Being Sued by Atari/Davenport !

Rich_L said:
Despite whatever impact there might be industry-wise, surely when it comes down to the rights and wrongs of copyright the individual, the actual copyright-holder's rights should be paramount?
Click to expand...
I disagree. I believe that the good of society should be paramount. It is in the interests of society to have as much access to IP as possible as this allows learning and dissemination of cultural heritage. It is, however, also in society's interests for peple to create new IP and they will only do so if they are properly renumerated for that IP. Fundamentally there is thus a balance of interests which society is at the heart of. To limit down the purpose of copyright law to allowing rights holders to make as much money as humanly possible from their creations is, IMHO, not looking at the full picture.

Libraries are a good example of something that, at first glance is not in the interest of the rights holder (you could claim that otherwise people would buy the books instead of borrowing them from the library), but that undoubtedly have a net positive to society.
 
stoofa said:
I'd love to read your source on that statement because I'm guessing it comes (indirectly) from those pirates you mention - once again just self-justification for their illegal activities.
Click to expand...

Actually it's probbably just because pirates play more games than most people, and buy some, and download other depending on which is the most convinent .
 
Libraries are a good example of something that, at first glance is not in the interest of the rights holder (you could claim that otherwise people would buy the books instead of borrowing them from the library), but that undoubtedly have a net positive to society.
Click to expand...
But AFAIK libraries can't just buy a book off the shelf at retail price, they have seperate licences with the copyright owners who negotiate a certain price to account for the fact that the books are available to the public - and the sharing is done with the copyright holders consent - the most important thing surely?

Plus even in libraries, the same copyright provisions apply to, for exampe, photocopying books beyond 'fair use' requirements, the books aren't 'copyright-free' because they are in libraries, it is a specific set of circumstances and agreement entered into between the copyright holder and the libraries. The reason it's 'free' is because the taxpayer funds the purchasing of the books under that agreement by way of general taxation for the 'good' of society - although of course there are exceptions where the copyright holder will grant a copy to the library.
 
Last edited:
fini said:
True, but it also works in reverse - maybe next time the person will pirate the other studios game and buy theirs. Averaging out over an entire industry is, I think, fair.
Click to expand...
This is where I think quite a few people will disagree with you, "fair" is paying the price the product is offered for if you want that product. If you don't want to pay the price you don't get the product.
If someone has produced something you have no right to it just because you think they overcharge, if they want to sell more copies it's up to them to reduce the price.
 
No sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't mean fair as in the user is being fair. I meant fair as in it is fair for surveys and figures, when estimating the cost of piracy, to do so for the industry as a whole rather than for individual publishers.
 
Rich_L said:
But AFAIK libraries can't just buy a book off the shelf at retail price...
Click to expand...
Everything you've posted is true - although libraries do have some specific copyright exclusions. My point was more general than that though - that there are many instances where theoretically the copyright owner is losing out, but the advantage to society is so great that it should be allowed.
 
fini said:
Everything you've posted is true - although libraries do have some specific copyright exclusions. My point was more general than that though - that there are many instances where theoretically the copyright owner is losing out, but the advantage to society is so great that it should be allowed.
Click to expand...
Not sure people ripping off games they're too tight to buy because they think they'll get away with it falls under that particular justification though.
 
Games are a form of art. Society benefits from access to art - thus free art galleries. As long as, through whatever means, the artist gets a decent amount of money for their work does it matter how many people make use of the art gallery?
 
I've read through a lot of this thread and I can't find one that brings up the word "convenience". Why do people use steam to download games legally? Convenience surely? Getting sent a DVD box through the post or going to the high street to buy a game seems so backward when it comes to buying software.

I realise its nice to actually own something tangible when you've bought something, but personally I would rather buy online, download and play. Surely this should be seen as a wake up call to game publishers and creators and should start cutting out/down on middle-men (awful high street stores, distribution etc) and start releasing titles online with the money saved discounted from the final price?

Yes, piracy is wrong but while its there people will do it. Rather than suing a few people and fighting a war they will never win - give them an incentive NOT to do it. Steam is on the right track but still has inflated prices for the latest games.

Just my 2p ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom