The XBOX One

[Mr_Zero]

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?

I think it depends on what the original artwork is – digital or analog. Obviously everything can be digitized, but I’m talking about the basic medium. Words are digital, bits are obviously digital. Art which has much more analog elements – vocal tone, expression, movement, etc. – is considered a fresh performance each time.

[Moore]

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?

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

I don’t think publishers need to exist, so no.

As for point # 2. - I do not understand what you mean, a live reading would have a ticket price, not a royalty. Royalty has nothing to do with the first sale doctrine or end user anyways, that’s just some guy getting paid shitty amounts based on sales instead of selling his own shit and keeping all the dough.

all art forms deserve nothing but what people pay for them. royalty mucks it up because then you arent doing all the work and have some agreement for another entity to do tons of the work of selling your shit, but again, nothing to do with the buyer, you deserve the royalty you get if you choose to go with agreements and publishers that pay whatever that rate is for whatever art form you make. Total side issue from resale.

Second hand sales (user to user, even with a gamestopian/used book store middleman) to end users should pay ZERO to creators in 10000% of cases.

[Juan_Raigada]

I think it depends on what the original artwork is – digital or analog. Obviously everything can be digitized, but I’m talking about the basic medium. Words are digital, bits are obviously digital. Art which has much more analog elements – vocal tone, expression, movement, etc. – is considered a fresh performance each time.

But the original artwork (which is paid royalties) of a play is the written stageplay, which is digital. The original artwork of a song (lyrics and written music) is digital too. The difference is that a new more complex piece is created when they are performed, thus the royalties and why they are justified (it’s not a resell but an adaptation).

All I’m saying (and I do love we can discuss this in this community) is that it is worth considering whether things should be different for other artworks, specially in a market that has changed and has became much more dynamic.

[Telefrog]

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.

Performers don’t get royalties every time the sheet music or CD is resold, nor do playwrights get a cut of the script being sold at Half Price Books.

[Juan_Raigada]

I do not understand what you mean, a live reading would have a ticket price, not a royalty. Royalty has nothing to do with the first sale doctrine or end user anyways, that’s just some guy getting paid shitty amounts based on sales instead of selling his own shit and keeping all the dough.

A life reading and a performance has a ticket price for the audience and a royalty to the performer to the original author.

[Moore]

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.

Correct, but this is creator to creator, the audience just goes to a play. playwright -> theatre company is more like a collaboration of effort, so of course both get paid. Record the play. Sell the disc. Both get paid. Re-sell the disc at a yard sale. Playwright/theatre company can get fucked if they want some of that second sale.

[Moore]

A life reading and a performance has a ticket price for the audience and a royalty to the performer to the original author.

In that scenario, the author was someone who wants paid everytime his story is experienced, my suggestion was to never write and sell copies, but to perform it every single time. the author is the performer. Implication being, the copy lets you sell way more, with less effort, but it has a price - you only have the first sale.

[Juan_Raigada]

Correct, but this is creator to creator, the audience just goes to a play. playwright -> theatre company is more like a collaboration of effort, so of course both get paid. Record the play. Sell the disc. Both get paid. Re-sell the disc at a yard sale. Playwright/theatre company can get fucked if they want some of that second sale.

I agree, but that implies items are physical. I would never try to defend a physical resale percentage, just because it would be impossible to implement, for starters. But now media is not physical anymore, maybe this needs to be rethought…

[divedivedive]

Now I know how Buster feels in every episode of Arrested Development. WHY IS EVERYBODY YELLING

[Moore]

I agree, but that implies items are physical. I would never try to defend a physical resale percentage, just because it would be impossible to implement, for starters. But now media is not physical anymore, maybe this needs to be rethought…

Digital is digital, no resale. I never heard of anyone expecting that either. License + bits gives you nothing to resell. The xbone kerfuffle was about discs being restricted like downloads. All digitally downloadable games, to my knowledge, are locked down with no resale, but since they are a different animal there is no expectation of resale. 360/ps3/wii/wiiU/DS/3ds/psp/vita, all digital sales on all these platforms are one time license buys, no loss by the new gen being the same. Using those same restrictions on discs is new and a loss to the consumer (or a loss to MS, if enough people care)

[Midnight_Son]

Just to muddy the waters: The EU has ruled against Oracle and said that digital downloads can be resold. That’s the somewhat enlightened EU, not the stuck in the mud US.

[Mr_Zero]

But the original artwork (which is paid royalties) of a play is the written stageplay, which is digital. The original artwork of a song (lyrics and written music) is digital too. The difference is that a new more complex piece is created when they are performed, thus the royalties and why they are justified (it’s not a resell but an adaptation).

All I’m saying (and I do love we can discuss this in this community) is that it is worth considering whether things should be different for other artworks, specially in a market that has changed and has became much more dynamic.

The stage play is an interesting case. When you consider the total artistry of a stage production, how big a slice does the script represent? There’s so many other elements – mostly analog – that the script is just a component of the larger piece which is on balance analog, which would explain the royalties the stagewriter gets.

[RickH]

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.

Whoa, there. A contractual term of sale is hardly “the law,” as it was initially represented.

Actually, the need for a contratual provision demonstrates that the artist obtaining a piece of the downstream action is not “the law.”

[RickH]

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

What you don’t understand is copyright law. You appear to be waving your magic wand of personal preference, blessing some “art” and not others. The world can’t work that way.

All IP rights are creatures of law/statute - they don’t exist in the natural world. Therefore if you don’t understand the legal framework in which IP rights exist, you can’t offer an educated opinion. Time to hit a wiki or something.

[Moore]

Whoa, there. A contractual term of sale is hardly “the law,” as it was initially represented.

Actually, the need for a contratual provision demonstrates that the artist obtaining a piece of the downstream action is not “the law.”

as a struggling artist, it sounds incredibly weird and lazy too, but if they’ll agree to it I guess you’d be stupid to leave the money on the table. Whomever originally got that in place is a ballsy motherfucker. I guess you deserve whatever you can get out of it, but I find that super weird. I don’t even follow how that works for the buyer, they do not fully own the piece? What happens if they damage it or when they die? So weird and exploitative of the buyer.

To me, a buyer of art is a magical beast that gets every single thing I can do for them - free extra art with every buy, free repairs if they pay shipping and the damage is not extreme, free random art gifted to past customers. Granted, some of that is being adjusted as I go since it cuts into my take home and my ability to continue doing this, but I couldnt do anything if nobody bought anything, so they are driving this shit and should be treated with as much respect as possible.

[HRose]

The problem with Xbox now is that PS3 last generation was behind but still offered features that the Xbox didn’t have. Like a bluray player. Now there’s absolutely nothing, and the PS4 is both substantially faster and cheaper.

It’s much easier for Sony to conquer the west than for Microsoft to conquer Japan. The strong partnership between EA and Microsoft ideally symbolize what is seen as EVIL, so this is the perfect occasion to give them the finger. I feel like gamers tolerated Microsoft more than supported it, so it’s very easy to see all that market emptying out.

What I mean is that this could open a crisis for Microsoft that is much bigger than what everyone expects. Sony could utterly destroy Microsoft. It could be simply snowballing from now on.

So what will Microsoft do? It can still have much more control and influence on the media. It can still show itself as the American battle against the East. So the war will be focused on America, American features, partnerships, sponsorships. Will you support American products and jobs or you’ll give your money to the eastern invaders? They lost on the hard fact, so they’ll try to win in media pressure, control, perception, and patriotism.

Imho this clusterfuck will grow in epic proportions. In the age of Twitter news spread fast and media manipulation only ends with biting your own ass.

[spiffy]

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

I wouldn’t… the difference as I see it is that a tradesman might be using art to create something, but he is doing it to spec. If he passed on the job, someone else would do it, and the end result would and should likely be very similar. He can save you time and money by doing it very well or faster than someone else, but ultimately he is not creating value, he is executing value.

[Grifman]

The strong partnership between EA and Microsoft ideally symbolize what is seen as EVIL, so this is the perfect occasion to give them the finger.

The vast majority of gamers don’t care. If EA and MS bring good games to the table that’s what most care about. All of the chatter about EVIL companies is overwrought.

What I mean is that this could open a crisis for Microsoft that is much bigger than what everyone expects. Sony could utterly destroy Microsoft. It could be simply snowballing from now on.

Gaming is hardly central to MS. Any failure of the XBox One is nothing close to destroying MS.

[HRose]

The vast majority of gamers don’t care. If EA and MS bring good games to the table that’s what most care about. All of the chatter about EVIL companies is overwrought.

It’s low priority. But given the OPTION of giving the finger to EA, everyone would love doing it. It wasn’t the same when Sony was behind because Sony still had the Japanese market. I simply do not think that Microsoft can use a similar advantage to recuperate like Sony did.

Gaming is hardly central to MS. Any failure of the XBox One is nothing close to destroying MS.

I was talking about the gaming side, but Microsoft is doing the exact same errors everywhere. Windows 8 is shit, and is shit for the intent of imposing standards that customers do not want.

Everything Microsoft is doing is about thinking of owning the market and force their own choice on customers, instead of listening to them. The whole management should be fired for doing EVERYTHING wrong.

[Joe_M]

“If you don’t like the Xbox One’s online requirements, stick with the 360! It’s an offline device!” Good lord, stop talking Microsoft.