Crimson Echoes

[Krylo]

Here's the issue, let's say they make it and it sucks (as it probably will, I agree).

A few people lose like... 20 minutes of time downloading it and playing it for a bit and realizing it sucks.

This is basically of no consequence to anyone, so why care?

If they make it and it's good, against all odds, there's another fun/playable game on the market.


So basically you have two outcomes. One is zero sum, the other is a plus at no cost to anyone.

So why, in the world, would you want to kill it because it will probably be zero sum?


Further: You don't have to listen to the fanbase. God knows I don't.

You don't see me all up all over the forums saying that TTGL/Dr. Who should be killed forevers because nothing with that much hype from that many nerds has ever been that good, do you?

You didn't see me calling for Bayonetta to be cancelled because I thought it would suck and the hype was over the top before it came out, did you? I mean, I said it would probably suck and I wouldn't play it (as I haven't), but that was it.

Just because you hate the hype is absolutely no reason to hope for a game to get C&D'd.

It's just selfish to want something dead in the water just so that you don't have to hear about it.

This is why I said your argument is less cohesive than Blues's. At least Blues had moral outrage--however misplaced--at his side. He's arguing because he thinks the law needs be upheld and these companies have these rights. He's arguing because he wants protection to still be there for the little guys when he tries to release his own games. I don't AGREE with his arguments because of my views on copyright law, but they are an argument I can respect (beyond the whole, third times the charm, thing).

Your argument, however, comes off as little more than throwing a temper tantrum because too many people are enjoying something they SHOULDN'T.

That is what is wrong with what you've said there.

Maybe I'm MISSING something, here. But really, Nonsie, that's what you've been repeating. The hype pisses you off, so you're glad the game got killed.

[EVILNess]

Originally Posted by Krylo

Here's the issue, let's say they make it and it sucks (as it probably will, I agree).

A few people lose like... 20 minutes of time downloading it and playing it for a bit and realizing it sucks.

This is basically of no consequence to anyone, so why care?

There is a consequence here. Remember what I said earlier about damaging the integrity of the IP? Well, if it sucks it could theoretically damage a potential future buyer's image of the characters and series. That's why people get all butthurt about fan depictions of their characters. They rarely jive with the way the comapny wants them perceived.

Therefore, they take action to protect the integrity of their intellectual property.

Not necessarily an attack on you, just pointing out how this whole copyright thing works from a legal view.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by EVILNess

There is a consequence here. Remember what I said earlier about damaging the integrity of the IP? Well, if it sucks it could theoretically damage a potential future buyer's image of the characters and series. That's why people get all butthurt about fan depictions of their characters. They rarely jive with the way the comapny wants them perceived.

Therefore, they take action to protect the integrity of their intellectual property.

Not necessarily an attack on you, just pointing out how this whole copyright thing works from a legal view.

Yeah, which would be valid if the legality of copyright ever entered Noncon's arguments.

To see my arguments on THIS you can look at my discussions with Blues over the last few threads.

Or the cliff notes version: Copyright law has been artificially extended, rewrote, and altered to something that no longer has anything more than a passing resemblance to what it once was. This is, emphatically, a bad thing for any kind of artistic endeavor as that all works are derivative. Ergo, said laws can, frankly, kiss my ass.

Legal isn't the same as ethical, and though copyright laws are perfectly LEGAL they are about as far removed from ethical as one can get at this stage in the game.

This isn't about the 'internet's culture of self entitlement', either. This is about the way the creative process works, the way copyright laws USED to be written, and the ACTUAL reason that copyright laws ever existed in this country. Pro-tip: It was to protect the consumer by ensuring new inventions and artworks were made--it wasn't to protect the intellectual property of corporate monsters.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm very late to this but I'm totally in Krylo's camp here.
See my mom is a professional author- her living comes from selling books. I spent a lot of time growing up with the people copyright laws are supposedly protecting. They all unanimously denounce them because they are bullshit and are designed solely to make companies more money. They destroy creativity and cooperation and do not benefit artiists.
These aren't super-rich mega authors either, they are breadline- need every cent they can get. And copyright laws fuck them up the ass.

[bluestarultor]

I'd just like to point out I largely agree with you on copyright law, Krylo, as I've said a ton in this thread. It's VERY abusable, especially if you're the first to do something, like Trump copyrighting "you're fired." Or if there simply aren't sane provisions for something, like big seed companies copyrighting seeds they find in archives. Frankly, I hold the belief that language and natural resources should be off limits just as a start to the problems with the law. Also all the Mickey Mouse laws. It really shouldn't be so hard to put in a provision that if the creator or designated party is still using something, it should still be protected, plus a small grace period of maybe five years, without extending copyright indefinitely.

I really do dislike these arguments, as well, possibly as much as you do, because people do have very firm opinions on the matter. And I apologize for snapping at you back there.

[EVILNess]

I'm not saying that they are fair or anything, I'm just trying to stay neutral in a discussion on a forum and I saw a question and decided to answer it, but honestly I do wholeheartedly believe that the internet as a culture has gotten to the point where we feel entitled to things we aren't.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by EVILNess

honestly I do wholeheartedly believe that the internet as a culture has gotten to the point where we feel entitled to things we aren't.

You can believe that, but your kids aren't going to know what a mix tape is, unless they're 'music pirates'. Le Gasp.

Your kids will never play Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy 6 or any of the other classics of our era, unless they are 'video game pirates' because they will never fall into public domain.

There IS no public domain anymore. There used to be. Used to be a time when falling into public domain was the norm.

That time is long gone.

I mean, maybe some people don't understand what that means? Well, let me put it this way, then: If Shakespeare had been born into a culture with our copyright laws, none of us would have ever read (or seen) Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet. If Johann Von Goethe had, we'd have no idea what the Damnation of Faust was. Things that don't fall into public domain die.

Works that have derived heavily from each, or even copied them except for updated settings (such as Romeo + Juliet, which was fantastic), could never have existed.

Most modern music couldn't exist if the Amen Beat had been copyrighted and enforced.

Modern copyright laws are killing artistic integrity and the creation of new works--and the 'internet's culture of self entitlement' is, frankly, the only thing that is actively fighting them.

[Mirai Gen]

Hey Noncon, just going to throw out there but this--

Originally Posted by NonCon

In truth I'm probably a little harsh on them and need to cut back.

--is probably true.

Originally Posted by Krylo

Your kids will never play Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy 6 or any of the other classics of our era, unless they are 'video game pirates' because they will never fall into public domain.

This is mostly because in the age of digital distribution companies are feeling more and more entitled to property they own in the pursuit of money. This kind of philosophy doesn't quite hold up nowadays, especially with stuff like re-releases and console ports and VC/Live Arcade.

I'm not saying you're not right about the rest...but saying that pirates are entitled to stealing SNES games is a bit of a stretch.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't see why it's a stretch at all

Pretty much all the best pieces of art and literature the world has ever produced were adaptions of something else, many of which would have been shut down today. Artists BENEFIT by being able to use other people's work to enhance their own. Copyright benefits nobody except the shareholders of large companies.

[Krylo]

In addition to what SMB said, as the whole "Art builds on the past" thing has been part of my argument all along:

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

This is mostly because in the age of digital distribution companies are feeling more and more entitled to property they own in the pursuit of money. This kind of philosophy doesn't quite hold up nowadays, especially with stuff like re-releases and console ports and VC/Live Arcade.

I'm not saying you're not right about the rest...but saying that pirates are entitled to stealing SNES games is a bit of a stretch.

Thing is, will they still be re-releasing Chrono Trigger and Earthbound in 20 years? 40?

If it was public domain you can be certain SOMEONE would be.

As it stands, I can be pretty certain that, no, no they won't be re-releasing these games for the next generation or the generation after.

Edit: I'm not necessarily saying that they are entitled to those titles RIGHT NOW, but they never will be entitled as per current law, and there is a point where they certainly should be.

Edit 2: Though I do have to ask, does the VC have CT without the DS additions to the game? As in the original SNES cart version? 'cause if not, then I'd say the pirates are entitled to it already, as it's the only way they can get the version they want.