locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited August 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1720801:date=Aug 5 2009, 02:39 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Aug 5 2009, 02:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720801"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Flayra lived on Constellation <i>after</i> it was proven that there was something worthwhile. Meaning people donated know that it wasn't charity so much as reward. Preordering NS2 implies that you will not get it for free. Without copyright, such a concept wouldn't work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That doesn't really matter. The point is people are paying for their games to be finished now, even with copyright. If there were no copyright people would still want games and other entertainment, and there would be more impetus to pay earlier because companies business models would require it.
Regardless, you could replace "preorder" with "alpha/beta access and shiny armor".
<!--quoteo(post=1720805:date=Aug 5 2009, 02:54 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Aug 5 2009, 02:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720805"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That doesn't really matter. The point is people are paying for their games to be finished now, even with copyright. If there were no copyright people would still want games and other entertainment, and there would be more impetus to pay earlier because companies business models would require it.
Regardless, you could replace "preorder" with "alpha/beta access and shiny armor".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand. We don't pay in spite of copyright but because of it. We pay because we have to in order to enjoy the game. If there were no copyrights, we wouldn't have to pay to enjoy the game. So we'd pay in spite of a lack of copyright.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited August 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1720813:date=Aug 5 2009, 03:48 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Aug 5 2009, 03:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720813"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We pay because we have to in order to enjoy the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's right. That would not change, you still have to pay the developer in order for the game to be made. The difference is you have to pay upfront instead of at the end. The benefit of this is you get to vote with your dollars for concepts that you want to see made into games.
The parallel I was making with NS2 is that development most likely would have stopped or been greatly reduced without the "preorder" by fans. This was, in a way, an investment. Furthermore even in a "copyright free" world he could have still offered a pre-order like promotion by offering beta/alpha access and shiny armor.
The downside being that if I don't like the product I can't decide against buying it because I've ALREADY paid for it. Also, think of all the games that get canceled because they're ######, or sell poorly because they're ######. How am I supposed to make an informed decision about the games I purchase if a playable state of the game is years in the future? I would much rather pay for a finished game than for one that only exists in preliminary design documents.
I'm pretty sure that by now we have established that the complete abolishment of copyright is impractical at best, downright harmful at worst. And I restate what I said early on: The insistence on turning this into an all-or-nothing choice has hampered debate to the point of ridiculousness.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited August 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1720819:date=Aug 5 2009, 05:37 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Aug 5 2009, 05:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720819"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The downside being that if I don't like the product I can't decide against buying it because I've ALREADY paid for it. Also, think of all the games that get canceled because they're ######, or sell poorly because they're ######. How am I supposed to make an informed decision about the games I purchase if a playable state of the game is years in the future? I would much rather pay for a finished game than for one that only exists in preliminary design documents.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And I'm sure developers would release finished games with call back to main server DRM like we're seeing now to make it impossible for others to sell. There are other buisness models that would allow games to be built without copyright. If your main issue is that you can't play a game before you pay for it I don't think that's much of a reason to preserve copyright, especially since you can't legally do that now. <!--quoteo(post=1720819:date=Aug 5 2009, 05:37 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Aug 5 2009, 05:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720819"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm pretty sure that by now we have established that the complete abolishment of copyright is impractical at best, downright harmful at worst.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at all. It would be harmful to a single business model yes, but overall yield benefits to the consumer. <span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>OOC: Of course it's impractical, the structural unemployment in the shift of business models would be tremendous. No one has been arguing about practicality so far. All I've seen are arguments about how would X make money. If there's money to be made in an industry, people would find a way to make it.</span>
You all seem to be focusing on this percieved right that is above all other human rights, the right to make money. I would propose this assumption is flawed. You don't have the right to get payed for anything.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1721018:date=Aug 6 2009, 04:19 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Aug 6 2009, 04:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1721018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You all seem to be focusing on this percieved right that is above all other human rights, the right to make money. I would propose this assumption is flawed. You don't have the right to get payed for anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> None of us think it is a 'right' as you are using the word, as you seem to be angling it at the good old 'inalienable rights' (which are bunk to some extent). However we think it is an excellent way of promoting things we like.
The point of copyright is this: We (the society) grant the exclusive right to use created material as they see fit for a set amount of time. This is a reward for doing something we judge to be beneficial to society (the creation of new things).
If you propose that we shouldn't encourage creation of new ideas, or we should do it in some other way, say so.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the POOR! No, says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to GOD! No, says the man in Moscow, it belongs to EVERYONE!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry.
It's not about money. It's about the <i>opportunity</i> to dictate the terms of usage of something that we create. If you want it to be free, it should be free. If you want it to cost money, it should cost money. If you want it to be merely glimpsed and never fully accessible, you should get the chance to make it happen. Nothing can make it be just like your dreams, but like our right to "pursue happiness," we should have the chance to do with our works what we please.
No government should decide either way for us. Rather, government should back our decision. That's what copyright law intends to do, even if the <i>goal</i> is to promote innovation.
And at the same time, copyright should expire (and part of the problem nowadays is that it takes longer and longer with every law passed). Take the works of J.S. Bach, arguably the master of baroque music. His music continues to inspire and fascinate to this day (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b_zVD98_5U" target="_blank">to wit!</a>), and it would not do to have the sole rights in the hands of his descendants, if he still has any. And luckily, that is not the case. But increasingly, legislation tends toward longer and longer retention. Patent laws are even worse in this case, not just because of the length of patents but because of what you can patent.
But I still see complete abolishment of either as a horrible idea.
It's not about money. It's about the <i>opportunity</i> to dictate the terms of usage of something that we create. If you want it to be free, it should be free. If you want it to cost money, it should cost money. If you want it to be merely glimpsed and never fully accessible, you should get the chance to make it happen. Nothing can make it be just like your dreams, but like our right to "pursue happiness," we should have the chance to do with our works what we please.
No government should decide either way for us. Rather, government should back our decision. That's what copyright law intends to do, even if the <i>goal</i> is to promote innovation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No need to apologize, your quote is appropriate even if it is from a video game. This is a first argument I can't really argue with. Not because I agree necessarily, but because it's an obvious difference in philosophy. Maybe this is what lolf and thansal were trying to get at.
As true as that statement might be, money is sure as heck one really nice incentive.
Pertaining to a business model where people support while it is under development, I'm not completely sold. It seems like you're asking people to all become investors who may or may not recoup their expenses in the form of a product at the end. However, this can become cumbersome to deal with for a large audience, which is why there are investment groups and venture capital expenditures. Most groups get away with it because they have cultivated a following already. They were able to develop a kind of prototype for free (typically while a dependent of their parents) and from there launch into developing something else full time while taking funds from donations.
The major problem is the development with high risk or no tangible product. High risk can come in the form of a new untested development group, from the extremely long duration it takes to create, or due to the high cost of design. One simple example is chip development. It takes years to properly develop a technology, huge amount of man hours to properly test and build the circuitry, and extremely sophisticated equipment to create the chips themselves. The lack of a tangible product is the major difficulty with academic research. Universities are primarily funded through tuition and grant money, and many of their findings, while often "cool", will take many many years to be developed into something useful. See most of modern day physics research.
The problem arises that people are less likely to buy into these programs. Instead, it becomes a trust issue. Do I trust that I will be repaid somehow in the future from this investment. From the general consumer's side, most people will want to get something out of it. There are the select few who will support a "worthy cause", but the vast majority want something at the end of the road. So, who do they spend money on? The trusted source. Who is the trusted source? Whoever has done it before, or who has had enough grace to create some kind of proof that they're not a complete hack and worth investing in.
This creates a system where new groups find it extremely difficult to get their foot in the door. While this is true now (chip design takes a huge amount of capital), at least the smaller groups can take solace that their work while in development will be secure under copyright law. Remember, in order to get investment, there has to be some kind of trust that it will deliver at the end. However, if the smaller group's ideas and work are absorbed into the larger company, there's no way that the new group can compete. Their new idea is no longer new, it's being used by someone else, being developed faster and with more investors behind it. The investors may take pity on them, but that's about it. We've now created monopolistic corporations. Granted, you could try to rely on new groups being extra secretive or being so different that the larger corporation doesn't want to invest in that area, but that's only effective in sectors where you can cordon off the divergent developments.
That isn't to say no copyright won't work in some sectors. Specifically the areas where there is very little entry barrier. However, it is arguable that there are no areas of low entry barrier since if we take the "support as they develop" approach, there's still a huge barrier to even get a group to pay into them. So, we are stuck with investors of some sort, whether funding groups or your parents, or perhaps a former source of income.
Comments
That doesn't really matter. The point is people are paying for their games to be finished now, even with copyright. If there were no copyright people would still want games and other entertainment, and there would be more impetus to pay earlier because companies business models would require it.
Regardless, you could replace "preorder" with "alpha/beta access and shiny armor".
Regardless, you could replace "preorder" with "alpha/beta access and shiny armor".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand. We don't pay in spite of copyright but because of it. We pay because we have to in order to enjoy the game. If there were no copyrights, we wouldn't have to pay to enjoy the game. So we'd pay in spite of a lack of copyright.
That's right. That would not change, you still have to pay the developer in order for the game to be made. The difference is you have to pay upfront instead of at the end. The benefit of this is you get to vote with your dollars for concepts that you want to see made into games.
The parallel I was making with NS2 is that development most likely would have stopped or been greatly reduced without the "preorder" by fans. This was, in a way, an investment. Furthermore even in a "copyright free" world he could have still offered a pre-order like promotion by offering beta/alpha access and shiny armor.
I'm pretty sure that by now we have established that the complete abolishment of copyright is impractical at best, downright harmful at worst. And I restate what I said early on: The insistence on turning this into an all-or-nothing choice has hampered debate to the point of ridiculousness.
And I'm sure developers would release finished games with call back to main server DRM like we're seeing now to make it impossible for others to sell. There are other buisness models that would allow games to be built without copyright. If your main issue is that you can't play a game before you pay for it I don't think that's much of a reason to preserve copyright, especially since you can't legally do that now.
<!--quoteo(post=1720819:date=Aug 5 2009, 05:37 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Aug 5 2009, 05:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720819"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm pretty sure that by now we have established that the complete abolishment of copyright is impractical at best, downright harmful at worst.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all. It would be harmful to a single business model yes, but overall yield benefits to the consumer.
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>OOC: Of course it's impractical, the structural unemployment in the shift of business models would be tremendous. No one has been arguing about practicality so far. All I've seen are arguments about how would X make money. If there's money to be made in an industry, people would find a way to make it.</span>
None of us think it is a 'right' as you are using the word, as you seem to be angling it at the good old 'inalienable rights' (which are bunk to some extent). However we think it is an excellent way of promoting things we like.
The point of copyright is this:
We (the society) grant the exclusive right to use created material as they see fit for a set amount of time. This is a reward for doing something we judge to be beneficial to society (the creation of new things).
If you propose that we shouldn't encourage creation of new ideas, or we should do it in some other way, say so.
No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the POOR!
No, says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to GOD!
No, says the man in Moscow, it belongs to EVERYONE!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry.
It's not about money. It's about the <i>opportunity</i> to dictate the terms of usage of something that we create. If you want it to be free, it should be free. If you want it to cost money, it should cost money. If you want it to be merely glimpsed and never fully accessible, you should get the chance to make it happen. Nothing can make it be just like your dreams, but like our right to "pursue happiness," we should have the chance to do with our works what we please.
No government should decide either way for us. Rather, government should back our decision. That's what copyright law intends to do, even if the <i>goal</i> is to promote innovation.
But I still see complete abolishment of either as a horrible idea.
It's not about money. It's about the <i>opportunity</i> to dictate the terms of usage of something that we create. If you want it to be free, it should be free. If you want it to cost money, it should cost money. If you want it to be merely glimpsed and never fully accessible, you should get the chance to make it happen. Nothing can make it be just like your dreams, but like our right to "pursue happiness," we should have the chance to do with our works what we please.
No government should decide either way for us. Rather, government should back our decision. That's what copyright law intends to do, even if the <i>goal</i> is to promote innovation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No need to apologize, your quote is appropriate even if it is from a video game. This is a first argument I can't really argue with. Not because I agree necessarily, but because it's an obvious difference in philosophy. Maybe this is what lolf and thansal were trying to get at.
Pertaining to a business model where people support while it is under development, I'm not completely sold. It seems like you're asking people to all become investors who may or may not recoup their expenses in the form of a product at the end. However, this can become cumbersome to deal with for a large audience, which is why there are investment groups and venture capital expenditures. Most groups get away with it because they have cultivated a following already. They were able to develop a kind of prototype for free (typically while a dependent of their parents) and from there launch into developing something else full time while taking funds from donations.
The major problem is the development with high risk or no tangible product. High risk can come in the form of a new untested development group, from the extremely long duration it takes to create, or due to the high cost of design. One simple example is chip development. It takes years to properly develop a technology, huge amount of man hours to properly test and build the circuitry, and extremely sophisticated equipment to create the chips themselves. The lack of a tangible product is the major difficulty with academic research. Universities are primarily funded through tuition and grant money, and many of their findings, while often "cool", will take many many years to be developed into something useful. See most of modern day physics research.
The problem arises that people are less likely to buy into these programs. Instead, it becomes a trust issue. Do I trust that I will be repaid somehow in the future from this investment. From the general consumer's side, most people will want to get something out of it. There are the select few who will support a "worthy cause", but the vast majority want something at the end of the road. So, who do they spend money on? The trusted source. Who is the trusted source? Whoever has done it before, or who has had enough grace to create some kind of proof that they're not a complete hack and worth investing in.
This creates a system where new groups find it extremely difficult to get their foot in the door. While this is true now (chip design takes a huge amount of capital), at least the smaller groups can take solace that their work while in development will be secure under copyright law. Remember, in order to get investment, there has to be some kind of trust that it will deliver at the end. However, if the smaller group's ideas and work are absorbed into the larger company, there's no way that the new group can compete. Their new idea is no longer new, it's being used by someone else, being developed faster and with more investors behind it. The investors may take pity on them, but that's about it. We've now created monopolistic corporations. Granted, you could try to rely on new groups being extra secretive or being so different that the larger corporation doesn't want to invest in that area, but that's only effective in sectors where you can cordon off the divergent developments.
That isn't to say no copyright won't work in some sectors. Specifically the areas where there is very little entry barrier. However, it is arguable that there are no areas of low entry barrier since if we take the "support as they develop" approach, there's still a huge barrier to even get a group to pay into them. So, we are stuck with investors of some sort, whether funding groups or your parents, or perhaps a former source of income.