living".
how to do that?
if i knew that id prolly not having this discussion but the idea of a "cultural flatrate" seems very promising to me.
of course it comes with problems like fair distribution and control but i dont think those are unsolvable.
Quote:
but instead of putting this ability to good use you are criminalized for doing so.
No, you are criminalized for copying without paying. Copying by itself isn't criminalized.
Companies do it all the time by offering downloads of their software/games/movies etc.
Quote:
think of clever ways to enable more people to enjoy and benefit from the technical possibillities we have while making sure the developers still enjoy doing it and make a living
There are a lot of ways to buy games/music/stuff online. Often by the developers themselves.
Do you use them?
Quote:
but the idea of a "cultural flatrate" seems very promising to me
Don't know how there ever can be a fair allocation formula IF you get ALL of the WORLDWIDE creators of art on board in the first place. Or how to know which art was consumed how many times, perhaps by monitoring the downloads of those flatrate-users?! But the main thing is ... there is no "cultural flatrate" yet (except music-flatrates, which are available already). So you have to go the legal way by buying the stuff piece by piece UNTIL those flatrates are available.
Quote:
No, you are criminalized for copying without paying. Copying by itself isn't criminalized.
Companies do it all the time by offering downloads of their software/games/movies etc.
yeah thats what i dont like.
there was even a time when copying music for private use was legal, but that right vanished as soon as lossless digital copies became reality.
Quote:
There are a lot of ways to buy games/music/stuff online. Often by the developers themselves.
Do you use them?
yes. i very much prefer to buy from the creators directly and also as digital download. i dont need to hold a boxed copy of a software in my hands, i dont pay for physical media i pay for the content.
if i get the physical product for half the price from amazon than as digital distributed version, however, i feel treated like a fool.
Quote:
there was even a time when copying music for private use was legal, but that right vanished as soon as lossless digital copies became reality.
That's still true. I can burn the music bought in iTunes on CDs. Same with Amazon and maybe other music services. As far as I know it's not illegal to do that.
What also applies here is: if you don't like the way the music industry works - buy from the authors themselves.
And still - the fact that you don't like the way it is doesn't give you the right to steal.
Because stealing only makes things worse for the people who spend their money in exchange for a product. DRM is one of the consequences of the actions you're defending. The same DRM, which is now being used as an excuse to pirate stuff.
Quote:
i dont need to hold a boxed copy of a software in my hands, i dont pay for physical media i pay for the content.
Doesn't that fall into the "immaterial goods" category you don't see a reason to pay for? ;)
Quote:
yeah thats what i dont like.
Why?
And: There is a difference between copying something you have bought for private use and copying something by downloading it illegal.
Quote:
if i get the physical product for half the price from amazon than as digital distributed version, however, i feel treated like a fool.
Example?!
And: Okay, physical products shoudln't be cheaper than downloads, but digital distribution isn't costless either although I don't know what charges accrue (Hosting for sure + traffic + ???).
Quote:
I wish you would just stop saying things, since almost all of them are wrong. Copying music for private is still legal in most countries -- hell, in Norway you are even allowed to share music and movies freely within "your close circle" (deliberately vague in the law), so I can -- as an example: copy a CD or a DVD and _give it_ to my friend, without fear of repercussions. I can also download something from iTunes and just give the files away to someone in my family or circle of friends. Again, without any repercussions. there was even a time when copying music for private use was legal, but that right vanished as soon as lossless digital copies became reality.
"private copy" as in, not for your own use but for a friend.
it may still be legal to copy it but since its illegal to remove the drm the law went ad absurdum.
but that doesnt concern software just movies and music.
and immaterial goods stay immaterial goods, no matter if they come on a physical medium or not. again, i pay for the content not the disc.
as with the expensive digital downloads, loads of examples really. basically all the games you can buy on battle.net and origin.
my bet is that they have to offer it at that price because the retailers are worried about going out of business otherwise.
it may still be legal to copy it but since its illegal to remove the drm the law went ad absurdum.
but that doesnt concern software just movies and music.
and immaterial goods stay immaterial goods, no matter if they come on a physical medium or not. again, i pay for the content not the disc.
as with the expensive digital downloads, loads of examples really. basically all the games you can buy on battle.net and origin.
my bet is that they have to offer it at that price because the retailers are worried about going out of business otherwise.
Quote:
I wish you would just stop saying things, since almost all of them are wrong. Copying music for private is still legal in most countries -- hell, in Norway you are even allowed to share music and movies freely within "your close circle" (deliberately vague in the law), so I can -- as an example: copy a CD or a DVD and _give it_ to my friend, without fear of repercussions. I can also download something from iTunes and just give the files away to someone in my family or circle of friends. Again, without any repercussions.
i just know about the situation in germany. if downloading unprotected mp3s (from amazon, bandcamp, whereever) and sharing them locally is allowed i dont exactly know. ripping a cd certainly isnt.