In the "3.0.3 Patch out now!" thread I said that I'm not inherently against piracy, but that what's happened is remarkably lame. I also said that piracy in this case sucks. I paid full price for EHM and would happily sucker punch everyone who did not if I could. At the time I said that my opinion regarding piracy was well-informed and hoped no one would challenge it, because it wasn't really supposed to be the point of the post and if they did I would have to write a semi-essay, leaving out key points and important arguments or else I might crash the server with it's unbearable length. I would also have to explain that, despite my arguments, I think that people need to exercise much more responsibility when they illegally download content, and that I don't condone piracy at all when it affects the little guy, when it hurts the people that do things right.
So Shadd came with this:
"thundercleese: you're darn wrong about the downloading music thing! I'll just take the example of France, where internet and illegal downloads became easily accessible to nearly everyone at a cheap price around 5 years ago... In those 5 years, the number of cd sales get a drop of 60%! That's not what i'd call "statistically equivalent to zero"...
Of course, famous bands still sell a lot and have no problems to live from their music. Same for famous movies, big video games, etc. But many bands (including some friends of mine) stopped playing music because of the illegal downloads. For them, less sales equals not enough money to live, which leads them to find a job, and so they don't have enough time to work on their music. They should have become famous if things weren't what they are.
Some ideas of movies will never come to life, because the guy that had those ideas have seen his last movie over-pirated, and so he doesn't have enough money to make the new one.
In the same way, EHM should have become a very popular management game, given the time... But now we know it will never.
By the way, the day when piracy will have kill all the music, all the movies, and all the video games, what will they have to download? They are just killing creativity."
Now I'm sorry for what follows. The last few paragraphs are really the key, but I think the issues are significant and often ignored with everything else that goes on in the world. I'm a double-major in communications and political science at university, so issues like this are what I go to school for--they're important to me and I'm therefore coming from a well-informed, critical place. I agree with Shadd in that the little guy can get hurt by piracy, and it really sucks when it happens. But a majority of such activity is directed at those who don't feel the impact. It's important to recognize that this is not a black and white issue--stealing from Sony Records is completely different than stealing from SI Games. Why are the two different? Read on to find out. All I ask is that if you want to comment on my stance, please read everything. Again, I'm sorry to those who aren't interested, or who have to scroll down for ten minutes to get to the next post or whatever.
Okay...first of all, Shadd, I'm curious about where you're getting your statistics. A 60% drop sounds awfully inflated, and almost certainly biased. Not to mention that CD sales have dropped for a variety of factors that have nothing to do with downloading. Music in the last 5-10 years especially has become increasingly corporatized--overall quality is down, as is variety. This means people are less willing to pay the ridiculous mark-up CDs inflict. Tied to the quality issue is the fact that many albums are comprised of two or three singles buried in 10-15 tracks, most of which is filler. A big reason downloading caught on so quickly is because people didn't have to spend 15 dollars to get the two or three songs they actually wanted to listen to. This is also why iTunes has been a success, because it offers only the songs consumers want for a comparatively reasonable price.
You say your friend's band should have been famous. Not only is this a highly subjective and unreliable statement, if you consider the music landscape in the Western world (and I can only really speak for North America here), that's not really how it works. Musicians (generally) aren't made famous by their talent, they're made famous by their marketability. That's why you see more and more 'pre-packaged' musicians like Britney Spears and the Pussycat Dolls. That's why you hear more and more formulaic rubbish on the radio, in both rock and top 40. Furthermore, and this is true of ALL bands, not just big ones, a majority of profit comes from touring, not record sales. I'm curious about how a decrease in record sales would destroy a band's living--did they not tour at all? Are royalty payments significantly higher in France?
Record corporations have also been granted an obscene amount of control over the content that actually reaches us via traditional channels, namely free radio and music television. Since the Bush administration handed control of the FCC to Michael Powell, an unheard of amount of media consolidation has taken place, giving one corporation in particular (Clear Channel) control over something like 1500 radio stations. Media conglomerates are a SERIOUS problem in the Western world--the fact that so much of the information we receive through television, newspapers, books, etc, etc, is controlled by no more than six multi-national corporations should scare the rubbish out of everybody.
Many musical acts and filmmakers have adapted to the prevalence of piracy--bands are now gaining notoreity by encouraging their songs to be downloaded for free because they realize that by extensive touring and merchandising, they will make a healthy profit regardless of record sales. "MySpace bands" are the best example of this--groups like Hawthorne Heights and Silverstein sell very few records (50,000 to 500,000 per release, which is really small potatoes). This inherently contradicts the corporate-hiearchy system that has dominated the recording industry for years, taking power away from producers and placing it in the hands of consumers, this is why the internet is so frightening to the powers-that-be: they no longer have the control that they used to. As another example, Steven Soderbergh embraced the dominance of the internet by releasing his film "Bubble" simultaneously in theatres, on DVD and on the internet, a move that was unanimously rejected by Hollywood honchos.
Basically my issue is with copyright, and since piracy has such a negative impact on copyright, I think it can be a good thing. Copyright was created in the 18th century in England by Queen Anne who enacted the Statute of Anne. This guaranteed that creators of intellectual property would receive royalties for their work for 20 years after it was released in the marketplace, after which time it would become public property. The idea was to encourage contributors to the cultural commons to continue producing works to support themselves because they couldn't ride one creation their entire lives. NOW, however, copyright extends to 75 years AFTER the creator has died, and corporations, specifically Disney, are pushing for more. How does the original creator of this material benefit from his copyright after he's dead? I wholeheartedly agree with the concept that people who create art deserve compensation for their efforts, what I disagree with is the fact that these efforts are used to line the pockets of those who had nothing to do with their creation.
Entertainment corporations particularly are at a great advantage when it comes to intellectual property--distributing and printing 3 million CDs for worldwide release would be nearly impossible for a small garage band with a cult following (hence the rise of bands advertising themselves, for free, on the internet--again, control removed from traditional hands). Therefore, the producers of content no longer own their content, they are forced to sell the rights to the corporations who provide distribution, or they will never have their work appear on a grand scale. Consider the makers of the film Saw--they are receiving exactly ZERO from the success of the trilogy they spawned. Although they receive writer's salaries for the second and third, and director/writer/actor salaries for the first, they get nothing from DVD sales, nothing from box office returns, nothing from merchandising. To get their film made they had to sell the rights to their creation to Lion's Gate, period. It never would have seen the light of day otherwise. Does it seem right to you that the guys who put all the effort into the franchise get just a sliver of it's profits? Saw II, for example, made 140 million dollars worldwide, box office alone. Writer's salaries tend to be six figures, not nine. If Wan and Whannell (the original creators) were not forced to sell the rights to their creation to get it made, they would be reaping ALL the rewards, not a small fraction of them. So who do you think is keeping creators from making money, internet pirates or the corporations that distribute the material? Whoever holds the copyright is in the best position, and since the copyright is in the wrong hands, copyright is wrong. How about Disney? Walt Disney never let the animators or writers of his films take credit for their work. He created the illusion that he was behind it all. This allowed him to reap all the rewards, in both respect and money while those who toiled under him got next to nothing--all because Disney owned the copyrights.
In Canada we have to pay a tax for recordable media like blank CDs (and maybe iPods are next) in order to 'prevent piracy and make sure Canadian recording artists receive due recompense for their efforts' (not a direct quote). However, the money goes to a bunch of stiffs who head up record presses, distribution concerns, etc. NONE of it goes to the artists. Shouldn't that be the point? To protect the artists, not the people who own what the artists produced?
Your argument that filmmakers will never have their ideas come to life because their previous film was over-pirated is absolutely absurd. Give me one example of this being the case. Just one. What about YouTube, and the plethora of examples of people who are literally signed on to bigger things because of their exposure on the free site? ANY filmmaker who is just starting out would rightly love to have a small, independent project seen for free by millions of people around the world over the internet, even if they pirated it. Why? Because it gets his name out, it gets him noticed. Also, filmmakers themselves NEVER foot the bill for their own stuff (unless they're just starting out, and as I said, they want exposure firstly, profit secondly because exposure = profit in the long-term), that's what movie studios are for. It costs something like 18,000 dollars an hour to run a movie set, you think that's coming out of Ridley Scott's pocket?
If you really think that piracy will kill creativity, you're absolutely insane. Like certifiable. You think that the human condition is going to go away because people aren't getting paid enough? Real artists just want people to listen or watch or play. Art isn't about profit, it's about making an impact, about leaving your mark on the world. It's about self-expression or social critique. Did the African tribes of pre-historic eras complain that they weren't making enough for their music? Did Native American craftsmen threaten to stop producing totem poles because too many people looked at them without paying? It's only because of the misguided value system we have in this society that this is an issue.
In fact, copyright legislation IMPEDES creativity more than it protects it. Consider Buffy the Vampire Slayer fansites--they were all given a cease and desist order from FOX for using copyrighted characters, despite the protestations of show creator Joss Whedon. FOX was concerned that the character was being used in manners it was not intended for. But if someone wants to react creatively to something in their cultural space, should they not have the right to do so? Especially if they're not making a profit? Postmodern art as a whole relies on incorporating existing cultural icons, images and ideas and commenting on them in a variety of ways--often this implies copyright violation. But if I cannot say what I want to say without stepping on someone else's intellectual property toes, is my freedom of speech not being violated? Who's killing creativity now? If I call The Blueline a "Mickey Mouse operation" (which is IS NOT, I'm just trying to make a point), I could well be sued for mis-using the term Mickey Mouse even though, as a concept, Mickey Mouse has cultural connotations far beyond the original intent of the Disney Corporation. How about Time Warner suing international criminals THE GIRL GUIDES OF AMERICA FOR SINGING HAPPY BIRTHDAY? That's not a joke. There are literally hundreds of examples of this if you're looking for them. This is the kind of thing that modern copyright laws have brought us, this kind of over-the-top corporate control and therefore action that violates this extreme incarnation of copyright is actually an (often unintentional) assertment of our democratic rights to freedom of culture.
For what it's worth, I'm not much of a pirate myself. I see movies in the theatre and if I like them I buy them on DVD. If I support a band, I buy their CD, especially if they're a smaller operation. I paid full price for EHM, and I would do it again in a second. I think that copyright is an inherently GOOD concept, but, like so many good things (atomic energy, for example), it has been misused and turned into a vile bastardization. Artists DO deserve to make a living from the contributions they make to our cultural landscape (some moreso than others...), ESPECIALLY guys like Riz and Graeme, who have clearly poured their hearts into this game that we all enjoy so much. What's happened with EHM really sucks, I mean it, and I think it's awful that piracy is the cause of something so awesome coming to an end. I wish people would be more thoughtful about something like piracy--it's one thing to jack some Metallica songs or stick it to Viacom International. It's quite another to exploit something like this.
My point with this whole rant is that copyright has gotten away from its noble intentions, and that's why I'm not inherently anti-piracy--it's not about protecting artists anymore, it's about making sure the rich get richer. This certainly doesn't appear to be the case with SI Games though--seems to me that the company is one of those entities that uses copyright for its original purpose: to give its employees the chance to earn a living and to give the public something really special. Unfortunately, not everybody gets the difference, so they don't think twice about who gets hurt. It's too bad that people pirate content because they're cheap, not because of the socio-cultural implications of the act.
In case you're curious, this is where the "statistical impact of zero" thing comes from:
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSh ... ch2004.pdf
It's a joint study between Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. There are plenty of other academic sources behind my statements, but this is the most significant in my opinion. If you want I'll post them, but I can't imagine you do...
So, suggesting we all abandon EHM which ceased development within hours is bit of an overreaction I'd say. The database is fully editable and knowing it was going to be shut down the EHM team really went at this latest patch in a more intent than ever way. Riz spent literally days at a time running games in the 2d tweaking them. As for player development issues? Well, they ran multiple games out 400 years to test re-tweaked development models for the new patch so I have faith that those issues will be resolved.