Sign in to follow this  
kindfluffysteve

piracy should be a crime?

Recommended Posts

perhaps this is a more a political thing or is it business? I'm a would be, trying to be - games developer - I hope to get paid - hope is a good thing - and the fear in the current environment is the issue of piracy - which is rampant and easy and much practiced. personally I dont care how I get paid as long as I do - but in the current political-economic environment we all hate piracy. because it hurts any profits we might make. I suggest something more ideal: The internet and the massive piracy that is occuring ought to be embraced. It is so widely practiced, that you have to ask ourselves is it right to impose a law that bans a mass activity? Instead ways should be found to operate with the grain of society not to clamp down against it: so this is what I would like to see- but what may never happen: an end to crime of piracy. and a tax-spend system for entertainment. All entertainment would be funded by the tax payer. downloads should be free but clocked. The greater the number of downloads, the greater the reward. Such a model would decriminise a common activity, democratise entertainment from developer to user - without middlemen and would be cheaper for all. And would reward the developer fairly. I imagine a tax entertainment pool - payment is then based on the pool - so a flooded market doesnt drain the treasury. There may be issues with how to implement these systems and division of genres. what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Entertainment is non-essential
Entertainment is by personal choice
Why should tax payers who don't want or like game pay to fund games just because the people who do like games are too dishonest to pay for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how would you manage the tax? People that don't play games will complain about it. Entertainment is optional and a big business and don't you think some people would try to create a fraud just to make money? Taxes wouldn't really help.

Maybe there should be a membership thing for games. Pay $25 a month and you can download the games whenever they come out. Even then though a lot of companies wouldn't go on it because they want more money than the others.

Piracy is going to be around prolly forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think entertainment is essential.

if there is no entertainment then it is a life of drugery.

once the system is in place, electorates would then be influential in the allocation of these resources.

it is a quite socialistic approach - yet leaves it open to the individual in what is created.

In britain we have the BBC which well, u can opt out by not having a television - but that would be just stupid - weather you watch it or not you pay the fee.

the BBC remains popular, its contribution ot society is recognised by the vast majority - its privitisation would be unpopular - so people accept tax and spend with regards to entertainment.

but people would be unhappy at being thrown in jail for piracy.

piracy is in effect a mass movement - unfortunately a mass movement with unhappy consequences - I see it only logical that the solution be a system solution to this changed environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a middle aged school teacher in boonyville, nebraska. My tax money is already paying for lazy people to stay on welfare. Now it's going to pay people to make... what are these? Moving things on the tv?

I'm the lead designer at the biggest game company in America. My game is full of zombies and giant lumbering demons who spount gallons of blood. The FCC demands I replace the BFG with a super soaker 2000 and the demons with bunnies, or it won't pay for my game.

I'm a grunt programmer at a large interactive entertainment production house. We used to sell our games at $50 a piece. Some got pirated, but the numbers going on the shelves made up for it. I got paid pretty good. Now, the government pays us. The executives still make just as much, but I had to move into a box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by SumDude
how would you manage the tax? People that don't play games will complain about it. Entertainment is optional and a big business and don't you think some people would try to create a fraud just to make money? Taxes wouldn't really help.

Maybe there should be a membership thing for games. Pay $25 a month and you can download the games whenever they come out. Even then though a lot of companies wouldn't go on it because they want more money than the others.

Piracy is going to be around prolly forever.


well people who dont watch the BBC sometimes complain about it - but the fact remains on the whole the BBC is accepted and is popular.

the would be potential problems with distribution. false downloads. I had imagined the state would operate a central download server garenteed to be fast - monitoring could be based on that. perhaps IP address logged and such.

the use of P2P either by passing your friend a CD or using emule or whatever - this issue could possibly just be ignored.

The centralised server would be fast and bandwidth might be payable upfront in someway by the developer.


I would imagine that all technical problems with the system could be mostly counterable.

I believe the system would work and would be popular.

consider the issue of music: its not very democratic. you have elitist publisher who are just guessing what people want, and pushing through hype what people want and were the freedom in that?

embracing the internet for distribution of digital goods in this way would liberate developers of such content from the shackles of publisher control.

the creator is then rewarded more easily. It seems much more democratic because any old band can set up a song, place on the states server play in a club and point and people could download that and the state would pay from the pool.

developer heaven this is - and more democratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense. Nobody's going to jail for it [though certain things associated with it are now criminal].

The gaming industry makes *boatloads* of cash, even with "massive" piracy.

And as someone who would also like to make a living doing game dev work, I'd be thrilled if my first game was a wildly pirated success. That means my second is almost guaranteed funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i just think piracy is a mass movement.

I am not impressed by it because I will loose out.

we have to be careful in accepting the athoritarian clamp down on piracy because it really a case of elites controling government to crack down on a popular mass movement.

instead lets just sidestep the problem of piracy - rather than hit it head on - sidestep the issue.

in most case, socialism is the answer. socialism and freedom go hand in hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with Deyja, im not gunna pay for something that i probably won't have the time to enjoy. We pay for lazy ass people to live and then many people just take advantage of that. Why should i pay for someone to enjoy games when i probably won't be able to enjoy them as much when i get a real job?

On an Off note:
Communism is bad. Its a totally unfair way of rewarding people. A capitalist economy works to reward those that step out to gain intelligence or take big business risks. If your too lazy to get an education and do something in your life then you deserve to die in a ditch. (This doesn't mean i support bush)

You can't expect people to pay for something they don't need in life. The only thing i think we should add taxes for is for health care. I think people should get free health care because health almost always gets bad. Everyone will get sick sometime and i think we should make it free to whoever pays their taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
himm we talk of capitalism vs communism.

i find it disturbing that people confuse socialism with communism.

the suggestion being, what I advocated is communist and not the pragmatic stroke of brilliance that it is! :-P

people vote for socialistic governments - so this is what they should get right? or does your individual opinion deserver greater weight? of course this not so - and socialism (or not) through the vote is always rightful.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just remember to keep in mind that not every instance of a pirated program equates to a lost sale. Most of those pirated copies are made by people that likely wouldn't have bought the software to begin with. 100 pirated games that retail for $50 isn't $5000 lost money, it's probably realistically only a fraction of that, but it's not something we'll ever really know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Deyja
I'm the lead designer at the biggest game company in America. My game is full of zombies and giant lumbering demons who spount gallons of blood. The FCC demands I replace the BFG with a super soaker 2000 and the demons with bunnies, or it won't pay for my game.

This, it seems to me, is the only valid complaint. If the government controls the funding, then the government has the ability to control the content.


In the UK, we have independant organisations whose job it is to ensure that the state-funded media (i.e. the BBC) are as free from governmental interference as the privately-funded media.


Besides which, the government wouldn't pay companies directly. Instead, private organisations would recieve money from the government, and those would distribute their alloted funds. Some would be companies, some charities. This increases the degree of seperation between government and developer, making it more difficult for the government to interfere.

Quote:
Original post by SumDude
I'm with Deyja, im not gunna pay for something that i probably won't have the time to enjoy. We pay for lazy ass people to live and then many people just take advantage of that. Why should i pay for someone to enjoy games when i probably won't be able to enjoy them as much when i get a real job?

Why games, specifically? Do you listen to music? Read books? Watch television? Watch spectator sports? All these things are forms of entertainment, and would eventually be funded or partially funded by an entertainment tax.
Quote:

Communism is bad. Its a totally unfair way of rewarding people.

Communism isn't an unfair way of rewarding people, because it isn't a way of rewarding people. The communist principle is that people deserve life and the ability to enjoy life, not that those things are a reward.
Quote:

A capitalist economy works to reward those that step out to gain intelligence or take big business risks.

No, a capitalist economy works to reward those who are in the right place at the right time. Whilst it's true that you have to do something to succeed in a capitalist economy, there are people who work hard all day every day and reep no benefits of the capitalist system, whilst there are people who do as little as possible and happen, by pure luck, to become hugely successful.
Quote:

If your too lazy to get an education and do something in your life then you deserve to die in a ditch.

Do you seriously believe that people who are unable to find work deserve to die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by kindfluffysteve
i think entertainment is essential.

Your opinion and not one shared by the majority.

Quote:
once the system is in place, electorates would then be influential in the allocation of these resources.

Right, people who wont even go out to vote for important issues like government are going to do so over the allocation of funding to media. Note: You can't using this system just for games, it would have to be for every creative media (books, films, comics etc) as they all suffer piracy to a greater or lesser degree. The publishing industry would allow just games to be taken over it would have to be all or nothing.

Quote:
In britain we have the BBC which well, u can opt out by not having a television - but that would be just stupid - weather you watch it or not you pay the fee.

The BBC isn't a valid example - it is state owned. What you are proposing is to force all creative media into state control (which certainly didn't work in any of the socialist states).

Quote:
I would imagine that all technical problems with the system could be mostly counterable.
Then you obviously haven't given it proper thought. Valve can barely get Steam working to download just their games. Now you propose that all games be given away in a similar manner? The technical requirements for this are awesome and the businesses that maintain the Internet infrastructure certainly wont be willing to support such an undertaking for free.

This is a massive bureaucratic and technical undertaking that the majority of tax payers wouldn't be interested in and simply wouldn't accept.

The game industry generates $16 billion dollars in revenue worldwide and provides employment for thousands and thousands of people. You are proposing to kill software retailers, duplicators, PR companies, distributors, publishers and console makers (these latter lose money on their consoles and make it on the sale of software). You are wiping out a $16 billion industry and turning it into a tax and bureaucratic burden on the state to "eliminate" piracy which costs a few million dollars. It simply makes no sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Obscure
Quote:
Original post by kindfluffysteve
i think entertainment is essential.

Your opinion and not one shared by the majority.

I think the majority do share that opinion, to a degree. What the majority probably think is that entertainment is essential to them, but that nobody else deserves to have it.
Quote:

Quote:
once the system is in place, electorates would then be influential in the allocation of these resources.

Right, people who wont even go out to vote for important issues like government are going to do so over the allocation of funding to media.

Well, you seem pretty cut up about it. From what I can see, by far the majority of Americans are vigorously opposed to helping the less fortunate. I suspect that Americans would be only to happy to vote against any candidate who suggested setting up this kind of system.
Quote:

Quote:
In britain we have the BBC which well, u can opt out by not having a television - but that would be just stupid - weather you watch it or not you pay the fee.

The BBC isn't a valid example - it is state owned. What you are proposing is to force all creative media into state control (which certainly didn't work in any of the socialist states).

That doesn't follow. The BBC is state owned, but it is not state controlled. In fact both the BBC and state pride themselves on the lack of governmental control. They imagine that the fact that the government could control the state-funded media but choose not to shows that we are a civilised people.


Besides which, what he is proposing is not to force all creative media into state control, but to provide state funding for creative media. To assume that funding automatically leads to control is to follow the slippery slope fallacy.

Quote:

Quote:
I would imagine that all technical problems with the system could be mostly counterable.
Then you obviously haven't given it proper thought. Valve can barely get Steam working to download just their games. Now you propose that all games be given away in a similar manner? The technical requirements for this are awesome and the businesses that maintain the Internet infrastructure certainly wont be willing to support such an undertaking for free.

The Internet has been being used to distribute data for quite some time. All the technical problems of downloadable games have been solved. That is not a valid complaint.
Quote:

The game industry generates $16 billion dollars in revenue worldwide and provides employment for thousands and thousands of people. You are proposing to kill software retailers, duplicators, PR companies, distributors, publishers and console makers (these latter lose money on their consoles and make it on the sale of software). You are wiping out a $16 billion industry and turning it into a tax and bureaucratic burden on the state to "eliminate" piracy which costs a few million dollars. It simply makes no sense at all.

The system isn't to "eliminate" piracy. The system is based upon the observation that if the majority practice (or would practice if technically capable) piracy, then it is worth considering whether or not piracy should still be illegal.


People that I talk to would be happy to pay more for a console if the games were cheaper. Hardware doesn't need to be free, because it is beyond most people's means to make unauthorised copies of hardware.


Of course, it's unavoidable that there'd be unemployment as a result. We could take SumDude's approach and let the people that lost their job die in a ditch, but I feel that's a litle unfair. There are more important things that people don't get for free, such as food, water, accomodation and healthcare. If I was going to lose my job because people were getting something for free, I'd rather it was something that people couldn't live without.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Obscure
Entertainment is non-essential
Entertainment is by personal choice
Why should tax payers who don't want or like game pay to fund games just because the people who do like games are too dishonest to pay for them?
Good point. However if you put your child in private school all his life you still pay tax to maintain state schools. If you go private on your medical bill you still pay tax to support state hospitals. So a precedent is set :)
Quote:
I'm a middle aged school teacher in boonyville, nebraska. My tax money is already paying for lazy people to stay on welfare. Now it's going to pay people to make... what are these? Moving things on the tv?
It also pays for you if you get struck off cos some kid accuses you of looking at him funny though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
perhaps the system could be piloted - ideally the BBC could create a music download server with a sort of reasonably large cash pool - its not ideal as I'd like it set up - but it would be interesting to see it expand.

It might be possible to set up a corporate sponsorship type approach too. It might be worth moving these suggestions to the p2p advocacy groups.

again, I return to issue of entertainment isnt essential.

that sort of statement is the stort of statement made by elitist who believe in a sort devine serfdom type set up. I tell you why:

consider yourself incharge of the country. you should be a good and fair ruler surely? should your people be put into a life of drugery and hard labour - because fun isnt essential? or should the fun be spread around?

there are two choices: just or unjust. a nations wealth is collectively held - an individual is nothing without society (indvidualistic libertarian daydreamer idiots if they disagree, should be stripped naked and dumped on remote island to fend for themselves - then they can own the fruits of their labour - if they can survive more than a week!). Since wealth by right is collectively held - its governments job to keep things all meritocratic and fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Quote:
Original post by kindfluffysteve
Since wealth by right is collectively held - its governments job to keep things all meritocratic and fair.


Not in a capitalist society it isn't. (Not to mention a meritocratic society doesn't seem to be the socialist/communist system you are suggesting as it would only reward those who achieve above and beyond the average with the benefits of society (say. downloading entertainment software, for example), those who do nothing to contribute wouldn't get anything...hmmm...kinda like capitalism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by kindfluffysteve
i think entertainment is essential.


I don't own a television, so I guess I will need one of those. It shouldn't be a big deal because the government is paying for it, and the government has all the money it wants. It has it's own mint after all. Oh, well, TV isn't entertaining me any more. I think I need new computer. You wanna help me out here? It's gonna have to be a good one though, because I want to be able to play Doom3 all those other cool games.

I don't think entertainment is essential, but because you do, does this mean that I should have to pay for you to be entertained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by smr
Quote:
Original post by kindfluffysteve
i think entertainment is essential.

I don't own a television, so I guess I will need one of those. It shouldn't be a big deal because the government is paying for it, and the government has all the money it wants. It has it's own mint after all. Oh, well, TV isn't entertaining me any more. I think I need new computer. You wanna help me out here? It's gonna have to be a good one though, because I want to be able to play Doom3 all those other cool games.

Slippery slope fallacy. There is not enough capital for everyone to get the best computer that exists. However, there is enough capital for everyone to get a cheap computer. Sure, they might not be able to play Doom3 on it, but so what? 'Entertainment' is essential for quality of life, not Doom3 in particular.


In the UK we have a National Health Service. Medicines and operations that are considered essential for an individual patient's life, and quality of life, are available for free. One patient may get surgery for free if it is judged that such surgery is essential for the patient's physical and mental well-being. For another patient, the same kind of surgery may be considered to be purely cosmetic, and therefore not available for free.


The point is that just because a general class of products or services are available for free -- healthcare, food, accomodation, entertainment -- that does not automatically mean that everyone gets whatever they want from that class -- cosmetic surgery, 11-course meals prepared by their own chef, riverside mansion with full staff, a personal television studio for making whatever shows they wish to see -- but instead that they get what is deemed essential to their physical and mental well-being.

Quote:

I don't think entertainment is essential, but because you do, does this mean that I should have to pay for you to be entertained?

But what's essential? Is something 'essential' if it necessary forlife? Is quality of life essential?


Some people don't think healthcare is essential. A bit of prayer is all you need to cure all your ills. And if you die despite that, it's just the judgment of a higher power.


Some people don't think accomodation is essential. If you don't have a home, you can sleep in a park somewhere. If it's cold, you can beg for enough money to get into a night shelter.


Some people don't think clothing is essential. You can always find old clothes in bins or rubbish dumps. Sure it smells a bit, and is probably infested with parasites. But it's not essential that you be able to interact with other human beings without them gagging, right?


And of course, you get the usual kind of doublethink whereby people believe that basic healthcare, hygiene facilities, food and water are essential to maintain life, but that, when referring to people who can't afford those things, it apparently isn't essential. For these people, a little honesty is required -- admit that you would rather the disadvantaged died of curable illnesses, exposure and malnutrition than have to pay more taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to make a slightly cheap comment:

the poster: Obscure has a stake in this idea Never happening. obscure's opperations would be out of business if such a concept took off.

Though it is possible our team might end up using a consultancy group or individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If piracy were a crime, we would all be in jail.

Almost everyone has surely taped something from tv, back in the old days people recorded songs from the raido on to tapes.

Personally, I believe that as long as something isn't being pirated then sold for money, it's ok. Theres still a majority of people out there who will buy the real version of something over those who will pirate it. If you irate a movie, you don't get all the extras you would if you bought the DVD. pirate a game, you usually don't get to play the game online. Pirating things is more of a big version demo for something more then it is stealing. Think about it, all stores now require that the returning of games be in a UNOPENED package. Well I'll be damned if I'm going to spend 50 dollars on a game that seemed cool while i was reading about it, but turned out to run at 10 FPS on my pc, and the gameplay sucked, and then I can't return it. I'd rather download the game, see if its fun, then say "Well that was fun, the multiplayer must be awsome, I'll go buy the game for that cd key!"

But it will never work the way we want it to, where piracy is legal. This is America, we are corporate based, and if someone gets ripped off even 1 copy of the item they are selling, they are gonna be pissed.

-Limb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Quote:
Original post by kindfluffysteve
Obscure has a stake in this idea Never happening. obscure's opperations would be out of business if such a concept took off.


As would nearly every current gaming company in existence big or small and it would squash the dreams of those who want to hit it big with thier next great idea.

Government funding of games is a bad idea. Eventually they would all be government propaganda. Hmmm...I'm going to write my senator with a wonderful idea I had. We ban all non-government supported games, then only allow our 'special' games to be downloaded for free on the net. We could even allow only our big contributors and local constituents to make games (for a share of the tax dollars). Wow, I see this working out well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this