Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
-
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Don't get caught up on boogerman. I was just commenting on the price of a game from my childhood as an example.
But it is a good example. It's not currently in use IP (AFAIK) and it is old and "worthless". That's a useful example. Street Fighter is not, that's obviously not the same problem as that is a current product with current IP that you can buy today. Of course you can't buy that, it would cost millions and millions because you are trying to buy popular, current, valuable IP that makes money right now. That's not part of what we are discussing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Don't get caught up on boogerman. I was just commenting on the price of a game from my childhood as an example.
But it is a good example. It's not currently in use IP (AFAIK) and it is old and "worthless". That's a useful example. Street Fighter is not, that's obviously not the same problem as that is a current product with current IP that you can buy today. Of course you can't buy that, it would cost millions and millions because you are trying to buy popular, current, valuable IP that makes money right now. That's not part of what we are discussing.
The IP's of Earthworm Jim and Boogerman (along with around 70 others) were sold within the past few years. Idk if they are worthless. That's why I'm saying don't get caught up on Boogerman
-
Someone got the rights to Boogerman in 2013. So my theory is pretty valid. Someone thought that it was valuable, sought it out and bought it... and failed to do anything with it except to license it to the new Earthworm Jim game since then. But someone did exactly what I said, with exactly this example product, just recently. Very viable. And it was some guy, not a company.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Someone got the rights to Boogerman in 2013. So my theory is pretty valid. Someone thought that it was valuable, sought it out and bought it... and failed to do anything with it except to license it to the new Earthworm Jim game since then. But someone did exactly what I said, with exactly this example product, just recently. Very viable. And it was some guy, not a company.
Is there a link to this information?
-
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Someone got the rights to Boogerman in 2013. So my theory is pretty valid. Someone thought that it was valuable, sought it out and bought it... and failed to do anything with it except to license it to the new Earthworm Jim game since then. But someone did exactly what I said, with exactly this example product, just recently. Very viable. And it was some guy, not a company.
Is there a link to this information?
It's on the wikipedia page. There was a 2013 fundraising campaign for the next Boogerman which didn't raise all that much money, maybe $40K I think. They gave up and didn't make the game, but the new Earthworm Jim is featuring the character. You could track down the guys who got the rights and ask them if they will sell limit rights to the original game (sell the game but not the IP of the characters beyond releasing the original game) so that you can release it.
-
One of the huge reasons that IP is not released for free is that it cannot be. Common reasons:
- No one knows that they are the owner of it.
- No one is a clear owner of it.
- No one can find an owner of it.
- It's owned by a giant company that doesn't spend time and money to track down things to give away.
- No one even knows what it is.
- The game using third party software that has licensing of its own per copy and needs to pay royalties or get releases from numerous other parties. (This is what killed off Who's the Boss and lots of other television shows from release.)
- Someone owns it in the hopes of making something with it (King's Quest came back after decades away. Mother IP is still used.)
-
But a different example, Interplay (who made Boogerman) let the people who bought the rights to the name "The Bard's Tale" also get the release rights to all original BT titles and they released all four of them for "free" as part of the other game.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
To be able to play it at all. Why enforce it if you aren't attempting to monetize it? There are games you can't find anymore.
Well if you are George Lucas it's because he actually hates his customers and uses his money to keep games that they want out of their hands.
LOL, George doesn't own Lucas Arts anymore, oh and Lucas Arts I'm pretty sure doesn't exist anymore.
-
@Dashrender said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
To be able to play it at all. Why enforce it if you aren't attempting to monetize it? There are games you can't find anymore.
Well if you are George Lucas it's because he actually hates his customers and uses his money to keep games that they want out of their hands.
LOL, George doesn't own Lucas Arts anymore, oh and Lucas Arts I'm pretty sure doesn't exist anymore.
No, and that's how we found out how much he hated everyone. He literally refused to let anyone have their classic games for decades. Then Disney bought LucasArts (which is still a video game brand) and didn't pay a penny for the "extra" stuff, they were buying the big IP. Immediately several individuals contacted Disney, who actually likes their customers, and asked to buy some of the big, old, unused IP and Disney instantly said yet and amazing titles like Grim Fandango and Day of the Tentacle were remade and are back on the market!
George actively used his money to stop his IP from seeing the light of day. Not to make money, just to spite people who liked LA games.
Same with Star Wars, he used his money to ensure that the good originals were destroyed and only his crappy modifications were allowed to remain on the market.
So one can argue that that IP was in use all that time - in use spiting people who liked things made by LucasArts.
-
LOL
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Same with Star Wars, he used his money to ensure that the good originals were destroyed and only his crappy modifications were allowed to remain on the market.
Yeah, many people agree with you, but they were his creation, and he wanted them remembered as he intended, not as he originally created, while I agree the mods mostly sucked... I do kinda consider that creators privilege.
-
@Dashrender said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
LOL
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Same with Star Wars, he used his money to ensure that the good originals were destroyed and only his crappy modifications were allowed to remain on the market.
Yeah, many people agree with you, but they were his creation, and he wanted them remembered as he intended, not as he originally created, while I agree the mods mostly sucked... I do kinda consider that creators privilege.
Right, same as with the video games. He hates his customers and wants them to remember only crap and not he good games they had access to when younger. It's his creator's privilege to keep stuff from being on the market (although I disagree with the laws that support that and believe that the right to remove IP should not exist across the board, but that's a legal change that no one is attempting) but it is done out of a mean spirit and an active dislike for his audience. He knows that people want material and he intentionally uses his money to stop them getting access to it and is happy to lose money to do so! That's a significant degree of hatred. Not many people hate people so much that they'd lose money to spite them. Especially not millions or even billions of dollars.
-
If you are really that paranoid, you can use a raspberry pi, android device, or fire tv for this. Whenever you configure the device, unplug your internet connection from your router. Copy the roms and emulators to the device (only the ones you own of course
). Then create a rule on your router to block all outgoing traffic from your device.Although hundreds of thousands of people all over the world (maybe more) use emulators and roms all the time without issue.
-
@IRJ said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
If you are really that paranoid, you can use a raspberry pi, android device, or fire tv for this. Whenever you configure the device, unplug your internet connection from your router. Copy the roms and emulators to the device (only the ones you own of course
). Then create a rule on your router to block all outgoing traffic from your device.Although hundreds of thousands of people all over the world (maybe more) use emulators and roms all the time without issue.
Right but the point is there is no legal way of doing it. It's stupid
-
I understand where you are coming from @wirestyle22 , but the world isn't a pure place. These companies treat people like dirt and all they see is $$$.
Let's look at this another way... Imagine some software is developed in 1991. Alot of costs and development went into this software and it was pretty good for its time. This software was a big hit and really sold well from 1991-1994. The company made some good money and more than covered their development costs. In 1993 this same company starts developing new software and the developers move towards this new product. This trend continues till 2016...
It would be absolutely ludicrous for a software company to invest time or money into trying to prevent piracy on their 1991 software. This software had no further development after 1991 and has absolutely no support. No one in their right mind would purchase it and no one in their right mind would demand that they receive royalties on it.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@IRJ said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
If you are really that paranoid, you can use a raspberry pi, android device, or fire tv for this. Whenever you configure the device, unplug your internet connection from your router. Copy the roms and emulators to the device (only the ones you own of course
). Then create a rule on your router to block all outgoing traffic from your device.Although hundreds of thousands of people all over the world (maybe more) use emulators and roms all the time without issue.
Right but the point is there is no legal way of doing it. It's stupid
There is, it's "live outside the US."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@IRJ said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
If you are really that paranoid, you can use a raspberry pi, android device, or fire tv for this. Whenever you configure the device, unplug your internet connection from your router. Copy the roms and emulators to the device (only the ones you own of course
). Then create a rule on your router to block all outgoing traffic from your device.Although hundreds of thousands of people all over the world (maybe more) use emulators and roms all the time without issue.
Right but the point is there is no legal way of doing it. It's stupid
There is, it's "live outside the US."
England allows you to break DRM if its only for your personal use and you own whatever you are breaking. Seems so simple to me.
-
@IRJ said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
I understand where you are coming from @wirestyle22 , but the world isn't a pure place. These companies treat people like dirt and all they see is $$$.
Let's look at this another way... Imagine some software is developed in 1991. Alot of costs and development went into this software and it was pretty good for its time. This software was a big hit and really sold well from 1991-1994. The company made some good money and more than covered their development costs. In 1993 this same company starts developing new software and the developers move towards this new product. This trend continues till 2016...
It would be absolutely ludicrous for a software company to invest time or money into trying to prevent piracy on their 1991 software. This software had no further development after 1991 and has absolutely no support. No one in their right mind would purchase it and no one in their right mind would demand that they receive royalties on it.
Right but then its like some weird honor among thieves system where they are like, we aren't really going to invest money into going after you but you're still breaking the law.
-
@IRJ said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
I understand where you are coming from @wirestyle22 , but the world isn't a pure place. These companies treat people like dirt and all they see is $$$.
Let's look at this another way... Imagine some software is developed in 1991. Alot of costs and development went into this software and it was pretty good for its time. This software was a big hit and really sold well from 1991-1994. The company made some good money and more than covered their development costs. In 1993 this same company starts developing new software and the developers move towards this new product. This trend continues till 2016...
It would be absolutely ludicrous for a software company to invest time or money into trying to prevent piracy on their 1991 software. This software had no further development after 1991 and has absolutely no support. No one in their right mind would purchase it and no one in their right mind would demand that they receive royalties on it.
Also, while the US makes things like this "illegal", it also makes, in most cases, the punishment dependent on the damages. So let's say you pirate something from me that earns me zero dollars. Sure, it's illegal. But you might only have to pay be double what I lost, which is nothing. So I might win a court settlement... of zero dollars. You are clearly "in the wrong", but it's a technicality.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@IRJ said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
I understand where you are coming from @wirestyle22 , but the world isn't a pure place. These companies treat people like dirt and all they see is $$$.
Let's look at this another way... Imagine some software is developed in 1991. Alot of costs and development went into this software and it was pretty good for its time. This software was a big hit and really sold well from 1991-1994. The company made some good money and more than covered their development costs. In 1993 this same company starts developing new software and the developers move towards this new product. This trend continues till 2016...
It would be absolutely ludicrous for a software company to invest time or money into trying to prevent piracy on their 1991 software. This software had no further development after 1991 and has absolutely no support. No one in their right mind would purchase it and no one in their right mind would demand that they receive royalties on it.
Also, while the US makes things like this "illegal", it also makes, in most cases, the punishment dependent on the damages. So let's say you pirate something from me that earns me zero dollars. Sure, it's illegal. But you might only have to pay be double what I lost, which is nothing. So I might win a court settlement... of zero dollars. You are clearly "in the wrong", but it's a technicality.
right and in that case no one is going to spend a dime in resources to come after you.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@IRJ said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
I understand where you are coming from @wirestyle22 , but the world isn't a pure place. These companies treat people like dirt and all they see is $$$.
Let's look at this another way... Imagine some software is developed in 1991. Alot of costs and development went into this software and it was pretty good for its time. This software was a big hit and really sold well from 1991-1994. The company made some good money and more than covered their development costs. In 1993 this same company starts developing new software and the developers move towards this new product. This trend continues till 2016...
It would be absolutely ludicrous for a software company to invest time or money into trying to prevent piracy on their 1991 software. This software had no further development after 1991 and has absolutely no support. No one in their right mind would purchase it and no one in their right mind would demand that they receive royalties on it.
Right but then its like some weird honor among thieves system where they are like, we aren't really going to invest money into going after you but you're still breaking the law.
The law is morally wrong here, just like it is in many cases. Look at the Patriot Act. That is about as wrong as it gets.
