People change ISPs and/or IPs all the time. The password is the only real key to your account. WOW accounts are traded despite the potential for the seller backing out and claiming hax. Trading in account locked games is limited to the trust found in trading standalone accounts. I would be most surprised if there was no trade in D3 standalone Bnet accounts.
If you want to reserve your ability to sell D3 without selling your other account locked games (eg. WOW/SC2) register D3 to a standalone Bnet account.
While I am excited for the next-gen consoles to come around, I will be skipping over this generation if they implement these changes.
They earn money on you buying games. They usually loose if you just buy console. So you will do them a favor if you don't buy their consoles if you are not going to buy new games.
And if they implement these changes and they work for them you will have to skip all the feature generations.
You do realize that Sony and Microsoft loose money if I don't buy their consoles? As is I don't even have a PS3 so Sony hasn't gotten my money yet. And Microsoft will probably keep the subscription for Xbox Live. So they are, in fact, loosing money.
And I agree with Maka on most of this. Video games aren't a subscription service. Nor are DVDs and CDs. So there should be no rules to abide by. Yet it is the video game companies that should earn money off of used games while film companies earn nothing off of used DVD sales? Most of this is that you got businesses earning a big chunk of change just from used games and the publishers want in on that money even though they are earning record profits as is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I don't always burn. But when I do, I use hellfire.
But all this new found interest in the AC games would never have happened for me if I hadn't had that chance to eventually borrow the first two games from a friend. It was this far down the road for me that I didn't see myself willing to buy AC 1 and 2 brand new. And I don't think my case is exceptional either. I think a lot of people get into games this way: by having it loaned to them or buying it used, deciding then they really like it, and choose to get more into that series of games. And yes, some games are stand alone games that don't have sequels or reboots, but the logic is still the same.
Simply put: used games or borrowed games are simply an alternative way for someone to experience a game for the first time that they easily might not have otherwise at the standard full price.
That is a good point and might be the only collateral in this new system... however I already heard that with this new system there will be a lot more playable demos of a lot more games... so everyone will get to sample the game (such as you did with AC 1 &2) in order to make a decision if they want to play it or not... playable demos are great, and really bring people into the door...
The security for the producer with this new method is just way better than having CD's floating around everywhere... it's obvious this is their main reason for doing this change. More security less freedom. It's usually one or the other in any example...
If software companies sell 100 games, but over 500 people play those 100 copies (borrowing from a friend, trading to a friend, selling to a store, etc, etc) I'm sure those software companies see that as a casualty of profit... and as a loss in potential. They ask themselves "how can we get more of those 400 people that didn't buy, a reason to buy the games?" Answer? Not allow trading/borrowing, and make them permanently link the game to their account, where it is only playable on that account... maybe then instead of someone saying "Hey, I have this fairly new game called BLAH that's been out for a week now, it's awesome, I love it, check it out" Then their friend gets the demo, likes it, and buys the digital copy, done! That is a more successful business model than their previous "hey can I borrow it when you're done?" scenario...
I have software on my computer that I bought a license for... and the license is only good on one computer (similar to any OS system) I can't let anyone borrow it, and I can't spread it around in any other way... it's on my computer, and that's all it's every going to be on, because of how they setup their licensing... doesn't make me mad... I still have the software, still use it for it's purposes...
Just like games... I have tons of games linked on my Steam account... and I play them all, and I have fun with it, and so do all my friends... if I ever wanted to trade in my games for any reason I guess I can't... if my friend wants to try my games he can log into my Steam and play it while I'm at work or not playing if he wants to... to get a feel for the game.
I guess this is getting dragged out... but overall I understand both sides of the discussion... gamers don't like the restriction, producers don't like the diminishing results of sales... how can both be happy? Maybe "un-link" the game from your account, and you earn some virtual Playstation money to be able to purchase other games in the future? (Basically get a new game slightly cheaper?)
Which scenario are you most concerned with? Are you wanting a a new game, and you have all these old games laying around... you sell the old games, which will give you enough money to basically get the new game for free (via Trade-in.)
Or are you most concerned that you can't afford new games easily, and as a gamer on a budget you only have the option to buy a few used games (since they are reduced in price) in order to have an opportunity to game and enjoy gaming?
I think my overall concern simply is the precedent it sets. I understand the gaming industry is changing very rapidly and hence the developers and publishers are finding ways to protect their investments and maximize their profits. And I don't even have some big concern for people who can't afford games that are new.
All I'm saying is, when you want something new and right away, you're usually gonna find a way to get it. People that buy used stuff later down the road were unlikely to ever buy it new anyway. So the measure just seems to target more of a niche group of consumers and it hardly endears fans to the publishers any further.
I don't know. The analogy I can sort of think of is drug users and drug dealers. Some say we shouldn't go after drug users, but dealers. But even dealers are easily replaceable and it's often a waste of law enforcement's time to go after them. Ultimately the suppliers is where the efforts should be placed on. What this has to do with selling used games is it's just hard to imagine used games have really hurt anyone's profits that much. They may lose some money from used games being sold, but all anyone is really going to remember out of all this is the controversy of exerting that much control over the disc you put in your console. PC gamers obviously have more options in how they get their games. Consoles not as much, and this further limits console users' choices and I simply think that's a bad thing. And I don't really think having demos for a game really makes up for it.
if it gets rid of God-aweful companies like Gamestop then i'm all for it.
Your attitude is petulant. You're saying even if it is a bad policy, then it's okay as long as it hurts another company that you don't like. So the basis for your stance is spite.
Yes you're right, if you want something new and want it right away, you'll find a way to get it... much like Diablo 3... I bet everyone on this forum pre-ordered Diablo, or will be playing it on it's release one way or another...
Let's say Diablo 3 does come out on console, and it's been released for 6 months already... and just now (6 months after release) more people are looking into it for some reason... (maybe influenced by a video game magazine, a friend, or a new update/expansion prospect). Blizzard still wants to profit on those people too, not just the people who wanted the game right away... that's why games slowly become cheaper for the most part... they usually aren't still $60 dollars like they were when they were released...
Let me give you another example... Skyrim was released and sold 7 million copies the first week of it's release... since then, they have sold roughly an additional 4 million. If users could just trade-in Skyrim (if it was not linked to Steam), then that is millions of copies that could have been returned after playing it for a few months... they would not have sold an additional 4 million, they might have only sold 1 million or 2 million... that would be a big difference for Bethesda...
The difference between a new copy and a used copy is about $5-$10 dollars for the consumer... the difference between the new copy and the used copy for the producer is $50, or 100% of the principal cost of the game. That's unfortunate. Personally, I would rather just pay the extra $5 to better support the gaming industry, the gaming community, the developers, the producers, and everyone that helped create one of my favorite hobbies into an enjoyable experience.
Maybe Playstation needs to re-evaluate their approach on their level of security measures... or maybe we just need to get used to it... anytime there is extra security, people complain. (Which is what I'm seeing here). When everyone started getting x-rayed at airports, people complained, when SOPA or the PATRIOT act popped out of nowhere, people complained.. it's almost natural that when something that was once there, and now being taken away, you have the instinct to complain or lash out one way or another... not saying that's a bad thing or unnecessary, just examining the situation...
If nothing was ever pirated, stolen, or traded in, I could see the potential for games to go down in price... especially if there was no need for boxes, instruction booklets, shipping, manufacturing, CD-ROM distribution, shelving, etc... if it was all done digitally (minus maybe certain titles or CE editions), the price for games might go down even more... who knows... just trying to look at it from all angles here.
Self interest is the main driving force for most parties. The producers want a share of the 2nd hand market, frequent resellers want to be able to sell off their older games to make back some of their cost. Some traders even expect to profit by reselling obscure or limited edition titles. On a more basic level, some people want to actually have ownership of something they purchase and the right to transfer this ownership in the future. An EULA is not recognised legally if it infringes on a country's consumer rights, something Sony found out in their PS3 woes last year.
No one owes the producers their revenue. Suggesting a course of action is commendable because it helps producers earn more is not going to cut it with anyone that doesn't have a direct stake in the producer's work. The concept that producers will reduce prices because they can afford to do so is unlikely at best. The fallacy that every downloaded copy or 2nd hand sale would have been a direct first hand sale if there were no other options to acquire the product is one of the favourite and flawed arguments of the RIAA and other licensing conglomerates.
Didn't read too much into this. Basically Temp is right on his points. I am a musician and can tell ya its pretty much a volunteer job now because of what Maka is trying to defend. Like everyone likes Metallica ya? So they tried to stop the DL of their music and everyone is pissed about it "WE LOVE NAPSTER F U METALLICA BUT THANKS FOR GREAT MUSIC!" Ok..
Stop being greedy with your money and reward those who make something you want?
Pay Blizz for D3 or grow up
Basically Temp is right on his points. I am a musician and can tell ya its pretty much a volunteer job now because of what Maka is trying to defend. Like everyone likes Metallica ya? So they tried to stop the DL of their music and everyone is pissed about it "WE LOVE NAPSTER F U METALLICA BUT THANKS FOR GREAT MUSIC!" Ok..
Okay, a couple of things. We're not even really talking about piracy here. That's a whole other discussion. And you know what? Every profession has risks. You don't like your job as a musician? It's not rewarding enough for you? Go work in a factory somewhere.
In exchanging games or buying used ones, no copy is being made. So what's your problem? I mean, where do you draw the line? The console already makes it so you have to have the disc in the optical drive or you can't play it. Even if it's installed on the harddrive. So there will never be more than two people playing off a single disc at one time. If someone wants that luxury, then yeah, they have to buy a second copy. And again, where is the line drawn? If I can't even loan the game to a friend so he can play that game on his own Xbox, maybe people living with me shouldn't be able to play it either. It's simply a stupid measure against a niche marketshare of people borrowing or selling used games. As a musician you could appreciate that couldn't you? Someone loaning a CD your band made to his friend? Well maybe not, because they can easily make a copy of that CD. But we're not talking about fucking music anyway, which granted, suffers a bit from piracy, which however, this is NOT what we're talking about. But that's what happens when you skim a thread anyway and just pay attention to that guy's red text over everyone else's boring white text.
Let me just put it another way. Let's say that CD your band made was completely immune to being copied or ripped in any way. Let's say then someone borrowed that CD from a friend so they could listen to it. Um, what that be okay with you? Because that's one thing this lame business idea would prevent people from doing.
And if buying a used game is so awful for the developers (which it isn't) then go after those distributors of used games. But instead they'd rather make the next generation console more shitty by limiting the option of consumers in how they choose their product? And this is how they want to stay competitive in the gaming industry and against PC gaming?
Stop being greedy with your money and reward those who make something you want?
Pay Blizz for D3 or grow up
God, I wish so bad I could just grow up for a change and give Blizzard my money, but I'm just so greedy, ya know? Too bad, that's a whole either discussion entirely.
While this is no longer on the topic of 2nd hand sales, I would like to comment on Noktural1's post.
Metallica is a very profitable commercial enterprise. I would not call it volunteer work. The bulk of Metallica's earnings come from performances rather than digital media sales, these monies are funded by their fans and are proof of their generous contribution to Metallica's coffers. They are not poor. Some might even say that it is due to the wide availability of their music in a non paying form that led to the level of popularity that they have, without which they could not command such high performance fees. While not all artists have the earning power of Metallica, their commercial success if proof that it is very possible to earn exceptional income even in the face of illegal downloads.
The legality of copyright infringement is not in dispute but moving from illegal downloads to immoral behavior and loss of revenue is a bit of a stretch.
Not every download is a loss sale, exceptionally so for 2nd hand sales. Not every person who downloaded a song or recorded it off youtube/radio would have bought the artists' CD in the first place, in such cases there is no revenue forgone for the artist. There are those who argue that in such cases, no one is harmed and in fact people there is benefit as people who would not buy the media are able to enjoy the artist's music at no cost to the artist. Such people might become fans and provide the artist with revenue that would not normally be possible to earn otherwise.
It is also completely impractical to attempt to regulate digital data. There's no way you can reliably initiate legal proceedings against someone who has decided to record a youtube/radio tune. Have legal rights to prevent a type of copyright infringement are of little value if there is no way to reliably do so at a cost efficient manner.
Well I've never been into console games much anyway. But if they do add something that doesn't allow you to play used games, they can go fuck themselves. It's right up there with releasing a game half assed only to then charge for DLC every couple of months. It seems game companies are getting too greedy, at least some of them. I'm fine with paying for a game, and the only other charge would be a full, complete expansion, or a small monthly at the most. But if this is the route they are going, this makes me even more glad to be a Blizzard fanboy. I'll be spending 100 bucks on a CE of a game that I plan to play for the next decade.
Stop being cheap and support the people that make the things you love. Sure, I can admitt that I once in a while try a game without buying it just to see if I like it, but I always buy it if I like it, and not at a 75% discount.
So you're never going to buy a used car, right? Because you wouldn't be supporting the company that you love. You only will ever buy a brand new car straight from the dealership, right?.... right?
So you're never going to buy a used car, right? Because you wouldn't be supporting the company that you love. You only will ever buy a brand new car straight from the dealership, right?.... right?
A return to brevity. That felt good on my brain, thank you.
So you're never going to buy a used car, right? Because you wouldn't be supporting the company that you love. You only will ever buy a brand new car straight from the dealership, right?.... right?
A return to brevity. That felt good on my brain, thank you.
PC is an example of a market that has changed for the benefit of both sides. Ease of access, constant deals (look at Steam), prices from GoG to indie games are lower than ever. Everything has changed.
But for consoles? The values of everything is dropping but everybody knows they'll be paying extravagant prices on release for less than before.
Consoles are such an archaic, overpriced bullshit in the first place.
Music is an entire different things. The internet has brought so many wonders to us. And the internet as well as games in general have one word we have yet to understand: sharing. You either understand that we live in a world ever more sharing, or you prioritize profits and go back to the pathetic stone age of capitalism.
There are still musicians making a living: plenty of them. People give money to whom they love. There are places to buy music easier than ever and support the musician you love DIRECTLY. I mean, what, they got 5 cents from you buying in a store, now they get a much bigger part of the profit. Things just change. But it was NEVER easy for musicians to make ANY sort of living. It was always excruciatingly hard. I'd dare say now, with YouTube, with the sharing, its much easier to be known and eventually, much easier to maybe do something great, and become something.
And any musician that went into it for the money is a complete and utter moron, by the way. You choose Art or you choose Money. You don't choose both.
Lol thanks for your opinion but i can tell from your responses your not in the music biz. yeah this topic did jump off the handle so i won't bring up my defense unless posted in a different thread. I apologize please continue to steal products from hard work
I apologize please continue to steal products from hard work
What a douche....
Because that's exactly what all of us MUST be doing, right? Maybe your shitty band is unsuccessful because your music sucks and not because people are stealing your music.
Lol thanks for your opinion but i can tell from your responses your not in the music biz. yeah this topic did jump off the handle so i won't bring up my defense unless posted in a different thread. I love being a musician and never said i didn't.. besides i make plenty in the medical field i don't make music for money. but i reward bands buy supporting them just like my game companies. if you don't that's your choice. i apologize please continue to steal products from hard working people
-------------------------------------
Saiynok i understand you live on forums to look good. were all proud of you. but don't talk shit because you assume so much about others. jackass
i apologize please continue to steal products from hard working people
LOL
You are a delight. You know that? Maybe someone else was defending piracy here, but I certainly wasn't. I could defend piracy if I really wanted to, but that's not what this thread is about. You may be reading words but you don't seem to be comprehending them.
The only example with music that I used was loaning a CD to friend and having them listen to it. Then if they liked the music enough, they would get the music themselves later. Then I compared that to being the same thing as loaning a game to somebody. And you're obsessed with equating some of these things to stealing. Remember that I said nothing about making a copy. Only once the copy has been made has the piracy been committed. I'm talking about buying and trading used games which the new generation consoles are considering whether to prohibit. What's so hard to understand about this?
I apologize please continue to steal products from hard work
How is it stealing if we buy a used game? There is no law or anything saying we can't. And how is buying a used game different than buying a used CD. Or even a used DVD of X-Men? There are no contracts we have to sign saying that we can't sell them. And these console generations last for about ten years and in that time, many games will be unsupported as new purchases in stores. So why should I have to suffer if I want to catch up on a new game by buying used versions of the prequels?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I don't always burn. But when I do, I use hellfire.
Its real amusing to see what people keep responding with. this thread isn't about music but was brought up at one point and now its EVERYWHERE best part is i don't even think you understand your arguing with yourself while im on my phone bored at work :-) :-) :-) :-)
Saiynok i understand you live on forums to look good. were all proud of you. but don't talk shit because you assume so much about others. jackass
This.
Siaynoq, Nokturnal might be talking about something slightly off-topic from the original conversation, but now you're just being a douche bag. No need to bash him like that, I took you as someone better than that. This thread should probably be closed before we bust out the pitch forks.
-Temp
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you want to reserve your ability to sell D3 without selling your other account locked games (eg. WOW/SC2) register D3 to a standalone Bnet account.
And I agree with Maka on most of this. Video games aren't a subscription service. Nor are DVDs and CDs. So there should be no rules to abide by. Yet it is the video game companies that should earn money off of used games while film companies earn nothing off of used DVD sales? Most of this is that you got businesses earning a big chunk of change just from used games and the publishers want in on that money even though they are earning record profits as is.
That is a good point and might be the only collateral in this new system... however I already heard that with this new system there will be a lot more playable demos of a lot more games... so everyone will get to sample the game (such as you did with AC 1 &2) in order to make a decision if they want to play it or not... playable demos are great, and really bring people into the door...
The security for the producer with this new method is just way better than having CD's floating around everywhere... it's obvious this is their main reason for doing this change. More security less freedom. It's usually one or the other in any example...
If software companies sell 100 games, but over 500 people play those 100 copies (borrowing from a friend, trading to a friend, selling to a store, etc, etc) I'm sure those software companies see that as a casualty of profit... and as a loss in potential. They ask themselves "how can we get more of those 400 people that didn't buy, a reason to buy the games?" Answer? Not allow trading/borrowing, and make them permanently link the game to their account, where it is only playable on that account... maybe then instead of someone saying "Hey, I have this fairly new game called BLAH that's been out for a week now, it's awesome, I love it, check it out" Then their friend gets the demo, likes it, and buys the digital copy, done! That is a more successful business model than their previous "hey can I borrow it when you're done?" scenario...
I have software on my computer that I bought a license for... and the license is only good on one computer (similar to any OS system) I can't let anyone borrow it, and I can't spread it around in any other way... it's on my computer, and that's all it's every going to be on, because of how they setup their licensing... doesn't make me mad... I still have the software, still use it for it's purposes...
Just like games... I have tons of games linked on my Steam account... and I play them all, and I have fun with it, and so do all my friends... if I ever wanted to trade in my games for any reason I guess I can't... if my friend wants to try my games he can log into my Steam and play it while I'm at work or not playing if he wants to... to get a feel for the game.
I guess this is getting dragged out... but overall I understand both sides of the discussion... gamers don't like the restriction, producers don't like the diminishing results of sales... how can both be happy? Maybe "un-link" the game from your account, and you earn some virtual Playstation money to be able to purchase other games in the future? (Basically get a new game slightly cheaper?)
Which scenario are you most concerned with? Are you wanting a a new game, and you have all these old games laying around... you sell the old games, which will give you enough money to basically get the new game for free (via Trade-in.)
Or are you most concerned that you can't afford new games easily, and as a gamer on a budget you only have the option to buy a few used games (since they are reduced in price) in order to have an opportunity to game and enjoy gaming?
Good discussion either way.
-Temp
All I'm saying is, when you want something new and right away, you're usually gonna find a way to get it. People that buy used stuff later down the road were unlikely to ever buy it new anyway. So the measure just seems to target more of a niche group of consumers and it hardly endears fans to the publishers any further.
I don't know. The analogy I can sort of think of is drug users and drug dealers. Some say we shouldn't go after drug users, but dealers. But even dealers are easily replaceable and it's often a waste of law enforcement's time to go after them. Ultimately the suppliers is where the efforts should be placed on. What this has to do with selling used games is it's just hard to imagine used games have really hurt anyone's profits that much. They may lose some money from used games being sold, but all anyone is really going to remember out of all this is the controversy of exerting that much control over the disc you put in your console. PC gamers obviously have more options in how they get their games. Consoles not as much, and this further limits console users' choices and I simply think that's a bad thing. And I don't really think having demos for a game really makes up for it.
Your attitude is petulant. You're saying even if it is a bad policy, then it's okay as long as it hurts another company that you don't like. So the basis for your stance is spite.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Let's say Diablo 3 does come out on console, and it's been released for 6 months already... and just now (6 months after release) more people are looking into it for some reason... (maybe influenced by a video game magazine, a friend, or a new update/expansion prospect). Blizzard still wants to profit on those people too, not just the people who wanted the game right away... that's why games slowly become cheaper for the most part... they usually aren't still $60 dollars like they were when they were released...
Let me give you another example... Skyrim was released and sold 7 million copies the first week of it's release... since then, they have sold roughly an additional 4 million. If users could just trade-in Skyrim (if it was not linked to Steam), then that is millions of copies that could have been returned after playing it for a few months... they would not have sold an additional 4 million, they might have only sold 1 million or 2 million... that would be a big difference for Bethesda...
The difference between a new copy and a used copy is about $5-$10 dollars for the consumer... the difference between the new copy and the used copy for the producer is $50, or 100% of the principal cost of the game. That's unfortunate. Personally, I would rather just pay the extra $5 to better support the gaming industry, the gaming community, the developers, the producers, and everyone that helped create one of my favorite hobbies into an enjoyable experience.
Maybe Playstation needs to re-evaluate their approach on their level of security measures... or maybe we just need to get used to it... anytime there is extra security, people complain. (Which is what I'm seeing here). When everyone started getting x-rayed at airports, people complained, when SOPA or the PATRIOT act popped out of nowhere, people complained.. it's almost natural that when something that was once there, and now being taken away, you have the instinct to complain or lash out one way or another... not saying that's a bad thing or unnecessary, just examining the situation...
If nothing was ever pirated, stolen, or traded in, I could see the potential for games to go down in price... especially if there was no need for boxes, instruction booklets, shipping, manufacturing, CD-ROM distribution, shelving, etc... if it was all done digitally (minus maybe certain titles or CE editions), the price for games might go down even more... who knows... just trying to look at it from all angles here.
-Temp
No one owes the producers their revenue. Suggesting a course of action is commendable because it helps producers earn more is not going to cut it with anyone that doesn't have a direct stake in the producer's work. The concept that producers will reduce prices because they can afford to do so is unlikely at best. The fallacy that every downloaded copy or 2nd hand sale would have been a direct first hand sale if there were no other options to acquire the product is one of the favourite and flawed arguments of the RIAA and other licensing conglomerates.
Stop being greedy with your money and reward those who make something you want?
Pay Blizz for D3 or grow up
Okay, a couple of things. We're not even really talking about piracy here. That's a whole other discussion. And you know what? Every profession has risks. You don't like your job as a musician? It's not rewarding enough for you? Go work in a factory somewhere.
In exchanging games or buying used ones, no copy is being made. So what's your problem? I mean, where do you draw the line? The console already makes it so you have to have the disc in the optical drive or you can't play it. Even if it's installed on the harddrive. So there will never be more than two people playing off a single disc at one time. If someone wants that luxury, then yeah, they have to buy a second copy. And again, where is the line drawn? If I can't even loan the game to a friend so he can play that game on his own Xbox, maybe people living with me shouldn't be able to play it either. It's simply a stupid measure against a niche marketshare of people borrowing or selling used games. As a musician you could appreciate that couldn't you? Someone loaning a CD your band made to his friend? Well maybe not, because they can easily make a copy of that CD. But we're not talking about fucking music anyway, which granted, suffers a bit from piracy, which however, this is NOT what we're talking about. But that's what happens when you skim a thread anyway and just pay attention to that guy's red text over everyone else's boring white text.
Let me just put it another way. Let's say that CD your band made was completely immune to being copied or ripped in any way. Let's say then someone borrowed that CD from a friend so they could listen to it. Um, what that be okay with you? Because that's one thing this lame business idea would prevent people from doing.
And if buying a used game is so awful for the developers (which it isn't) then go after those distributors of used games. But instead they'd rather make the next generation console more shitty by limiting the option of consumers in how they choose their product? And this is how they want to stay competitive in the gaming industry and against PC gaming?
God, I wish so bad I could just grow up for a change and give Blizzard my money, but I'm just so greedy, ya know? Too bad, that's a whole either discussion entirely.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Metallica is a very profitable commercial enterprise. I would not call it volunteer work. The bulk of Metallica's earnings come from performances rather than digital media sales, these monies are funded by their fans and are proof of their generous contribution to Metallica's coffers. They are not poor. Some might even say that it is due to the wide availability of their music in a non paying form that led to the level of popularity that they have, without which they could not command such high performance fees. While not all artists have the earning power of Metallica, their commercial success if proof that it is very possible to earn exceptional income even in the face of illegal downloads.
The legality of copyright infringement is not in dispute but moving from illegal downloads to immoral behavior and loss of revenue is a bit of a stretch.
Not every download is a loss sale, exceptionally so for 2nd hand sales. Not every person who downloaded a song or recorded it off youtube/radio would have bought the artists' CD in the first place, in such cases there is no revenue forgone for the artist. There are those who argue that in such cases, no one is harmed and in fact people there is benefit as people who would not buy the media are able to enjoy the artist's music at no cost to the artist. Such people might become fans and provide the artist with revenue that would not normally be possible to earn otherwise.
It is also completely impractical to attempt to regulate digital data. There's no way you can reliably initiate legal proceedings against someone who has decided to record a youtube/radio tune. Have legal rights to prevent a type of copyright infringement are of little value if there is no way to reliably do so at a cost efficient manner.
--------------------------------------
So you're never going to buy a used car, right? Because you wouldn't be supporting the company that you love. You only will ever buy a brand new car straight from the dealership, right?.... right?
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
lol np sir!
But for consoles? The values of everything is dropping but everybody knows they'll be paying extravagant prices on release for less than before.
Consoles are such an archaic, overpriced bullshit in the first place.
Music is an entire different things. The internet has brought so many wonders to us. And the internet as well as games in general have one word we have yet to understand: sharing. You either understand that we live in a world ever more sharing, or you prioritize profits and go back to the pathetic stone age of capitalism.
There are still musicians making a living: plenty of them. People give money to whom they love. There are places to buy music easier than ever and support the musician you love DIRECTLY. I mean, what, they got 5 cents from you buying in a store, now they get a much bigger part of the profit. Things just change. But it was NEVER easy for musicians to make ANY sort of living. It was always excruciatingly hard. I'd dare say now, with YouTube, with the sharing, its much easier to be known and eventually, much easier to maybe do something great, and become something.
And any musician that went into it for the money is a complete and utter moron, by the way. You choose Art or you choose Money. You don't choose both.
Because that's exactly what all of us MUST be doing, right? Maybe your shitty band is unsuccessful because your music sucks and not because people are stealing your music.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
-------------------------------------
Saiynok i understand you live on forums to look good. were all proud of you. but don't talk shit because you assume so much about others. jackass
You are a delight. You know that? Maybe someone else was defending piracy here, but I certainly wasn't. I could defend piracy if I really wanted to, but that's not what this thread is about. You may be reading words but you don't seem to be comprehending them.
The only example with music that I used was loaning a CD to friend and having them listen to it. Then if they liked the music enough, they would get the music themselves later. Then I compared that to being the same thing as loaning a game to somebody. And you're obsessed with equating some of these things to stealing. Remember that I said nothing about making a copy. Only once the copy has been made has the piracy been committed. I'm talking about buying and trading used games which the new generation consoles are considering whether to prohibit. What's so hard to understand about this?
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
This.
Siaynoq, Nokturnal might be talking about something slightly off-topic from the original conversation, but now you're just being a douche bag. No need to bash him like that, I took you as someone better than that. This thread should probably be closed before we bust out the pitch forks.
-Temp