"Games are a luxury item." So?

[Nuke_em_05]

What if you had no money but you looked at a picture of a Star Wars poster on a library computer hooked up to the internet? Because unless it was properly uploaded by Lucasfilm, it's the exact same crime as downloading a videogame.

Alright, you want to play the "copyright infringement" vs "theft" game? That's fine, but don't omit inconvenient rules as a convoluted justification.

Specifically: Fair Use.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

1. Hosting or viewing the poster is not commercial unless someone is trying to sell it.
2. The copyrighted work is a film, the 'infringing content' is a poster.
3. How much of the film is depicted in the poster?
4. Will viewing the poster increase or decrease interest in the product?

#4 is actually exactly where the publishers stand on posters and the like. Free marketing. That's why they host desktop backgrounds and avatars for people to use for free. The film is copyrighted for sale. The poster is copyrighted for IP protection (you can't change the title and use it for your movie, etc.; or sell prints of the poster without a license), but not for promotional use.

Addressing it correctly as "copyright infringement" instead of "theft" doesn't make it any less illegal or unethical, and doesn't equate it to using or viewing promotional materials.

OT:

Calling games a "luxury item" does not invalidate complaints about the price. As I recently posted in the Jimquisition, I think the pricing structure does need to change. I only buy a few games new, and wait for others to price drop.

What "luxury item" means to me is, even if I disagree with the price, it doesn't give me the right to consume the content without paying for it.

Captcha: "gray skies".
Backup Captcha: "carbon copy".

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

What if you had no money but you looked at a picture of a Star Wars poster on a library computer hooked up to the internet? Because unless it was properly uploaded by Lucasfilm, it's the exact same crime as downloading a videogame.

Alright, you want to play the "copyright infringement" vs "theft" game? That's fine, but don't omit inconvenient rules as a convoluted justification.

Specifically: Fair Use.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

1. Hosting or viewing the poster is not commercial unless someone is trying to sell it.
2. The copyrighted work is a film, the 'infringing content' is a poster.
3. How much of the film is depicted in the poster?
4. Will viewing the poster increase or decrease interest in the product?

#4 is actually exactly where the publishers stand on posters and the like. Free marketing. That's why they host desktop backgrounds and avatars for people to use for free. The film is copyrighted for sale. The poster is copyrighted for IP protection (you can't change the title and use it for your movie, etc.; or sell prints of the poster without a license), but not for promotional use.

Addressing it correctly as "copyright infringement" instead of "theft" doesn't make it any less illegal or unethical, and doesn't equate it to using or viewing promotional materials.

OT:

Calling games a "luxury item" does not invalidate complaints about the price. As I recently posted in the Jimquisition, I think the pricing structure does need to change. I only buy a few games new, and wait for others to price drop.

What "luxury item" means to me is, even if I disagree with the price, it doesn't give me the right to consume the content without paying for it.

Captcha: "gray skies".
Backup Captcha: "carbon copy".

One problem there: the poster itself is copyrighted, and it's the copyright on the poster that I was referring to. So many of the people who are gung ho about ending piracy don't realize that they "pirate" things every day of their lives.

Glad to see you agree on the fact that luxury items can be overpriced for what they are, though.

 

[monkey_man]

Only mispurchase in gaming for me ws BlOps 1 (as it should be called now, stupid activision) and considering that I still got 14 hours in MP, it's only 4 bucks wasted per hour, I've seen movies I didn't like for about the same.

But still Games are expensive, but also totally worth the money

 

[Atmos Duality]

Within the next 20 years, what you call "piracy" will be legalized in most civilized western countries of this world.

That's awfully optimistic.
Personally, I don't think they will ever nix Copyright Laws in my lifetime.
Not as long as the media industry giants retain such strong influence in Washington DC.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Within the next 20 years, what you call "piracy" will be legalized in most civilized western countries of this world.

That's awfully optimistic.
Personally, I don't think they will ever nix Copyright Laws in my lifetime.
Not as long as the media industry giants retain such strong influence in Washington DC.

Calling the US civilized is, unfortunately, generous. We're the most industry friendly, consumer un-friendly country in the developed world. Not to mention one of the few left period that allows for the death penalty, and we have people dying because they can't afford healthcare, and a laundry list of other problems. It's fair to assume that we're in the few that won't see reason if not squarely in the "uncivilized" category.

 

[Yopaz]

Quality of wine and price of wine have little to no relation to each other.

There actually is a direct corelation between the quality of a wine and the price.

[You know I don't completely agree with you, but you make some valid points when I put my mind into your way of thinking. Movies manage profits on 11 on tickets and 25 on DVDs, though games could probably still cost more than movies a reduction in price could most likely be good for both us and the publisher. Valve says that profits always increase when they lower prices on some crazy sale.

Also a side-note on owning games: screw what publisher say. I paid for it I say I own my copy.

Movies are so profitable on $11 tickets and $25 DVDs because of the quantity of people buying them. Its easy to charge less when your audience is thirty times the size. The video game market however is nowhere near the size required to do something like that. Plus their business models are just far to different to compare the two.

By the way the thing about games being more profitable when on sale is a load of corporate voodoo. The more copies of a game a company sells the larger profit percentage they make per game. When a game first comes out all the revenue they get is offset by the production price of the game causing them to have very little profit. Then by the time the game goes on sale they have sold enough to cover the cost of the game so its basically all pure profit.

When they talk about sales going up however that does not mean they actually made any more money. If I reduce the price of a game by 90% I could very well need 20x as many sales just to make the same amount of money.

You have to pay very close attention when companies talk about sales and profit because they will always use which ever once helps mislead the ignorant into thinking they are better off.

You might notice that I said that some game publishers could benefit from lowering prices. Do you know what the word "could" means?

 

[Alterego-X]

One study is not proof, especially when it would be unpopular to declare it harmful, the same way pirates flip out when you suggest that they are not justified and arent doing the right thing. I dont want to put my conspiracy hat on but no study is unbiased, if the government conducts a study then it tends to recieve the results it wants, thats what it paid for.

Yeah, the swiss government was afraid of pirates writing mean things about them on gaming forums, so they rather choose to deny the fact that legalized piracy is killing their country's media industry. Sounds legit.

One study is still more proof than random hypothetical theories about how surely EVERYONE would pirate, if they could. Even if you don't believe the details of the study, you can't miss the general fact that Switzerland, the Netherlands, and similar countries, are still having their media industries.

In the end, everyone already sees piracy as a feasible tool, except some digital illiterates who think that it is highly dangerous, and some people with twisted morality that is based around whatever happens to be allowed by the law is OK, everything else is immoral.

But the majority of American (and European) Internet users are paying for digital content, because they choose to. You can blieve that it is moral to pay all the time, or choose to pay only most of the time, or rarely, and some choose not to ever pay.

And yet the industry exists.

Of course pirates love this stuff because they dont have the gall to admit they are freeloading.

I personally agree that piracy is freeloading, and I also know pirates who do.

I just don't think that freeloading is wrong. In fact, I think that freeloading is great. A million people paying for a game and ten million freeloading on it, is better than only a million paying customers knowing it.

And this is a rather conservative example, not even taking into account the freeloaders who will grow fond of the game and buying a copy.

World of Goo is a fantastic game. It had no DRM was reasonably priced and was innovative as well as beautiful. 90% of its players pirated it. That number is contentious but consistent and I believe it, however it was pirated to at least a very close level.

Also, World of Goo was a huge success, that turned it's creators into multimillionaires. Sure, it was 90% pirated, but so is every other game, including the bad ones, the good ones, the blockbusters, and the indies. It tells absolutely nothing about how much the creators were hurt if at all.

The fact that pro-copyright people keep bringing up this one financially successful game as an example of the horrors of piracy, is a great indicator of how they aren't really concerned about the fate of starving artists, cancelled game projects, and a failing industry, they are just scared about the idea that gaming doesn't have to be a priviledge, that the overall public enjoy gaming for free, and artists can still make money.

 

[Yopaz]

You might notice that I said that some game publishers could benefit from lowering prices. Do you know what the word "could" means?

You will notice that on a general level I disagree. Your statement right there is completely meaningless. You might as well say that publishers could mabey you know benefit from publishing games or something.


Oh yea I forgot to mention its also useless and has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Well, the fact that it's been shown that sales often increase profit margins by a lot should mean something to you, but honestly though games are expensive to make. I don't have any problems paying the price of games today, I have nothing against a publisher earning tons of cash. I am simply saying that the one I was discussing with, the person whom I was telling that games were expensive because they didn't have the same sweet deals as movies get thus they have a harder time to cover their expenses. You are basically telling me the same thing that I was saying myself a few posts ago. However I can see that he actually got a point even though I don't completely agree with it. Maybe game publishers can increase profits, maybe not. Valve certainly got enough evidence to suggest that they can do that. However you probably know more than Valve does about the game industry.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Calling the US civilized is, unfortunately, generous. We're the most industry friendly, consumer un-friendly country in the developed world. Not to mention one of the few left period that allows for the death penalty, and we have people dying because they can't afford healthcare, and a laundry list of other problems. It's fair to assume that we're in the few that won't see reason if not squarely in the "uncivilized" category.

I'll attest first-hand that most of its citizens are uncultured and spoiled (present company included). But not all of us are stupid either; some of us see potential for progress where others only see potential for personal profit.

They're a paranoid, greedy lot. Speaking of...

The way I see it, by that point either copying/sharing will have to be legalized in a non-commercial capacity or we are all living in totalitarian police states worse than what the Iran or Lybia, and I really don't like the second option.

Although the US is trying its best to make that happen:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
https://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_william

...representing the paranoid and greedy, there's the United States Government.
"Security through fear" is a paradox in practice, no matter what the intentions.

ASIDE: Today's Captcha is "Sod's Law".
I do tire of filling out captchas for every other post.

Well, the fact that it's been shown that sales often increase profit margins by a lot should mean something to you, but honestly though games are expensive to make.

Pardon me for butting in, but what the two of you are looking for is called the "Marginal Cost".
It's the point where the Supply and Demand curves intersect, and revenue is maximized (not profit, revenue).

Revenue does not account for costs; which vary entirely on the side of Supply.
Whether Supply is trying to justify higher prices by claiming higher costs is irrelevant, since Demand will weed out those that cost too much. Either they have to bring their costs down, or they will fail.

I don't put much stock in the "cost of production is rising!" arguments, since Supply dictates how much they want to spend on production. If they stopped hyper-focusing on the most superficial elements of their games, their costs would go down.

 

[ablac]

I also seriously would like to punch everyone individually calling games a "luxury" and comparing it to buying prada bags...

I always always bugger up snipping quotes so if this comes out wrong then I may remove it or try tp edit it to fit. Dexter I dont want to get into a long protracted argument, we do this all the time and your just no fun. You know in your heart of hearts that what you are sayiong simply isnt true. You dont strike me as an idiot, you do to much research for that, yet you are on the wrong side of sense. Games are a luxury by the way, I dont see how you cant accept that. If you plan on throwing the economic term in my face like you do to everyone who uses the correct describtion I would just like to remind you it doesnt make you look smarter, especially when you are talking to people who know when and when not the term is suitable for use. You are not the only one knowlegable of economics, dont act so high and mighty about it. one more thing. That mans questions were fair and your response was poor and dodged around the question.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Spoiler: snip

What if you had no money but you looked at a picture of a Star Wars poster on a library computer hooked up to the internet? Because unless it was properly uploaded by Lucasfilm, it's the exact same crime as downloading a videogame.

Alright, you want to play the "copyright infringement" vs "theft" game? That's fine, but don't omit inconvenient rules as a convoluted justification.

Specifically: Fair Use.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

1. Hosting or viewing the poster is not commercial unless someone is trying to sell it.
2. The copyrighted work is a film, the 'infringing content' is a poster.
3. How much of the film is depicted in the poster?
4. Will viewing the poster increase or decrease interest in the product?

#4 is actually exactly where the publishers stand on posters and the like. Free marketing. That's why they host desktop backgrounds and avatars for people to use for free. The film is copyrighted for sale. The poster is copyrighted for IP protection (you can't change the title and use it for your movie, etc.; or sell prints of the poster without a license), but not for promotional use.

Addressing it correctly as "copyright infringement" instead of "theft" doesn't make it any less illegal or unethical, and doesn't equate it to using or viewing promotional materials.

OT:

Calling games a "luxury item" does not invalidate complaints about the price. As I recently posted in the Jimquisition, I think the pricing structure does need to change. I only buy a few games new, and wait for others to price drop.

What "luxury item" means to me is, even if I disagree with the price, it doesn't give me the right to consume the content without paying for it.

Captcha: "gray skies".
Backup Captcha: "carbon copy".

One problem there: the poster itself is copyrighted, and it's the copyright on the poster that I was referring to. So many of the people who are gung ho about ending piracy don't realize that they "pirate" things every day of their lives.

Glad to see you agree on the fact that luxury items can be overpriced for what they are, though.

I did address that:

The poster is copyrighted for IP protection (you can't change the title and use it for your movie, etc.; or sell prints of the poster without a license), but not for promotional use.

It is part of point 1 of fair use: the purpose and character of the use. As well as point 2: the nature of the copyrighted work. The purpose, character, and nature of promotional material, like a poster, is to be viewed and shared. That is the exact intent for which it was created. You can't photoshop it a little and promote your own video with it, and you can't sell prints of it without a license, because that does undermine the nature of the poster.

So many of the people who are gung ho about piracy being copyright infringement and therefore "just like sharing a poster or having an avatar" ignore the fact that copyright law has already made a distinction for this type of use.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Calling the US civilized is, unfortunately, generous. We're the most industry friendly, consumer un-friendly country in the developed world. Not to mention one of the few left period that allows for the death penalty, and we have people dying because they can't afford healthcare, and a laundry list of other problems. It's fair to assume that we're in the few that won't see reason if not squarely in the "uncivilized" category.

I'll attest first-hand that most of its citizens are uncultured and spoiled (present company included). But not all of us are stupid either; some of us see potential for progress where others only see potential for personal profit.

They're a paranoid, greedy lot. Speaking of...

Trust me, as a US citizen, I know that XD

It's just a sad truth; we're not the shining city on a hill anymore. The post-Reagan conservative movement put an end to that -- Richard Nixon was more liberal than most modern democrats.

By the way, thank you for actually knowing about supply and demand curves. Most people on these forums seem to think the supply side is the only side that has any say in anything to do with economics, especially when it comes to the price of goods, which is just completely wrong.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Spoiler: snip

What if you had no money but you looked at a picture of a Star Wars poster on a library computer hooked up to the internet? Because unless it was properly uploaded by Lucasfilm, it's the exact same crime as downloading a videogame.

Alright, you want to play the "copyright infringement" vs "theft" game? That's fine, but don't omit inconvenient rules as a convoluted justification.

Specifically: Fair Use.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

1. Hosting or viewing the poster is not commercial unless someone is trying to sell it.
2. The copyrighted work is a film, the 'infringing content' is a poster.
3. How much of the film is depicted in the poster?
4. Will viewing the poster increase or decrease interest in the product?

#4 is actually exactly where the publishers stand on posters and the like. Free marketing. That's why they host desktop backgrounds and avatars for people to use for free. The film is copyrighted for sale. The poster is copyrighted for IP protection (you can't change the title and use it for your movie, etc.; or sell prints of the poster without a license), but not for promotional use.

Addressing it correctly as "copyright infringement" instead of "theft" doesn't make it any less illegal or unethical, and doesn't equate it to using or viewing promotional materials.

OT:

Calling games a "luxury item" does not invalidate complaints about the price. As I recently posted in the Jimquisition, I think the pricing structure does need to change. I only buy a few games new, and wait for others to price drop.

What "luxury item" means to me is, even if I disagree with the price, it doesn't give me the right to consume the content without paying for it.

Captcha: "gray skies".
Backup Captcha: "carbon copy".

One problem there: the poster itself is copyrighted, and it's the copyright on the poster that I was referring to. So many of the people who are gung ho about ending piracy don't realize that they "pirate" things every day of their lives.

Glad to see you agree on the fact that luxury items can be overpriced for what they are, though.

I did address that:

The poster is copyrighted for IP protection (you can't change the title and use it for your movie, etc.; or sell prints of the poster without a license), but not for promotional use.

It is part of point 1 of fair use: the purpose and character of the use. As well as point 2: the nature of the copyrighted work. The purpose, character, and nature of promotional material, like a poster, is to be viewed and shared. That is the exact intent for which it was created. You can't photoshop it a little and promote your own video with it, and you can't sell prints of it without a license, because that does undermine the nature of the poster.

So many of the people who are gung ho about piracy being copyright infringement and therefore "just like sharing a poster or having an avatar" ignore the fact that copyright law has already made a distinction for this type of use.

Except it's still copyrighted and fair use is a lot more limited than you think it is; you can't just put up a gallery of movie posters that you don't own the rights to, nor can you legally print one off in full quality for personal use. You have to justify the fair use part by, for example, using the poster as an illustration for an article that touches on the movie. Otherwise it's not really fair use.

And besides, I'm not the one who brought up the poster. If I were really bringing up the point, I would have gone right to the jugular and mentioned copyrighted music on youtube, something everyone listens to and almost nobody goes through the official channels for.

By the way, avatars generally /aren't/ created for promotional use. They tend to be created by people taking snapshots of and cutting down copyrighted material. The officially licensed ones are pretty few and far between.

 

[Yopaz]

Well, the fact that it's been shown that sales often increase profit margins by a lot should mean something to you, but honestly though games are expensive to make. I don't have any problems paying the price of games today, I have nothing against a publisher earning tons of cash. I am simply saying that the one I was discussing with, the person whom I was telling that games were expensive because they didn't have the same sweet deals as movies get thus they have a harder time to cover their expenses. You are basically telling me the same thing that I was saying myself a few posts ago. However I can see that he actually got a point even though I don't completely agree with it. Maybe game publishers can increase profits, maybe not. Valve certainly got enough evidence to suggest that they can do that. However you probably know more than Valve does about the game industry.

But what you are saying is wrong. Sales do not ever increase profit margins. The very definition of a sale means reduced profit margins. The only thing that sales do is increase sales. This causes you to have a chance at increasing profits. You keep using all these words that you dont know the meaning of.

You also dont seem to understand the point of having sales. The point of having a sale is not to make money off of the item you are putting on sale. Its to get more people into your website/store in order to get them to buy your other overpriced products.

So Valve has no idea if they are making money or not? Really, think about it. A game is listed at $60. No-one buys it. A game is listed at $30 a lot of people buy it. Valve put up Team Fortress 2 for 1 dollar for a short while and they found out that their profits form that game were multiplied compared with what they gained at full price. It is possible even though you don't believe it. Now I don't feel like discussing this when I know it's clearly not going anywhere. I think games are priced right, but might sell more at a lower price.

 

[ablac]

One study is not proof, especially when it would be unpopular to declare it harmful, the same way pirates flip out when you suggest that they are not justified and arent doing the right thing. I dont want to put my conspiracy hat on but no study is unbiased, if the government conducts a study then it tends to recieve the results it wants, thats what it paid for.

Yeah, the swiss government was afraid of pirates writing mean things about them on gaming forums, so they rather choose to deny the fact that legalized piracy is killing their country's media industry. Sounds legit.

One study is still more proof than random hypothetical theories about how surely EVERYONE would pirate, if they could. Even if you don't believe the details of the study, you can't miss the general fact that Switzerland, the Netherlands, and similar countries, are still having their media industries.

In the end, everyone already sees piracy as a feasible tool, except some digital illiterates who think that it is highly dangerous, and some people with twisted morality that is based around whatever happens to be allowed by the law is OK, everything else is immoral.

But the majority of American (and European) Internet users are paying for digital content, because they choose to. You can blieve that it is moral to pay all the time, or choose to pay only most of the time, or rarely, and some choose not to ever pay.

And yet the industry exists.

Of course pirates love this stuff because they dont have the gall to admit they are freeloading.

I personally agree that piracy is freeloading, and I also know pirates who do.

I just don't think that freeloading is wrong. In fact, I think that freeloading is great. A million people paying for a game and ten million freeloading on it, is better than only a million paying customers knowing it.

And this is a rather conservative example, not even taking into account the freeloaders who will grow fond of the game and buying a copy.

World of Goo is a fantastic game. It had no DRM was reasonably priced and was innovative as well as beautiful. 90% of its players pirated it. That number is contentious but consistent and I believe it, however it was pirated to at least a very close level.

Also, World of Goo was a huge success, that turned it's creators into multimillionaires. Sure, it was 90% pirated, but so is every other game, including the bad ones, the good ones, the blockbusters, and the indies. It tells absolutely nothing about how much the creators were hurt if at all.

The fact that pro-copyright people keep bringing up this one financially successful game as an example of the horrors of piracy, is a great indicator of how they aren't really concerned about the fate of starving artists, cancelled game projects, and a failing industry, they are just scared about the idea that gaming doesn't have to be a priviledge, that the overall public enjoy gaming for free, and artists can still make money.

Oh your one of those people. Im not 'pro-copyright', in the way that you mean though artists/people responsible have the right to their creations within a reasonable time of its release to the public though whats going on now is stupid but doesnt justify the piracy argument, dont tell me my views when I have not disclosed them. 2D boy did not appreciate that people took their game and my point was that piracy meant that the PC, the home of indie games, was out done by the wii and iOS. Thats not right, is it? Your point that it made them millions is true, but it wasnt on the PC that those millions were really made was it? World of Goo was lucky in that it was suitable for those two platforms, after PC, and able to release on it. If it hadnt had that then they would not have anywhere near the money they deserve for it. The game was made for PC and PC pirates bit their hand for it. The 90% rate is high and your idea that it is common is revolting. This should not happen. Are you seriously going to tell me that people who can afford computers capable of running AAA and AA games cant afford to fork out the comparitively miniscule sum? You cant seriously think that they are all too poor. Thats a nice bit of ridiculous demonization youve got going at the end there. Why on earth would I want gaming to be worse off, and for less people to enjoy it? Ill send what ive written because I might as well. However Im not going to continue with you until you grow a pair and come back with a real argument, rather than hyperbolic demonization and selective reading.