The XBOX One

[Juan_Raigada]

Games, music, books, movies, all art: They are not cake. They do not disappear when you “consume” them. When you see a movie, you don’t have to “regurgitate” it for others.

The point you’re missing is that copyright is a social contract between creators and the public. We, the public, agree to give creators a time-limited and exclusive right to make copies of their works in order to incentivize the creation of new works (i.e., “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”). Creators agree that their works become a part of the larger culture and, ultimately, enter into the public domain.

What you’re suggesting is that creators should get a cut every time a single copy of a work exchanges hands, and that’s just ridiculous. It’s counter to our own property rights, too, where the first-sale doctrine states that ownership transfers upon sale. So that game disc becomes mine, and the original creator no longer has any right to the physical copy of the work.

Not saying I totally disagree, but the law is way more fuzzy.

It treats different kinds of art differently, and not just different media. Art works (capital “A”/museum/private collector things) do give money to the artist when they are resold, based on how much has the work risen in value itself. Of course this is for non-mechanically reproducible artwork (unique pieces which rise in value, not diminish) but it does imply that when something is considered art (spiritually rewarding) versus a consumer product, the markets work differently, giving value to the piece and its creation by rewarding the author as it continues to generate revenue. As the concept of what kind of works have an “artistic quality” (spiritual value or however you want to name it) has changed, it is worthwhile to consider if treating creative works as “products” on which the author loses all ownership on sale is fair or not.

Not quite the same, and it’s not copyright, its something different, but it does raise the question on where to stand in the issue. It’s not only a question of effective law, but also, maybe, a moral issue. Consumer rights are important, but so are creator rights, in my opinion. A "digital tax system"in which you could trade your digital copies with a small percentage of the trade price going to the creators could be fair, in my opinion. It would allow free sharing and trade (a percentage of zero is zero), which is necessary, but it will compensate if money changes hands.

Sorry for the rant…

[Midnight_Son]

I am opposed to this proposed coddling, nay protectionism, of the games industry. Microsoft, how surprisingly, is on the wrong side of this issue.

Actually, when pondering a course of action, I try to imagine what Microsoft would do and then I do the opposite. Taking the high road!

[Gedd]

There still won’t be parity. The PS4 is still $100 less, you can stream media without a monthly subscription, and the hardware is just flat-out better.

No, it won’t bring parity (and I think I alluded to as much in my posts), but the furor started before prices were announced, and I don’t know that the percentage of potential buyers looking under the hood is really that large.

Put it this way, if Microsoft hadn’t announced the DRM as part of their pre-E3 presser, we probably would’ve have been complaining somewhat about the lack of games displayed, and a smaller subset would have been looking at the hardware. Certainly folks would already have been making decisions for the PS4 based on all the silly TV/Kinect stuff, but I think most would have waited to see what the E3 conferences held game-wise before going that far.

None of the issues surrounding the two consoles have been as prominent as Microsoft infringing on people’s rights as consumers (which is only really an issue because of the retail/disc purchasing). If Microsoft were able to give in on disc-based DRM, then it seems like it would go a long way to at least quashing that debate. Unfortunately for them they’ve probably already lost the Day One battle.

Now if they gave in on disc-based DRM and lowered the price somehow (maybe put out that XBL subsidy option like was rumored for a while), then they might be able to get back in it.

For sure they’ve got a ton of damage control to do.

[RickH]

That to me would sound a lot like what Sony has announced. They announced that there’s no DRM for disc-based copies, but seems they failed to mention anything about games purchased and delivered online.

I thought I recalled them saying nothing was going to change from current policies. i.e., no transferability, some re-downloading rights on a second system, perpetual license to use on original system.

Since you knew the deal when you bought it, no controversy.

[Moore]

What about people/artists who only do one amazing thing in their lives? F* you, shoulda kept pumping out those once-in-a-lifetime inspirations?

If I only go into the office and work for one day, I do not get a paycheck forever.

Not saying I totally disagree, but the law is way more fuzzy.

It treats different kinds of art differently, and not just different media. Art works (capital “A”/museum/private collector things) do give money to the artist when they are resold, based on how much has the work risen in value itself. Of course this is for non-mechanically reproducible artwork (unique pieces which rise in value, not diminish) but it does imply that when something is considered art (spiritually rewarding) versus a consumer product, the markets work differently, giving value to the piece and its creation by rewarding the author as it continues to generate revenue. As the concept of what kind of works have an “artistic quality” (spiritual value or however you want to name it) has changed, it is worthwhile to consider if treating creative works as “products” on which the author loses all ownership on sale is fair or not.

What? I’m no big dick artist, but I’ve had work in galleries all over the world and never heard of this. My shit is lowbrow, but I am not aware of this law or process by which a resold piece gives back to the artist via a private sale or gallery sale after the original piece was sold. We get one sale, the gallery takes 20%-50% of that, taxman take half of our half. Sales after the first are not trackable - these are physical items, how the hell would that even work?

[Midnight_Son]

Office work just isn’t inspiring enough. It was holding me back and so I quit.

[spiffy]

If I only go into the office and work for one day, I do not get a paycheck forever.
?

But if there is recurring profit on that one day of work forevermore, then what… someone else should get it?

[Midnight_Son]

But if there is recurring profit on that one day of work forevermore, then what… someone else should get it?

LOL. Yeah, that’s how it works and has worked for many many years. I’m sure Communism worked much better though…

[Moore]

Do nothing, get nothing. Write a story, sell it, get paid. Write a story, sell it, get paid, then ask everyone who paid you for it to pay you again when they get rid of your story? No. you did nothing the second time around, you were already paid for that copy. don’t like it? Make no copies. Tell your story on stage, get paid everytime .

[Gedd]

I thought I recalled them saying nothing was going to change from current policies. i.e., no transferability, some re-downloading rights on a second system, perpetual license to use on original system.

Are these for the PS3? I don’t have one, so wasn’t aware they already had digital purchases, but I guess that would make sense. It’s been said already, but Sony’s handling of this has been brilliant. Completely downplay anything about digital purchasing (and the associated DRM), but throw your support of disc-based games (and the lack of DRM) into the spotlight even though you really want everyone to move to digital.

It should be pretty safe to assume that over the course of this generation people will move more and more to digital purchasing (especially if there’s decent sales thrown in from time to time). By the time the next generation comes out, and digital is the only way to buy, people will be properly conditioned on the DRM and who knows what Gamestop’s used game business will look like by then.

Microsoft has the right idea, they just jumped the gun on it.

[Juan_Raigada]

If I only go into the office and work for one day, I do not get a paycheck forever.

What? I’ve had work in galleries all over the world and never heard of this. My shit is lowbrow, but I am not aware of this law or process by which a resold piece gives back to the artist via a private sale or gallery sale after the original piece was sold. We get one sale, the gallery takes 20%-50% of that, taxman take half of our half. Sales after the first are not trackable - these are physical items, how the hell would that even work?

Big expensive stuff is traceable (specially since it’s often seen as an investment) so you always know who has a certain piece, or at least when one changes hands (we are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars, done mostly via public institutions -museums- or auction houses). It’s actually written in the first sale contract (that if resold, revenue due to increased value should be split). Probably only done on big ticket stuff, as you point out, but I’ve seen it happen and for certain artists it’s a big piece of their revenue should the value of their work multiply by 10 or more. Which is the exception, but happens.

And for the office thing, that depends on your work, doesn’t it? If it’s deemed important enough for the company, you can get equity with the job, and that can generate revenue after you stop working in that office.

And yes, I might be playing Devil’s advocate here, but things are not that black and white, I think…

[spiffy]

Do nothing, get nothing. Write a story, sell it, get paid. Write a story, sell it, get paid, then ask everyone who paid you for it to pay you again when they get rid of your story? No. you did nothing the second time around, you were already paid for that copy. don’t like it? Make no copies. .

Sounds like you guys are sticking up for the publishers then, and not the content creators. The publisher is nothing without it’s content, and yet you’re advocating that the artist should be paid like a simple tradesmen, pumping out original work but only getting a one time fee, while the publisher gets fat on recurring sales. Wow, who is defending what in this argument again?

Tell your story on stage, get paid everytime .

I don’t understand, some art forms deserve recurring royalties and some don’t? Why?

[Midnight_Son]

Ya know, I’m getting the feeling that I’m being trolled…

I mean, do you really not understand? Really?

[Juan_Raigada]

I don’t understand, some art forms deserve recurring royalties and some don’t? Why?

Because of “patchwork law”. I forgot about theater royalties (and music, now that I think about it). Think of it as a leftover of a time without digital reproduction and much easily defined art forms…

Which of course poses the question that maybe it IS deserved and it’s the law that has failed to keep up.

[Ginger_Yellow]

It treats different kinds of art differently, and not just different media. Art works (capital “A”/museum/private collector things) do give money to the artist when they are resold, based on how much has the work risen in value itself. Of course this is for non-mechanically reproducible artwork (unique pieces which rise in value, not diminish) but it does imply that when something is considered art (spiritually rewarding) versus a consumer product, the markets work differently, giving value to the piece and its creation by rewarding the author as it continues to generate revenue. As the concept of what kind of works have an “artistic quality” (spiritual value or however you want to name it) has changed, it is worthwhile to consider if treating creative works as “products” on which the author loses all ownership on sale is fair or not.

It’s not (just) a question of what’s considered art, though. The mechanically reproducible part is absolutely key. Authors of high literature don’t get preferential treatment over pulp novelists. Artist resale royalties effectively create an equivalent of the copyright regime for (expensive) artworks that are not (legally) copied. In the UK, at least, the right is explicitly temporally coterminous with copyright.

[Mr_Zero]

Good summary by Savillo on IP. I’m confused by your take, spiffy. On whose behalf are you upset?

EDIT:

Wait, I think I get it now. Publishers earning when the artists are not. Got it.

I will say that it’s not crazy to treat artists like craftspeople. I’d take pride in that description.

[Juan_Raigada]

It’s not (just) a question of what’s considered art, though. The mechanically reproducible part is absolutely key. Authors of high literature don’t get preferential treatment over pulp novelists. Artist resale royalties effectively create an equivalent of the copyright regime for (expensive) artworks that are not (legally) copied. In the UK, at least, the right is explicitly temporally coterminous with copyright.

But maybe this points out problems with all the coexisting regimes, or with lack of protection for mechanically reproducible works. If something is reproducible, but not mechanically (theater or music) the original writer does get a part of the gross income produced (even if there is no profit due to a flop). Why should it be different for reproducible stuff?

[Kool_Moe_Dee]

Do nothing, get nothing. Write a story, sell it, get paid. Write a story, sell it, get paid, then ask everyone who paid you for it to pay you again when they get rid of your story? No. you did nothing the second time around, you were already paid for that copy. don’t like it? Make no copies. Tell your story on stage, get paid everytime .

I look forward to your stage adaptation of Pac-Man.

[Juan_Raigada]

Do nothing, get nothing. Write a story, sell it, get paid. Write a story, sell it, get paid, then ask everyone who paid you for it to pay you again when they get rid of your story? No. you did nothing the second time around, you were already paid for that copy. don’t like it? Make no copies. Tell your story on stage, get paid everytime .

Write a play and every time somebody stages it (without you having to do anything about it, except maybe sue if they don’t pay you) you get paid royalties. Write a song and it’s the same.

[Razgon]

This is a very weird Xbone discussion.