Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Just like the MPAA didn't learn from the RIAA, the games industry is next

<< < (6/8) > >>

Renegade:
If we take the basic empirical approach, then there is no debate whatsoever -- ideas cannot be property. Period. You can only have exclusive access to an idea if you never share/reveal it. But even then, someone else might think of the same idea... History is full of these kinds of things, e.g. Calculus with Liebniz and Descartes, even though it was known elsewhere centuries before.
-Renegade (February 08, 2012, 12:06 AM)
--- End quote ---

While it is true that anything that you say or do that is not obfuscated in some manner cannot be owned, where does this leave the creative side of things?  If you take the money grubbing out, and leave out the non-personal aspect of the corporations, and get back to the very basics as my example above... where is it right or fair that someone who creates this idea and does all of the work on it loses it just because they want to share what they did with the world?

If I create something with my writing that inspires others, then that's a great thing.  But if someone takes my characters to make a profit off of those characters that I create, then in what place is that fair?  And is the only choice give it away or keep it to yourself?
-wraith808 (February 08, 2012, 09:58 AM)
--- End quote ---


You're absolutely right. I don't really have a good answer.

For musicians... live shows? Seems to work for quite a few bands.

For authors... seminars? Not sure if this can work for many though.

For software authors? Simple. Licensing. (I do NOT want to use "DRM" in this context as many/most software authors are nowhere near the draconian <insert profanity here /> that the media mafia are.)

For graphic artists, sculptors, etc... Still tough... Put it out there and get people to commission works? It worked in the past (hundreds of years ago). Not sure if it can work now or not.

At some level, all artists can get paid for commissioned works. Be that painting, music, web sites, graphics, software, or whatever. However, that also puts it out of reach for most people. For that, I think eliminating a fiat currency that has no value would be a good start. But all that really runs off in a different direction, although strongly related. e.g. Imagine a world where people actually have wealth and it isn't stolen by bankers through usury. (Remember, interest is geometric -- and there's no way around it unless you want to disbelieve in mathematics.)

I don't want to claim that any of the above are real solutions to the problem.

What I would like to suggest is that perhaps "the problem" is how we view it.

I suppose that one thing I've missed through all of this is commercial piracy. I've really only considered personal level piracy. I do view them as fundamentally different.

But I don't have any concrete answers at the moment.

I suppose that the best place to start is with our own attitudes, and I think I've addressed a good amount there, or at least enough to get started.

40hz:
The real problem with unpaid content "appropriation" is that it drives professionals off the playing field. After which things such as music, motion pictures, art, news reporting, and literature once again become the exclusive domain of amateurs. Much like it was prior to the 20th century.

Before that, most creative expression was the province of the idle rich. With the result that virtually all art reflected the attitudes and preferences of a very small and disengaged part of the populace. Which in turn shaped social attitude and institutions. Often with disastrous results.

Modern art marketplaces allowed people from all walks a life to participate in creative expression once there was no longer a need for personal financial independence before people could pursue it. The possibility of making a living off creative works opened the doors and tore down the walls economic necessity put up. And removed the need to secure patronage - which allowed for a far greater freedom of expression and subject matter than had existed before.

And with that came new ideas and art forms, new institutions, and new understandings. And all because creative expression no longer relied upon the wealthy to provide or support it.

We're now in danger of losing that because people want to consume but not give back.

Eventually it will lead to fewer choices and lower quality as creative production only remains affordable to large businesses that can give a lot away in order to get the opportunity to make money in a tangental rather than direct fashion.

If genre-mill fiction books, YouTube, and shows like Dancing with the Stars and America's Got Talent strike you as being the epitome of artistic expression, then bootleg books, movies, and music off the torrents as you will.

But if people want and expect better than that, they're going to need to give something back to the creatives before they have to quit - and leave nothing behind but commercial hacks and amateurs to fill the void.

ACTA/SOPA/PIPA isn't the answer to this problem. But neither is the "Why should I have to pay at all?" mindset many people now have.

I'd suggest we start by dumping outmoded and unnecessary parts of the distribution system, since it's the distributors and their trade practices that are the biggest part of the problem right now. Digital downloads have pretty much rendered most of the old industry models obsolete or inapplicable anyway. Much like how telco regulations are designed to protect the quality of analog voice signals even though we're now fully digital - and voice communications only make up about 15-20% of the data packets the telcos are currently sending down their lines. And that percentage is steadily dropping with each passing year.

Once the crud gets cleaned out of the distribution pipes we have a better chance of putting artists directly in touch with their friends and fans. And maybe out of that will come a new awareness of why it's necessary to actively and financially support the arts people are most interested in. And hopefully the people will act on their awareness without the need for givernment (not a typo!) to continue to propose crazy and unworkable laws and other regulatory nonsense.

At least it's worth a try. Because what people and governments are currently doing isn't working. And never will.

wraith808:
But if people want and expect better than that, they're going to need to give something back to the creatives before they have to quit - and leave nothing behind but commercial hacks and amateurs to fill the void.

ACTA/SOPA/PIPA isn't the answer to this problem. But neither is the "Why should I have to pay at all?" mindset many people now have.

<snip />

At least it's worth a try. Because what people and their governments are doing right now isn't working. And never will.
-40hz (February 08, 2012, 11:01 AM)
--- End quote ---

QFT!  Truthfully, I wouldn't mind if people pirated my work- it's when people steal it that I have problems with it.  To me, though the powers that be want to equate the two, they are totally different.  To pirate, copy, etc means that you enjoy the work and want to consume it.  Paying would help to support- but doing this doesn't do anything to the bottom line, as those that value it pay for it (at least in my optimistic view of things).  Stealing on the other hand is borderline plagiarizing the work (or not so borderline).  It's the excuse that Zynga uses to justify its games- I put a shiny coat on it, so I don't need to pay for the right to create it, even though all of my mechanics are the same as yours.  And what's being done in laws doesn't protect these people... so when is it that the corporate interests go to the well, and find it dry?  As 40 alludes to, if people can't survive off of their work, then the work will start to disappear- at least the professional level.  And that's not a world that I like to think about...

Stoic Joker:
Interesting distinction...I like it.

app103:
I think what most consumers don’t realize is that every time they buy a used game, there is ZERO money making it back to the Game Developers.  All of those profits are going directly to the re-seller and making it more and more difficult for us to continue making higher quality products.

--- End quote ---

There is no profit to be made in buying something at full price, finding out you don't really like it or deciding you don't want it any more, then selling it at less than you paid for it. Ask anyone who has ever had a yard sale if they have ever recovered 100% of what they originally paid for the stuff they sold.

And speaking of making higher quality products, the secret in cutting down on the amount of used stuff sold is to make a higher quality product that people don't want to part with in the first place.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page