|
Post by Aphoristic on Nov 1, 2014 23:50:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Nov 5, 2014 16:15:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Nov 5, 2014 20:27:37 GMT -5
A great video from Sargon of Akkad. A notable point in the video is when the person claims nobody cared about the Shadow of Mordor controversy, and Sargon shows how TB blew the lid and Boogie claimed that because of that contracts were being rewritten. I think this is why GamerGate is still a thing, when everybody else gets caught with the proverbial hand in the cookie jar, they take their hand out. Whereas with Gawker and many of these websites and personalities decided to crush all the cookies and claim the cookies don't even exist...that analogy could've been better. ANYWAY
|
|
tiesieman
True Bro
mental lagger
Posts: 1,401
|
Post by tiesieman on Nov 6, 2014 6:27:07 GMT -5
is this still going on
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Nov 7, 2014 2:45:37 GMT -5
It's different when it's now legal for a person to download a game once a single person buys it and puts it online for free. This is correct. But, the fact that retail sales still exist with nearly everything being downloadable shows that many value 'embodiment' below. Embodiment as a selling point is two layered, personalization and physicality. Significant scale, sure, but I would maintain the (unsubstantiated) assertion that the vast majority of pirates are not at risk. You seem to be misunderstanding. I am partially to blame. The group would be front loading their potential profit. Either someone pays, or absolutely nothing is released. No final package, no ripping. I should have had the contract stating that the party members are bound not to release anything at all to make that clear. All third parties are bound by the fact that they must steal a physical piece of property to get to the software, thus incurring the cost of every effect (including potential profit from the data) granted by said physical device. The common 'utilities' had voracious competition in late 19th century America, with 6-5 competitors at any one time in every big city for things like electricity, plumbing, firefighting, until the government started granting (or taking, in the case of firefighters) regional monopolies (man, screw ComEd), so there's something to be said for a generic increase in the number of firms, regardless of brands. But you're probably right, likely only the number of competitors in a given brand field would increase significantly. As for engine, they'd just be marketing the package to developers who want good engines, and they can do the same thing as the group in the earlier example. Engines fundamentally help developers, therefore developers would find a way to fund developers to make them. That is the simplest economic law of societies. If people want things, people will find a way to pay people to make them. Granted. This one isn't that relevant. Except, one can conceive of any number of schemes for immediacy tied to many of the below factors. Mousey, even the Keynesians acknowledge that labour price theory (thanks, David Ricardo) is a crock of doo doo. Value is entirely, utterly, and purely, subjective. 100%. There is no such thing as an objective and universal economic valuation, on any terms, ever. Things cost more because producers recognize people who want personalization that's worth the producer's time are high up on the demand curve. They're willing to pay a lot for the specific tailoring. The point is not that it would be cheaper, the point is that it is a viable monetization mechanism in the absence of IP. People pay for all sorts of silly things that come from humans. Who's to say that scientists or companies wouldn't want yours for some reason or another? Yeah, I know, the language they use is heavy handed and unlikely. But, still, it's possible. I remember my business law class teaching me about contracts. People who sell knock offs become liable for the implicit terms of the contract, where it's pretty clear that the purchaser meant "the good one that actually functions in a manner pleasing to me, and which has the real assurance of the authentication company in question". It's in their best interest not to cheat anyone at all, and to try to be clean and reliable. No, it's still doable. Authenticity can easily be tied to a method with permanency. It could be some complex crypto-system like bitcoin, with an authentication app, like you said. Or a call service center. You could ask an authenticity company if a particular store, or even persons, have their assurance. Heck, it can even be tied to a distribution service like Steam, where their servers only respond if you enter the proper authentication code (like Blizzard's authenticator keychain or something, like in USB form or something). If something goes awry, basic contract law has you covered, with the distributor and the authenticator's necks on the line. And I'd be willing to bet there would be less overhead than the current government bureaucracy involved in IP. This is one part personalization as a monetization scheme, and the other part physical permanency. You can see that from the above. I think there's an assumption you missed in the passage about embodiment. It's setting up a possible situation where consumers won't have a certain form of embodiment because it's too expensive for personal use. So they go to a hologram theater, because again the assumption is the consumer doesn't have this ability commonly, like they wouldn't have a live performance commonly. Thus the hologram theaters pay companies or people to create a holographic version of a given movie or something, or pay for the doodads on cameras that allow holographic recording, or something. Again, this is just another monetization scheme. It's a viable one, that exists currently, and existed long in the past. The principle is the same as always. Plus, people with more money are more likely to donate to things. But, my dear Mousey, this was not about the real workers getting paid, this is about reputation and honesty. The monetization stuff was covered earlier, and R&D will be paid, precisely because of how inexpendible they are to everyone else down the line, but only so much as other people demand in a free market. To suggest there is a 'proper' payment for work is ridiculous, because value is subjective. Some work is simply not as profitable as other work, and no moral judgement can be passed to say that effort (which is part quantitative and part qualitative, part objective and part subjective) is to be rewarded in a static, mathematical way that is outside the will of the market. Nobody is so entitled that others must purchase their good if they don't want to. To live in society at all is to submit to the subjective appraisal of others. Since effort is subjective, and economic valuation subjective, there can be no universally just payment for it. Sorry for misinterpreting you. You may be right, DRM and always online games are just another monetization scheme that would be picked up in the wake of lack of IP. But, we can't really say for sure that it would be more viable a monetization scheme. The market might favor one or the other, so there might be more or less, depending. I'm saying that a dramatic economic change will benefit society based on economic law. Definite, irrefutable, stalwart economic law. These are not hypotheticals. Malinvestment will be removed, and the proportion of efficiency will inevitably increase. No, of course the free market isn't perfectly efficient, nothing is and nothing can be, but inefficiency is punished quickly, and naturally. IP blocks this. Therefore, society would benefit. No market is fundamentally different from any other. Open Source will find a way where it is not a novelty if society deems it worthy through economics, and who's to say that it won't retain that due to developers making more DRM or employing some other scheme, or decrease in the size (or number, I realize now that I was wrong on this too) of firms due to the demands of society, the market, and efficiency? No. The parable of the broken window was made by Frédéric Bastiat. No greater authority to its use would exist in him, then? Even if so, he has some strong points as to its use. That which is seen and that which is not seen is important. The parable represents unforeseen consequences incurring costs in a less immediate scale. You are not seeing the margin or opportunity cost. Every excess worker decreases the marginal profit of their profession as a whole due to inefficiency, which cannot be calculated by econometrics or empirical approaches (being exclusively quantitative, and presuming 'objective' value in things such as money) yet still is an inevitability of economic law. Further, the merit of other business for those individuals is misrepresented due to inflated worth generated by artificial demand due to IP monopoly. The opportunity to employ these people more efficiently (that is, more in accord with the wishes of society at large) is lost. Thus, the purchasing power of a medium of exchange is diluted, progress is slowed. Damage is done due to unforeseen consequences. No faith alone, as I've said before. It's knowledge of the economic law that leads me to these conclusions. Practically, several thousand people might become unemployed, and very suddenly. Of course, it couldn't be sudden since so big a change would leak out to people, I think. Nor would I want it to. I would want everyone to know that we're changing this thing ASAP. Of course, I doubt any authoritarian government would ever do this either, lending to the lack of suddenness. The few cannot be sacrificed for the sake of the many, to be sure, but when the few are founded on the unjust destruction of the wealth of society due to a coercive and immoral institution? Yes, of course the institution must end, since said institution creates evil, whereas employment, dishonest (not intentionally so) employment at that, is not inherently good, nor can it be considered that way. Non-complete abolition will create a mire of bureaucratic nightmare (only a nightmare to the honest ones) and corruption (if the comparison holds, the dishonest bureaucrats will benefit like they did in the Soviet Union), and perhaps several years of painful change where no fundamental malinvestment is corrected. Malinvestment is very, very quickly re-invested properly into the places it should be (Should be, in the case of the capital that's not completely lost due to non-transferability and the consumable capital has been used up already. This stuff is the wealth that's utterly destroyed by malinvestment.), and I have no doubt that the honest and worthwhile people would find jobs then, reallocating themselves into more worthwhile industries. On recession. Recession is the inevitable (again, economic law, always certain) result of malinvestment. You can either delay it and make the bust (and commensurate poverty, joblessness, and harm to society) worse, or get it over with ASAP and get to work on real, stable, healthy economic conditions. Delaying it will only make us and our children's pains all the more pointed. Those are the only two options. :( I am no utopianist. No perfect society can ever exist. It's silly to say that 'my system only works if you take all of the changes I outline all at once'. I know that any movement in this direction will, as dictated by the (natural) economic law, will generate a positive for society. I am no utilitarian either. Efficiency is not the ultimate goal for me, justice is. Few cannot be sacrificed for the sake of the many. But, intellectual property isn't a natural or just institution. Perhaps I was speaking from the wrong angle, then, but I thought Mousey wouldn't accept a straight faced denial of the moral legitimacy of intellectual property. Oh it sure does fix Journalism. Now any journalist can copy and paste articles from others and its totally fine. It does, it does. You remember the whole 'exclusivity' incentive? The one where journalists need to buddy up with developers to get them? Yeah, that's gone. Check off one of the major corrupting incentives.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Nov 7, 2014 12:16:07 GMT -5
Oh it sure does fix Journalism. Now any journalist can copy and paste articles from others and its totally fine. It does, it does. You remember the whole 'exclusivity' incentive? The one where journalists need to buddy up with developers to get them? Yeah, that's gone. Check off one of the major corrupting incentives. I think you missed the part where anyone could legally steal an article.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Nov 7, 2014 12:54:37 GMT -5
It does, it does. You remember the whole 'exclusivity' incentive? The one where journalists need to buddy up with developers to get them? Yeah, that's gone. Check off one of the major corrupting incentives. I think you missed the part where anyone could legally steal an article. There are two possibilities. One, stealing and property are entirely positive, and they are defined exclusively by human artifice. By this interpretation, it would no longer be stealing, since IP wouldn't be considered property by the law. It seems you don't take this position. The other possibility is that 'stealing' and 'property' are defined by the natural law. I think this is what you mean. Would you care to elaborate on why an idea can be 'owned' where there is no positive agency?
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Nov 7, 2014 13:47:15 GMT -5
There is nothing that would stop someone from cloning a website in its entirety, only changing the ads to get revenue. If you don't see how that is a problem, then I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Nov 7, 2014 15:00:15 GMT -5
There is nothing that would stop someone from cloning a website in its entirety, only changing the ads to get revenue. If you don't see how that is a problem, then I don't know what to tell you. Instead, prove why that's a problem. This is how discussions work. If you don't want a discussion, then don't tell me anything at all. You haven't listened to anything I said, or surely you would have come up with some reasons designed to convince me? Try trying. I hate using the rhetoric of a victim. You know something would go here like 'I am being marginalized' or 'not taken seriously' or 'you're just not getting it'. That's stupid. I'd rather all such discussion be where the benefit of the doubt is given, where every attempt is made to understand eachother. I would accuse you of making no attempt to understand me, or any of my claims.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Nov 7, 2014 18:11:34 GMT -5
Jaedrik, I'd like to think you're smart enough that none of what you just said came out of your mouth, so I'm just gonna pretend it didn't and drop it there. I always think this, and he always proves me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Nov 7, 2014 20:00:16 GMT -5
There is nothing that would stop someone from cloning a website in its entirety, only changing the ads to get revenue. If you don't see how that is a problem, then I don't know what to tell you. Instead, prove why that's a problem. This is how discussions work. If you don't want a discussion, then don't tell me anything at all. You haven't listened to anything I said, or surely you would have come up with some reasons designed to convince me? Try trying. I hate using the rhetoric of a victim. You know something would go here like 'I am being marginalized' or 'not taken seriously' or 'you're just not getting it'. That's stupid. I'd rather all such discussion be where the benefit of the doubt is given, where every attempt is made to understand eachother. I would accuse you of making no attempt to understand me, or any of my claims. "Prove why this is a problem" Simple, say I make my money from ad revenue. I make and maintain a website, the servers, staff to write articles, etc... and I'm just a small time business, just 3-4 employees. Now let's say IGN (a company bought by Rupert Murdoch) comes along and copy and pastes every single thing I've done. Now what happens is IGN has more leverage with Google searches so what happens is everything I and my employees work towards is being pilfered by IGN, taking away my income and the income of my employees. How is that not a problem? That's the exact opposite of any kind of merit based system. PS this was an example inspired by that whole Tmartn and that other dude debacle. People profiting off of others ideas while the originator of an idea suffer. As to why ideas should be property, it's because you own yourself do you not? If you build something with your hands, is that not yours? Why would ideas be any different? You thought of it, you put forth the effort to put your ideas out there. Yes, Open Source and Freeware and the likes work, but it's because IT IS OPTIONAL and you STILL have to give credit to the original creator (because of copyright laws)
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Nov 7, 2014 20:00:19 GMT -5
If you want to convince us you have to explain it better instead of regurgitating some pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Stop fucking obfuscating your messages with the thesaurus on your desk. You are on a video game forum. Stop typing like you are writing your masters and complaining when everyone else gets fed up trying to respond to your shit.
If I submitted your shit to /r/iamverysmart it would be one of the top posts of all time.
Hell what did you do when you started this bullshit discussion? YOU LITERALLY LINKED TO WIKIPEDIA, NOBODY FUCKING READ IT, SO YOU COPIED AND PASTED IT AS IF WE WOULD NOW WANT TO READ IT. Fucking EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION without basically telling us to educate ourselves.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Nov 7, 2014 21:06:21 GMT -5
There is nothing that would stop someone from cloning a website in its entirety, only changing the ads to get revenue. If you don't see how that is a problem, then I don't know what to tell you. Instead, prove why that's a problem. This is how discussions work. If you don't want a discussion, then don't tell me anything at all. You haven't listened to anything I said, or surely you would have come up with some reasons designed to convince me? Try trying. I hate using the rhetoric of a victim. You know something would go here like 'I am being marginalized' or 'not taken seriously' or 'you're just not getting it'. That's stupid. I'd rather all such discussion be where the benefit of the doubt is given, where every attempt is made to understand eachother. I would accuse you of making no attempt to understand me, or any of my claims. It is a problem because people put work into that website. Human beings don't like it when someone else takes credit for something they did. We like being acknowledged for our toil and what we accomplished by it. Your suggestion that the industry would further itself regardless is irrelevant as people would be unwilling to accept it without some form of group-think indoctrination. You also don't seem to understand where the burden of proof lies. Instead of us having to prove that you are wrong, how about you prove to us that your proposal would result in a better system than the one we have or one we could achieve without the elimination of intellectual property rights.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Nov 7, 2014 22:45:13 GMT -5
So Blizzcon opened today with Bilzzard's CEO giving a statement about GamerGate (he didn't say GamerGate but everyone knows he was referring to the whole controversy.) All he said was that he wants people to reject hate and harassment. All of the games media sites are spinning that to mean he is anti-gg, when in reality he said things about as neutral as possible. It's really sad that this crap happens. Now no other company will make a similar statement out of fear that their words will also get spun.
It's honestly disgusting and the reason this whole movement started. The games media is trying to control things. It needs to stop.
|
|
Spectre
True Bro
Guardian.
Posts: 89
|
Post by Spectre on Nov 30, 2014 10:20:18 GMT -5
I knew little about this GG thing except for some tweets from TB (whom i follow on youtube and twitter, JUST TO DISCLOSE THAT I MAY BE INHERENTLY BIASED WRTING ABOUT THIS), but reading the first posts (not the IP or not discussion) i grew curious about it, so i went online and searched some info.
I... Just... I don't know maybe i'm getting old (i'm 20) for the internet, maybe i'm missing something but to me it's pretty clear that the whole ordeal was used and abused by every side involved in it to essentially say whatever the Foxtrot they wanted about it AND twist everything the other sides said to further support everyone's opinion/position.
I am genuinely amazed by all of this, only thing i can say is that hate and violence (both physical and verbal that is) reign supreme on the interwebs, and the few that try to be resonable are also caught in the gigantic shitornado and are consequiently silenced. I personally agree with the position of TB, which is at least non-violent in nature.
But in the end i still don't care too much about it, i didn't take part in it and i don't intend to
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 1, 2014 11:27:07 GMT -5
Read a bit... I see how the media has twisted things into an anti GG campaign by painting GG to be an actual group instead of just a hashtag originally intended to be used to ctiticize the media.
All I'll say is fuck the fucking fuckers, both the unethical "journalists" and the misogynistic hate mongers. More so the second group, honestly. Yes I don't like corrupt, unethical practices in journalism, but I have a far greater tolerance for it than flat out bigotry and rape/death threats. The ones who commit the first should lose their jobs, the second should be in prison... hard core anal rape prison. Death/rape threats should be taken seriously regardless of the medium of communication. Fuck. Those. Fuckers. Now I'm not talking about people who blow up and say something like "Kill all the lawyers!" in jest or whatever. (Although if they keep repeating it and are serious about it then it becomes hate speech...) I mean the people who are making specific, and repeated threats at particular people. If you called someone on the phone every day and threatened them you'd go to jail. Internet shouldn't be an excuse to get away with it. There are limits to free speech, and always have been.
But the media can fuck off too.
As for GG... oh well... The problem is that it's just a hashtag, not an organized movement. So just because there is enough sentiment that people use the hashtag to complain about the media it's still a bunch of nothing. A hashtag can't defend it-self, and can't reign in the biggots that decide to use it. Unless an actual, organized group comes out of this I just don't see GG having much effect, it's already been mostly neutralized since the only thing the majority of people know about GG has been what the media has told them about it.
I think you also need to find some allies in the media. Doesn't have to be gaming media. But if you want to get the message out about corruption and unethical practices in the gaming media you really need to get other media establishments reporting on it. The media is supposed to be self policing so we have to hold them to that standard. It's pretty flawed since most media has sold it's dignity and integrity to maximize profits for shareholders, but unless your aim is to replace the whole system you gotta work with what you got. (As for replacing the whole system... good luck.)
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Dec 1, 2014 13:39:42 GMT -5
Those "misogynistic hate mongers" are simply the same internet trolls that have existed forever. They are just being portrayed as representative of everyone so the journalists can detract from their critics.
People have tried combating trolls before, and it hasn't worked. It's not even possible to make laws against them, because the definitions would be too broad, and it would impact free speech. It's a side effect of having free speech.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 1, 2014 14:04:55 GMT -5
There are already laws against a lot of this kind of speech. I'm not saying every troll should go to jail. That's something else completely. But there's trolling, and then there's death/rape threats and constant harassment. Free speech doesn't protect that kind of usage. Law enforcement is simply ill equipped and understaffed to deal with what is considered a low priority item. The internet has traditionally been an anarchy and what you did online had little chance of having any RL consequences, unlike other means of communication. If we ever want the Internet to fully mature as a part of our society that has to change. The internet is not immune to laws just because someone yells "free speech!".
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Dec 1, 2014 15:03:15 GMT -5
There are already laws against a lot of this kind of speech. I'm not saying every troll should go to jail. That's something else completely. But there's trolling, and then there's death/rape threats and constant harassment. Free speech doesn't protect that kind of usage. Law enforcement is simply ill equipped and understaffed to deal with what is considered a low priority item. The internet has traditionally been an anarchy and what you did online had little chance of having any RL consequences, unlike other means of communication. If we ever want the Internet to fully mature as a part of our society that has to change. The internet is not immune to laws just because someone yells "free speech!". There's a difference between harassment and being an asshole though. Free speech lets you be an asshole.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 1, 2014 15:03:29 GMT -5
Exactly. GG is just tag. It's not a group, or a movement, or anything. If people want to aspire to that then they will have to actually organize.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 1, 2014 15:04:55 GMT -5
There's a difference between harassment and being an asshole though. Free speech lets you be an asshole. That's very true. But the trolling that I'm referencing is the stuff that crosses the line from merely being an asshole into full blown harassment, and it should be prosecuted.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Dec 1, 2014 15:05:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Dec 1, 2014 15:13:36 GMT -5
There's a difference between harassment and being an asshole though. Free speech lets you be an asshole. That's very true. But the trolling that I'm referencing is the stuff that crosses the line from merely being an asshole into full blown harassment, and it should be prosecuted. And if they actually have harassers, they should be perusing it legally. Remember Sarkeesian's death threat that prevented her from attending a presentation at a university? The police did investigate it, and found it to lack credibility. You didn't hear any major news sites report this though. You don't tweet about it and invite imitators. She wanted to play victim, and it worked. People keep buying into it. This professional victim bullsh it needs to stop. All it does is detract from her actual critics. You aren't allowed to criticize her work without being labeled a harasser. Why do you think she disables comments and ratings on all of her videos?
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 1, 2014 19:14:27 GMT -5
Honestly I don't give a flying fuc k as to whether or not the trolls are representative of GG. If a group has no means of differentiating itself from them That's literally every single thing though so that's a shit argument. The Onion and other parody sites have been taken seriously by various media and personality for years. People hack and pretend to be people all the time. Fucking Stephen Colbert has been attacked for a quote he didn't even say. So I'm sorry, that's a really shit argument in the era of the internet.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 1, 2014 19:23:45 GMT -5
I don't think so. Thing is with a hastag a troll using it has literally as much a right to it as anybody else. They don't have to pretend to be GG, if you want to go be GG then just pop #gamergate in a tweet and you're legit. There's no organization, no hierarchy, no leadership. There is at best an ideal and some people talking to each other about it. It's not even a group. Of course that's not how the media are portraying GG, and that is unfair.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Dec 1, 2014 19:48:47 GMT -5
It was never the trolls making people think it was about misogyny. It was the journalist sites diverting attention from themselves by labeling it as misogyny.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 1, 2014 20:12:21 GMT -5
I guess overall I just don't care anymore. I've seen people, even outside of GG, openly admit to being a terrible human being, and then somehow successfully crying victim if you as so much disagree with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 20:20:05 GMT -5
So uh... this popped up on Imgur.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 5, 2014 22:41:18 GMT -5
Agreed.
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Dec 5, 2014 22:45:52 GMT -5
You found a screencap of a tweet that has a screencap of a youtube comment. On imgur. Nice.
|
|