next »

[starsrift]

For the moment, it seems that the internet, for the moment, is riveted by piracy and the possibilities of restricting(or not) it.

It strikes me that as indies, where the 'wall' between author and buyer is so razor-thin, we are more easily affected by piracy than well-funded, publically owned studios (and movie houses). It puts indies in a place that the big names aren't - we can be much more directly harmed - or helped - by piracy.

I'm not wanting to start a thread to discuss the merits and cons of piracy, but to suggest that instead, maybe we could craft a formal document that we wouldn't be ashamed of shipping with alongside our games, and frontpage it. Let's not kid or deprecate ourselves, larger players in the industry watch tigsource, and if we can come up with something cogent and reasonable, it can percolate up.

I have a few ideas of what such a statement could contain - but I'm a hobbyist, not a commercial dev, and I have no skin in this game. Instead, I want to encourage you guys to put your heads together and come up with something.

As a starter, I think we'd have to acknowledge some basic things - indie games made for profit have two goals - (1) get people playing it, and (2) get people to pay for it.
And conversely, not every pirated game is a lost sale - but there is this: Piracy is becoming a "socially accepted" crime, much like DWI or marijuana use. There are plenty of folks who could - easily - buy the games they pirate, but choose not to, in amongst those who pirate because they can't purchase a game, due to regional or financial limitations. And they don't care.

Maybe I'm dreaming. DISCUSS?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

unfortunately (?) i think you're dreaming to believe that all or even most indies will agree on some type of collective document or letter, because opinions on this issue vary so much among indies, and so divided

as an example, you have some indies (like some of the indiegamer.com crowd) who believe that pirates are scum and should all be sent to jail, and some indies who feel that piracy should not be a crime and that everything should be free, and that even selling games (not making games public domain) is a crime

basically, you are not going to get all indies to agree on such a thing. indie is short for independent, remember, and that includes independent opinions from one another

[Christian Knudsen]

Sorry for going off-topic, but where in the world is DUI a "socially accepted" crime?!

[increpare]

Sorry for going off-topic, but where in the world is DUI a "socially accepted" crime?!

It was in ireland for a very long time, only got it in order in the mid-late nineties.  And even then it probably still depends on your demographic.

[starsrift]

(it's like herding cats)

We're TIGSource, not indiegamer. Maybe we can try? What sort of things would you like to see in such a statement, Eres? What would you say to gamers to monetize them? Introversion and Notch have proven that it's possible, at least. (not intended to provoke a derailment of the merits of Notch and Introversion)

Sorry for going off-topic, but where in the world is DUI a "socially accepted" crime?!

I live in Canada. It's stunning the difference in the number of cars parked overnight by a bar on weekends where there's a roadblock and weekends where there isn't.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i would not like to see anything in such a statement, personally, because i would not claim to speak for other members of tigsource

also, i am not really concerned with pipa, sopa, etc. -- i do not feel as if they affect me. basically those bills are concerned with a battle between two *huge* powers: huge corporations which make IP and huge corporations which profit from piracy. i don't particularly care about either force

i feel that the internet's reaction to those bills is an overreaction, and kind of stupid. those bills will not affect everyday people very much, they're just a battle between huge forces over our heads. the idea that a corporation cares about some kid's AMV and would take down youtube because of it is ridiculous, they care about corporations like megaupload which (supposedly) profit from hosting pirated files

so basically i do not feel as if these bills matter to indies very much. we could get "caught in the crossfire" perhaps, because big battles always have collateral damage. but those bills are not designed to protect indie games, and also are not designed to suppress free speech, those bills are merely one set of corporations going after another set of corporations. i'm not saying it wouldn't affect us at all, but i think any effects would be very minor, perhaps unnoticeable

i also am upset that the internet seems to care so much about sopa/pipa/open and so little about the indefinite detention bill (the national defense authorization act). their priorities are really messed up

[Ben_Hurr]

i also am upset that the internet seems to care so much about sopa/pipa/open and so little about the indefinite detention bill (the national defense authorization act). their priorities are really messed up

The what bill?
Well by god man, bring some attention to it.  I never would have heard of it if you didn't mention this just now.

[s0]

i also am upset that the internet seems to care so much about sopa/pipa/open and so little about the indefinite detention bill (the national defense authorization act). their priorities are really messed up

probably because sopa and pipa would at least indirectly affect people outside the us and not everyone on the interweb is american.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@ben_hurr - it's a bit too late for that, obama already signed it into law a few weeks ago (cue 35 minutes ago joke)

but yes, the military now has the power, by law, to detain anyone, for any undisclosed reason, for any length of time, without trial or a lawyer, including US citizens either in the US or abroad

considering there are bills like that being passed, it's weird to me that all these sites are shutting down to encourage everyone to write to congress to oppose a much less important (although still bad) bill

@c.a. sinclair - indefinite detention happens *mostly* to non-americans though, so those people should worry about being taken to american secret prisons too. it's true that the US already does it, but now it's law that they *can* do it, before they just did it illegally / without legal basis

[s0]

from what ive read about the indefinite detention bill, the big deal seems to be that the us gov can now indefinitely detain *american citizens* suspected of terrorism.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

that was the big deal about the controversy surrounding it, because that goes against the constitution, but the bill actually does not discriminate:

Pursuant to the AUMF passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."[18] An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate.[19]

in other words, there was going to be an amendment to specifically say that what it says *does not* apply to US citizens, but that amendment was rejected. so now it covers everyone, not just non-US citizens. but even *with* that amendment, the bill would still apply to non-US citizens

[jotapeh]

i would not like to see anything in such a statement, personally, because i would not claim to speak for other members of tigsource

also, i am not really concerned with pipa, sopa, etc. -- i do not feel as if they affect me. basically those bills are concerned with a battle between two *huge* powers: huge corporations which make IP and huge corporations which profit from piracy. i don't particularly care about either force

i feel that the internet's reaction to those bills is an overreaction, and kind of stupid. those bills will not affect everyday people very much, they're just a battle between huge forces over our heads. the idea that a corporation cares about some kid's AMV and would take down youtube because of it is ridiculous, they care about corporations like megaupload which (supposedly) profit from hosting pirated files

so basically i do not feel as if these bills matter to indies very much. we could get "caught in the crossfire" perhaps, because big battles always have collateral damage. but those bills are not designed to protect indie games, and also are not designed to suppress free speech, those bills are merely one set of corporations going after another set of corporations. i'm not saying it wouldn't affect us at all, but i think any effects would be very minor, perhaps unnoticeable

i also am upset that the internet seems to care so much about sopa/pipa/open and so little about the indefinite detention bill (the national defense authorization act). their priorities are really messed up

Both bills are very unlikely to affect you, personally (or any indies I guess.) How does that make standing up for either one less conscionable than the other? There is precedent for large corporations pursuing low income individuals to 'make an example' of them, as well as precedent for corporations using the power of the DMCA to take down content that they have no rights to.

Further.. SOPA and PIPA are directly relevant to the internet. Why shouldn't we stand up for it, on the internet of all places?


The NDAA 2012 provisions are absolutely important but they are the same human rights violations "counter-terrorist" bullshit we have seen from the US for 10+ years now. If anything, it simply puts into law a practice that has been going on for years now. It's nothing new and the same people who have been resisting these unfair laws for 10 years still do so today.

The real issue being that it's a lot harder for some reason to convince United States Citizens that "counter-terrorism" is code for "rights violations" than it is to convince them that "counter-piracy" is.

On a side note, SOPA and PIPA would change the landscape of the internet for everyone inside the US, potentially allowing corporations to shut down foreign sites with political agendas they disagree with - including the repeal of indefinite detention without due process, if they had any inclination to do so.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@jotapeh - i disagree that NDAA 2012 isn't likely to affect me. as i see it, SOPA etc. are for corporations against corporations, whereas indefinite detention is for government against normal people who speak out against it. remember that al-awlaki (one of the us citizens obama assassinated, along with his 16-year-old son) was not found guilty of any crime, all he did was speak out against the government and encourage others to become terrorists through youtube videos, which falls under free speech

so basically i still think 'being able to kill people for free speech' is a bigger problem than 'being able to kill websites for hosting pirated material or linking to it', although both are certainly problems. so because i don't pirate anything (or barely ever, there were a few exceptions like NES roms in the past), but do speak out against the government, NDAA 2012 is more likely to affect me than something like SOPA (although i do see how the other might be more important if that were reversed)

[baconman]

SOPA/PIPA/Indefinite Suspension Acts are missing two VITAL elements necessary to be good laws.

1. Consumer's/Civilian's Rights. (In fact, it seems a way of indefinitely DESTROYING these.)

2. Limitation of Government influence - some kind of definitive like that the government cannot cross legally.

These aren't "creating" new laws. They're simply destroying the ones we have, which are geared towards protecting people's rights.

[Ben_Hurr]

Yes, somehow I find the idea of being silently picked up by the US military for no reason for an indefinate time much spookier than the US being able to shut down websites at will.  


Goddamn your country keeps getting spookier, Paul.  

edit:
You know, that makes me wonder if civilians are being distracted with lesser things like SOPA and PIPA while much more scary things like the Indefinate Detainment act are snuck into place.