Now imagine the video game you spent hundreds of hours coding & perfecting –the one you were planning on selling for 99 cents a pop– is still on your hard drive in the morning, only now there are several million copies of it on smartphones everywhere, and you never saw a dime.
You know the guy who coded Flappy Bird was making over $50,000 a day in advertising revenue on a game he gave away free.
Sounds like you’re stuck in the wrong business model….
In a world of perfect digital reproduction and billions connected by high speed networks, copyright becomes practically unenforceable. You can moan all you want about the morality of it…but you won’t change the reality.
And even if you can enforce…..what is the appropriate punishment for illegally copying a 99 cent game…..?
Using a 19th century business model to sell 21st century software is a losing proposition.
Perhaps, but taking something that’s GIVEN for free is not the same as taking something that isn’t, and if you can’t figure out the morality of this, then don’t be shocked when you discover the whole free-market house of cards crashing down around you after decades of using whatever technology enables you to bloodsuck talent from those that support it.
I was commenting on the business model splodey….
If you want to make money on your 99 cent game, giving it away free with advertising may be a much more lucrative way to go.
You are never going to stop the “copying” in an age of high speed networks and perfect fidelity…..that would require a major change in human nature that isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
But if every copy you gave away was to generate ad revenue….you make money…
That’s the point….the internet….and digital goods…..significantly changes how objects (digital objects) can be distributed and sold…and makes old models of sales obsolete.
Remember too, that before the internet….if you wanted to market a videogame…..you had to produce a tangeable product, get stores to carry it, advertise it, get it manufactured, ship it to stores…..
All processes and costs that pretty much kept the individual out of the market….
Things change…an individual coder having very cheap access to a potential audience of billions is practically free today…..but the risk of losing sales to piracy goes along with that….
Now imagine that you were an author of a book that you spent hundreds of hours writing, researching and perfecting, then imagine a building that lends people free books!
Is this where we pretend that libraries spend huge amounts of money on each book to compensate for it being read by hundreds of people? Let’s keep this honest instead.
My point still stands because the money libraries pay is negligible in the context of your argument.
And my point is that libraries still pay something for what they eventually get, or benefit from the largesse of of folks who also paid for the material they donate. The amounts involved are mere quibbling; a mugs game you play to keep pretending that that piracy is morally superior to theft because nobody really “loses” anything. If this issue is really that much of a moral puzzle for you that you feel the need to hide behind it, then that is more than a little disappointing, as I’ve enjoyed the many thoughtful points you’ve made throughout your time on this site.
For my part, I feel it’s pretty clear: whether it’s tangible material that’s getting taken from somebody, or something more nebulous but of equal-or-greater value, such as their intellectual property (a legal concept very much enforceable in this day & age, even with continuing improvements in copying technology,) either way that person’s getting cheated out of what is rightfully theirs: something they either created themselves or paid for themselves.
I appreciate your desire to keep this honest. For my part, I’ve been nothing but. And yet I’m having a hard time appreciating exactly what you yourself are being honest about.
First, I’m not saying that people don’t ever lose anything over piracy. Second, people can actually gain something trough piracy, more on this later
Your point about libraries making money indirectly could quickly be countered by the fact that people borrow books from their friends without any hope of monetary gain, and you know what could happen in that situation? The friend that borrowed the book could find he or she likes the author and they decide they should go buy more books (or the very book they borrowed) of that author. I’m sure you can admit such things happen all the time.
You argue that people get cheated out of what they have created. I guess this whole point rests wholly on that (you think) every creator only wants money for their product. You seem to forget that some people create to share their work/thoughts/political ideas, or to get famous. Yes, sometimes you perform in the streets for free (comparably) to get known later on to millions. Don’t be so narrow in your definitions, and do try to see the whole picture here.
I was encouraging you to be honest and I was merely helping you by pointing out the weak parts of your argument. It’s a collaberation, see?
Shotacat (#178870)
10 years ago
Fucking Comcast emails about pirated porn all the time.Yeah,do something.
Tell that to the PTB’s (MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc.).
Now imagine the video game you spent hundreds of hours coding & perfecting –the one you were planning on selling for 99 cents a pop– is still on your hard drive in the morning, only now there are several million copies of it on smartphones everywhere, and you never saw a dime.
Welcome to real world.
You know the guy who coded Flappy Bird was making over $50,000 a day in advertising revenue on a game he gave away free.
Sounds like you’re stuck in the wrong business model….
In a world of perfect digital reproduction and billions connected by high speed networks, copyright becomes practically unenforceable. You can moan all you want about the morality of it…but you won’t change the reality.
And even if you can enforce…..what is the appropriate punishment for illegally copying a 99 cent game…..?
Using a 19th century business model to sell 21st century software is a losing proposition.
Perhaps, but taking something that’s GIVEN for free is not the same as taking something that isn’t, and if you can’t figure out the morality of this, then don’t be shocked when you discover the whole free-market house of cards crashing down around you after decades of using whatever technology enables you to bloodsuck talent from those that support it.
I was commenting on the business model splodey….
If you want to make money on your 99 cent game, giving it away free with advertising may be a much more lucrative way to go.
You are never going to stop the “copying” in an age of high speed networks and perfect fidelity…..that would require a major change in human nature that isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
But if every copy you gave away was to generate ad revenue….you make money…
That’s the point….the internet….and digital goods…..significantly changes how objects (digital objects) can be distributed and sold…and makes old models of sales obsolete.
Remember too, that before the internet….if you wanted to market a videogame…..you had to produce a tangeable product, get stores to carry it, advertise it, get it manufactured, ship it to stores…..
All processes and costs that pretty much kept the individual out of the market….
Things change…an individual coder having very cheap access to a potential audience of billions is practically free today…..but the risk of losing sales to piracy goes along with that….
Now imagine that you were an author of a book that you spent hundreds of hours writing, researching and perfecting, then imagine a building that lends people free books!
This is why your argument is shit.
Only after buying copies, or having pre-owned copies given to them. Libraries don’t just run to the store and take books off the shelves, twitch.
Is this where we pretend that libraries spend huge amounts of money on each book to compensate for it being read by hundreds of people? Let’s keep this honest instead.
My point still stands because the money libraries pay is negligible in the context of your argument.
And my point is that libraries still pay something for what they eventually get, or benefit from the largesse of of folks who also paid for the material they donate. The amounts involved are mere quibbling; a mugs game you play to keep pretending that that piracy is morally superior to theft because nobody really “loses” anything. If this issue is really that much of a moral puzzle for you that you feel the need to hide behind it, then that is more than a little disappointing, as I’ve enjoyed the many thoughtful points you’ve made throughout your time on this site.
For my part, I feel it’s pretty clear: whether it’s tangible material that’s getting taken from somebody, or something more nebulous but of equal-or-greater value, such as their intellectual property (a legal concept very much enforceable in this day & age, even with continuing improvements in copying technology,) either way that person’s getting cheated out of what is rightfully theirs: something they either created themselves or paid for themselves.
I appreciate your desire to keep this honest. For my part, I’ve been nothing but. And yet I’m having a hard time appreciating exactly what you yourself are being honest about.
First, I’m not saying that people don’t ever lose anything over piracy. Second, people can actually gain something trough piracy, more on this later
Your point about libraries making money indirectly could quickly be countered by the fact that people borrow books from their friends without any hope of monetary gain, and you know what could happen in that situation? The friend that borrowed the book could find he or she likes the author and they decide they should go buy more books (or the very book they borrowed) of that author. I’m sure you can admit such things happen all the time.
You argue that people get cheated out of what they have created. I guess this whole point rests wholly on that (you think) every creator only wants money for their product. You seem to forget that some people create to share their work/thoughts/political ideas, or to get famous. Yes, sometimes you perform in the streets for free (comparably) to get known later on to millions. Don’t be so narrow in your definitions, and do try to see the whole picture here.
I was encouraging you to be honest and I was merely helping you by pointing out the weak parts of your argument. It’s a collaberation, see?
Fucking Comcast emails about pirated porn all the time.Yeah,do something.
Cheese Pizza is still free. And I’m not talking about food.
nevachangebra
Me thinks the casemods/nobody knows coon is a pedophile – one attracted to wives under 12 years old!
See how easy this is?
[img]http://picturehoster.info/images/98124456174526592937.gif[/img]
What is?