Piracy

[Yantelope V2]

I'm fairly certain that his example of Metal Arms would be a direct comparison to commissioned work.

 

Metal Arms wasn't commissioned. It was created and developed by Swingin' Ape Studios and then published by Vivendi. Vivendi didn't approach the studio to make the game. The developers approached Vivendi to publish the game.

 

Metal Arms was simply an idea pitched to many developers and bankrolled by Vivendi. It was ptiched to many studios. Vivendi saw the potential and bought the idea and paid for it with their money. Your description: "developer... could create something and then, to get the work released or the funds needed to finish the work, have to turn to a record label or publisher who would say "We'll publish this but you have to hand over all the rights" and then go on to undermarket, rush etc the work and then hang onto the copyrights indefinitely." Is wholly innacurate.

 

http://daeity.blogspot.com/2011/12/swingin-ape-studios-part-1.html

Edited January 24, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[fuchikoma]

I know, was hoping to invalidate pirates by showing that Jim Sterling agrees with them.

 

It can be very useful to check arguments against this list before making them, if you don't want to be shot down fast and hard. In this case, it's the ad hominem fallacy, which rarely works against someone who is thinking instead of feeling. Since it wasn't an out and out attack, but an attempt to make the argument look silly, it's more specifically an appeal to ridicule.

 

Mind you, once you know how to spot all of these, it can be useful, if disingenuous to knowingly use them for a bit of sophistry... but every time you do so, it's like throwing a punch at your opponent that leaves you wide open for a counterattack.

[TheMightyEthan]

I think a much better arrangement is like what Bioware and Microsoft had regarding Mass Effect (I'm aware Bioware is a fairly big studio and therefore had a lot more leverage than most): Bioware retains ownership of the Mass Effect IP, Microsoft just has the publishing rights to the first game. I'm much more okay with publishers getting exclusive publishing rights to a specific game based on an IP, rather than when they acquire outright ownership of the whole IP.

[MasterDex]

From that link:

Metal Arms: Glitch in the System is Swingin' Ape Studios's first game development project. How did the title come to be? Did Vivendi request your development services, or was this a project that Swingin' Ape Studios took to Vivendi for publishing?

 

Steve Ranck: In early 2001, Swingin’ Ape Studios was working on a game concept based on a space traveling bounty hunter. We had a rich story, interesting characters, and exciting planets the player could visit. One of these planets was called Iron Star, and it was inhabited entirely by various types of robots. When we learned that two other bounty hunter games were already far into development, we dropped the idea and began experimenting with a game based on the robot world of Iron Star. We replaced the biological bounty hunter character with Glitch, our small but determined robot protagonist. With our robot universe providing a creative springboard, our design document quickly grew to over 200 pages and from there it was easy to develop a playable prototype using a few of the more exciting ideas. At the same time, we were speaking with many publishers about Metal Arms and eventually signed with Vivendi who really understood the potential of the game.

 

From Steve Ranck's reply to that question, I'd say what I said was wholly accurate*. Metal Arms wasn't an idea pitched to many developers and you'd know that if you read your link carefully. it was an original idea created in-house at Swingin' Ape Studios and was picked up to be published by Vivendi after shopping it around other publishers. It was created and developed in-house by Swingin' Ape Studios.

 

*or at least as accurate as I can be. I can't speak to how true my imaginary publisher's contract stipulations are since I'm not privvy to the contract that Swingin' Ape Studios signed but I'm willing to wager, given the lack of marketing the game saw and the amount of publishers they presented the game to and the current situation of the IP rights, that it was a pretty bum deal for Swingin' Ape Studios.

 

I think a much better arrangement is like what Bioware and Microsoft had regarding Mass Effect (I'm aware Bioware is a fairly big studio and therefore had a lot more leverage than most): Bioware retains ownership of the Mass Effect IP, Microsoft just has the publishing rights to the first game. I'm much more okay with publishers getting exclusive publishing rights to a specific game based on an IP, rather than when they acquire outright ownership of the whole IP.

 

EA (Hold the rage) and their Partners program is also a step in the right direction. I think the next few years are going to be crucial for developers that want to retain their IP rights. Unless copyright law is completely rewritten (which it probably should be), it's likely only going to get harder and harder for developers to hang on to their IPs, especially if they hope to get some shelf space or airtime.

Edited January 24, 2012 by MasterDex

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

As From Software has shown, you don't need to use the same name to sell a game. People are blowing this out of proportion. Keep making your titles the way you were just name it something else.

[deanb]

So Piratebay will now allow you to pirate physical items.

 

http://www.zdnet.com...s-339330303.htm

(and if you check the current list one of them is a Warhammer 40K Dreadnought which I'm pretty sure is copyright.)

 

Makerbot already have http://www.thingiverse.com/, but I've a feeling they're original creations unlike what TPB tend to deal with.

 

So yeah, we're not too far off "you wouldn't download a car" (at least as far as Matchbox are concerned). It's slow and somewhat expensive (but $1000 is much much lower than they used to be), but I can't see it being too long before these are a somewhat common sight. Then you'll have Reloaded.Belkin.iPod.Case.Gen8.zip

[TheMightyEthan]

We'll be able to print food for hungry people.

 

They realize that the material to print with doesn't come from nowhere, right? In order to print a meal for someone they already have to have the edible substance available to print with. It's a printer, not a replicator.

Edited January 25, 2012 by TheMightyEthan

[Johnny]

I'm confident that they are aware they are full of shit. That's classic pirate bay.

[Yantelope V2]

From Steve Ranck's reply to that question, I'd say what I said was wholly accurate*. Metal Arms wasn't an idea pitched to many developers and you'd know that if you read your link carefully. it was an original idea created in-house at Swingin' Ape Studios and was picked up to be published by Vivendi after shopping it around other publishers. It was created and developed in-house by Swingin' Ape Studios.

 

*or at least as accurate as I can be. I can't speak to how true my imaginary publisher's contract stipulations are since I'm not privvy to the contract that Swingin' Ape Studios signed but I'm willing to wager, given the lack of marketing the game saw and the amount of publishers they presented the game to and the current situation of the IP rights, that it was a pretty bum deal for Swingin' Ape Studios.

 

Aside from the conjecture that Swingin' Ape got a bum deal, nobody forced them to sign the deal. They signed it willingly and sold the IP willingly so complaining that they can't buy the IP back is a bit stupid of them. Is Sierra being dickish by not selling it back? Maybe but that's not an indication that copyright law is garbage. You're also right that several publishers like the afformentioned EA do allow companies to keep their IP. Maybe Swigin' Ape should have signed with them.

 

This goes back to your original description of commisioning.

 

The agency wouldn't be creating a logo and then selling it, they would be creating a logo that they're being paid to create.

 

Vivendi was purchasing the game idea and paying Swingin' Ape to create the game. It's not entirely different. Whether the original idea was created before and pitched to Vivendi doesn't change the contract that they signed.

 

So, bottom line, if you want to keep your IP then keep it, don't sell it out. If you do sell it out, don't whine about the evil corporation that ripped you off.

[Johnny]

The problem with that is that most game devs don't have the resources to develop and distribute their game without publisher support. Besides, I don't know why you're acting like it's Swingin' Apes studios that are complaining about it at this moment.

The discussion is not whether they willingly signed the contract or not. The discussion is whether it's right that big game publishers can hoard licenses they never intend to use, all in the name of protecting creativity.

[Yantelope V2]

The problem with that is that most game devs don't have the resources to develop and distribute their game without publisher support. Besides, I don't know why you're acting like it's Swingin' Apes studios that are complaining about it at this moment.

The discussion is not whether they willingly signed the contract or not. The discussion is whether it's right that big game publishers can hoard licenses they never intend to use, all in the name of protecting creativity.

 

Then do you think creators should be able to horde licenses? Should we be able to sue for the rights to Star Wars because George Lucas has promised he will never make another one?

Edited January 25, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[MasterDex]

Aside from the conjecture that Swingin' Ape got a bum deal, nobody forced them to sign the deal. They signed it willingly and sold the IP willingly so complaining that they can't buy the IP back is a bit stupid of them. Is Sierra being dickish by not selling it back? Maybe but that's not an indication that copyright law is garbage. You're also right that several publishers like the afformentioned EA do allow companies to keep their IP. Maybe Swigin' Ape should have signed with them.

 

This goes back to your original description of commisioning.

 

The agency wouldn't be creating a logo and then selling it, they would be creating a logo that they're being paid to create.

 

Vivendi was purchasing the game idea and paying Swingin' Ape to create the game. It's not entirely different. Whether the original idea was created before and pitched to Vivendi doesn't change the contract that they signed.

 

It's not entirely different but there is a clear difference there.

 

So, bottom line, if you want to keep your IP then keep it, don't sell it out. If you do sell it out, don't whine about the evil corporation that ripped you off.

 

That's easy to say but the reality is much less idealistic. It'd be a wonderful world where artists and developers didn't have to sell out to survive or make a career from their work but we don't live in a utopia. While it's possible for a developer to keep hold of their IP rights, it's not so easy to do that if you expect to see your game on store shelves or advertised in magazines or on TV.

 

But I digress. As Johnny said, the discussion is not whether they signed the contract willingly or not but that the publishers can hoard IPs they have no intention of using, that they can effectively bully developers into these restrictive contracts and that they (the developers) have no recourse is a problem that we should all hope lessens.

Edited January 25, 2012 by MasterDex

[Yantelope V2]

That's easy to say but the reality is much less idealistic. It'd be a wonderful world where artists and developers didn't have to sell out to survive or make a career from their work but we don't live in a utopia. While it's possible for a developer to keep hold of their IP rights, it's not so easy to do that if you expect to see your game on store shelves or advertised in magazines or on TV.

 

But I digress. As Johnny said, the discussion is not whether they signed the contract willingly or not but that the publishers can hoard IPs they have no intention of using, that they can effectively bully developers into these restrictive contracts and that they (the developers) have no recourse.

 

So who can hold an IP and who can't? Who does the IP go to if it's being considered "hoarded?" Can an individual be the only person who can permanently hold an IP? What if you created a work that you specifically do not want someone to add to? A good example would be how Bill Waterson did not want his work commercialized. He felt it would have cheapened Calvin and Hobbes to sell stuffed toys. Should he have been forced to write more comics or produce breakfast cereal? Is he selfishly hoarding his IP?

 

As far as bad contracts and such go I think you're actually arguing on an anti-monopolistic grounds and not so much on a copyright issue. If you guys think it's unfair how companies may be coercing or controling the market then that's kind of a different issue from copyright law. I also think it's funny becuase record labels and publishing companies grip on markets is actually getting much looser with the tools available to artists and publishers on the internet these days. See Minecraft.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[MasterDex]

So who can hold an IP and who can't?

 

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. I'm not saying that publishers shouldn't be allowed to hold IPs or that the creators should have sole rights to their IPs regardless of all else.

 

Who does the IP go to if it's being considered "hoarded?"

 

Again, I'm having trouble finding a way to answer this. Do you mean who should the IP go to if it has been seen to be hoarded under some hypothetical law? If that is what you're asking then I believe, in the case of a publisher hoarding IP rights (so there's no need for you to put quotes around hoarded, I'll explain that hoarding in this case would be holding onto IP rights or licenses that you have no intention of using), I believe that the IP rights should return to the creators after a certain period of time - let's say 25 years, hypothetically. Alternatively, if returning the IP rights to the creators is no longer feasible then I believe the public domain is where they should go. In the case of the creator hoarding IP rights, I believe they have the right to do so as the original creators of the work but that after their death, the rights should be destroyed and the work/s enter into the public domain - as is the case I believe but 75 years is far too long.

 

Can an individual be the only person who can permanently hold an IP? What if you created a work that you specifically do not want someone to add to? A good example would be how Bill Waterson did not want his work commercialized. He felt it would have cheapend Calvin and Hobbes to sell stuffed toys. Should he have been forced to write more comics or produce breakfast cereal? Is he selfishly hoarding his IP?

 

I think I answered these questions above.

 

As far as bad contracts and such go I think you're actually arguing on an anti-monopolistic grounds and not so much on a copyright issue. If you guys think it's unfair how companies may be coercing or controling the market then that's kind of a different issue from copywright law. I also think it's funny becuase record labels and publishing companies grip on markets is actually getting much looser with the tools available to artists and publishers on the internet these days. See Minecraft.

 

Yes, that argument strays away from being a copyright issue but it's somewhat related since the coersion is often targeting the copyright and the way copyright law is at the moment, it's hard to both avoid and avenge such coersion and control. I don't think it's funny at all. Yes, there are many different avenues that allows independant developers to remain masters of their IP's destinies but there's a difference between the likes of Minecraft and something like Metal Arms just as there is between Radiohead giving away albums for free and a young star being thrown by the wayside because they're not flavour of the week while the royalties go to some corporation who just cried about how pirates are hurting honest artists.

 

I'm not sure I know where you stand on this or what your argument really is. Could you explain your point of view better in lieu of throwing more questions out?

Edited January 25, 2012 by MasterDex

[Johnny]

Then do you think creators should be able to horde licenses? Should we be able to sue for the rights to Star Wars because George Lucas has promised he will never make another one?

 

I'm not sure how your two questions are related, to be honest.

 

I think hoarding licenses you never plan to ever use again is bad, no matter who's doing it. Although I'm not entirely sure about this, I do think it would be better if unused licenses would become usable by everyone. I think the correct term is public domain, although I'm not sure about that either.

 

As for your second question, "Should we be able to sue for the rights to Star Wars because George Lucas has promised he will never make another one?"

 

I'm not sure where this question is coming from. Nobody has said anything about suing anyone. As already mentioned, I do think that IPs that go unused should be usable by anyone who wants to do their own interpretation of it. I'm sure many will disagree with this however.

[TheMightyEthan]

So basically make IP law more like trademark law, and if you don't use it for long enough then anyone can take it over?

[Johnny]

Something like that, yeah. As I said, I'm not entirely sure that it's a good idea, and I have no idea how long that time period should be.

[Yantelope V2]

So, I'll try and explain my position slightly better. I think that people who enter into legal contracts should hold to them and not complain that they were swindled unless there really was some sort of coercion or other illegality going on. In regards to copyright law, it's generally treated like property, hence the term, intellectual property. If you trade or sell that property you have lost your rights to it. If you value it then don't sell it.

 

Now, if you want to tweak the way that copyright law works and how it transitions into public domain then I'm all ears on that front. In Texas you can lease the mineral rights to your land and not actually sell your land. This allows companies to drill on your land. As a provision to protect land owners most mineral leases have a clause (not sure if it's legally required or not) where if the land goes unused or undeveloped for a certain period of time the rights revert back to the property owner. Agian though, this is a lease and not a sale. If IP creators were to work out a deal like that it would probably be good. Of course, you can go back to the actual creators of the content holding it an not releasing it and then you're still left with consumers with no products. To stick with the original comparison, nobody forces anyone to lease their land for oil or gas drilling. Similar leases or provisions could be instituted in contracts to protect IP creators and I'd be fine with that but it still comes back to honoring the deal.

 

IP is also created by groups of people now, not simply by individuals. Ownership of IP by companies is inevitable unless one person, maybe the head of a company can take sole responsibility for the work of the people in his employ and I don't think that'd be much different than corporate ownership anyway.

 

Square Enix hasn't made a Chrono Trigger game in quite some time. Does that mean that the IP should be made public for all to use and profit from? Should Square Enix lose all rights to the game? Maybe eventually. I don't know, maybe the lengths of copyright law are too long, and we could argue that. I don't think that's the same as legally selling your rights to a game and then complaining that the company wont sell it back.

 

So, TL;DR version here: Yes you could restructure your contracts or change the lenghts of when copyrights expeire and that's something that's debateable. Don't sign a contract with someone and complain when you regret it later.

[MasterDex]

So basically make IP law more like trademark law, and if you don't use it for long enough then anyone can take it over?

 

Essentially. Clear the air in regards to abandonware and set out clear terms about undefended or unused IPs. Allow reasonable conditions for the copyright holders, whoever they may be, but ease the restrictions. Whatever anyone's stance on digital piracy, there is no denying that the genie is out of the bottle. Continuing this "war on piracy" that outdated copyright laws allow is moronic. All it does is make very rich men richer and stifle freedom and creativity.

 

The point I'm getting at is if you want IP to not be held for long periods of time by people who don't utilize it you end up with a situation that's almost a bit socialistic. Square Enix hasn't made a Chrono Trigger game in quite some time. Does that mean that the IP should be made public for all to use and profit from? Should Square Enix lose all rights to the game? Maybe eventually. I don't know, maybe the lengths of copyright law are too long, and we could argue that. I don't think that's the same as legally selling your rights to a game and then complaining that the company wont sell it back.

 

I won't respond to all of your reply as I'll probably end up going back over some stuff I've said already but thanks, I understand where you're coming from a lot better now.

 

In response to the paragraph I quoted - I think that even if copyright were not to be taken from the holders that their right to defend it should be limited somewhat. How limited, I'm not sure entirely but I think I've explained the gist of my opinion in other replies. In regard to the Square Enix and Chrono Trigger example. Let's say I made a fan sequel and released it for free and SE had no intention of using that IP. I don't think I should have to fear prosecution. Similarly, If I used assets from the Chrono Trigger game in another game, I don't think I should have to fear anything. If the original copyright was always Square's then I think that they should be allowed to retain those rights as the law permits but that their right to defend those rights if the IP is going unused should be limited.

[Cyber Rat]

Square Enix hasn't made a Chrono Trigger game in quite some time. Does that mean that the IP should be made public for all to use and profit from? Should Square Enix lose all rights to the game? Maybe eventually. I don't know, maybe the lengths of copyright law are too long, and we could argue that. I don't think that's the same as legally selling your rights to a game and then complaining that the company wont sell it back.

 

Re-releases, ports, merchandise, all this is as good enough a reason to keep the IP as would making a sequel be.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Cyber Rat

[Thursday Next]

I don't feel comfortable with the idea that people should not be able to sell copyright in its entirety. If I create something and decide I want to sell it wholesale to a company then why should a law restrict that freedom?

 

As Yante says, if a contract was formed under duress or some other illegal coercion then of course it should be thrown out, and the IP returned to its creator. But, if the creator decides that they actually just don't want to honour their contract, then tough.

 

Copyright is the right of the creator to control their content. It is not the right of the world in general to consume that content. Just because it exists does not mean that anyone has a right to have access to it or that a publisher is wrong for sitting on the content.

[MasterDex]

I don't think people should be unable to sell copyright in its entirety nor do I think the world in general has the right to consume copyrighted content but I do believe that once copyright has been transferred from its original holder that any owners thereafter should be limited in how much they can defend it if it goes unused for a long period of time.

 

For instance, let's say that developer X makes a game and sells the copyright to publisher Y. It's supported for let's say 2 years and for the next 10 years, lies unsupported but soon finds itself getting sales once more on GoG. Let's say once it starts selling that there's problems running it with certain systems or there's leftover glitches, outdated and inefficient methods used, etc. Let's say that someone comes along, makes a copy of the source code and starts fixing things here and there. They then upload a file containing not all but a fair amount of the source code, which is protected under copyright. In such a situation, I don't think the publisher should have the unfettered right to pursue litigation or send a C&D order against this person and his work. Similarly, If the only available copy of a game available for a current technology is through a pirated rom or image file then I don't think the copyright holder should have unrestrained power to do the same. Then, if the copyright becomes active once more then all reasonable power should be returned to its holder.

 

As a disclaimer however, I'm no lawyer and only have a passing knowledge of copyright law so I could very well be talking right out of my arse.

TL;DR: I feel that the reach of copyright is so great that claims can be entirely frivolous.

 

Here's Gaiman and Micheal Moore summing up very nicely my general opinion on piracy and why trying to eliminate it or punish the every-guy is ridonkulous to the nth degree:

 

[Connorrrr]

Makes a good point.

[Yantelope V2]

Makes a good point.

 

Meh, I think that's kind of a silly over generalization. Since you can't really eliminate piracy then companies mostly work on making piracy as inconvenient as posisble. If you can make it a huge pain to pirate something (which usually isn't possible) then maybe you can discourage people from pirating it. I don't think that in and of itself is a problem. What is a problem is that they manage to inconvenience paying customers. It seems to me you should be doing everything possible to reward paying customers and hurting them is going to outweigh whatever minor gains you get from fighting piracy. A good example of inconvenienceing customers is DVD menus.

 

 

 

Companies really need to learn to not punish paying customers. If it's easier to pirate something than it is to buy it then you're really shooting yourself in the foot.

[Waldorf and Statler]

To fight piracy, and not encourage it, I agree with those that have said they should give incentives towards paying customers. Punishing paying customers and making it a pain in the ass to say buy used games is only going to encourage piracy. People who didn't need to pirate games before will now start pirating games to fight the greedy companies looking for ways to make more MOOOOONAY.

 

Throw in DLC, discounts, and all sorts of free shit to encourage people to buy the game new. Lower the price of the game. I know you think that charging $60 for a game is necessary to cover all the developing costs and make a profit, but maybe charge 40 or so and people and a lot of people who pirated to begin with won't anymore. I would love to see the amount of people that pirate relatively cheap but extremely popular games compared to a more expensive but equally as popular big name game.