i just think piracy is a mass movement.

I am not impressed by it because I will loose out.

we have to be careful in accepting the athoritarian clamp down on piracy because it really a case of elites controling government to crack down on a popular mass movement.

instead lets just sidestep the problem of piracy - rather than hit it head on - sidestep the issue.

in most case, socialism is the answer. socialism and freedom go hand in hand.

I'm with Deyja, im not gunna pay for something that i probably won't have the time to enjoy. We pay for lazy ass people to live and then many people just take advantage of that. Why should i pay for someone to enjoy games when i probably won't be able to enjoy them as much when i get a real job?

On an Off note:
Communism is bad. Its a totally unfair way of rewarding people. A capitalist economy works to reward those that step out to gain intelligence or take big business risks. If your too lazy to get an education and do something in your life then you deserve to die in a ditch. (This doesn't mean i support bush)

You can't expect people to pay for something they don't need in life. The only thing i think we should add taxes for is for health care. I think people should get free health care because health almost always gets bad. Everyone will get sick sometime and i think we should make it free to whoever pays their taxes.

himm we talk of capitalism vs communism.

i find it disturbing that people confuse socialism with communism.

the suggestion being, what I advocated is communist and not the pragmatic stroke of brilliance that it is! :-P

people vote for socialistic governments - so this is what they should get right? or does your individual opinion deserver greater weight? of course this not so - and socialism (or not) through the vote is always rightful.

Just remember to keep in mind that not every instance of a pirated program equates to a lost sale. Most of those pirated copies are made by people that likely wouldn't have bought the software to begin with. 100 pirated games that retail for $50 isn't $5000 lost money, it's probably realistically only a fraction of that, but it's not something we'll ever really know for sure.

Quote: Original post by Deyja
I'm the lead designer at the biggest game company in America. My game is full of zombies and giant lumbering demons who spount gallons of blood. The FCC demands I replace the BFG with a super soaker 2000 and the demons with bunnies, or it won't pay for my game.

This, it seems to me, is the only valid complaint. If the government controls the funding, then the government has the ability to control the content.

In the UK, we have independant organisations whose job it is to ensure that the state-funded media (i.e. the BBC) are as free from governmental interference as the privately-funded media.

Besides which, the government wouldn't pay companies directly. Instead, private organisations would recieve money from the government, and those would distribute their alloted funds. Some would be companies, some charities. This increases the degree of seperation between government and developer, making it more difficult for the government to interfere.

Quote: Original post by SumDude
I'm with Deyja, im not gunna pay for something that i probably won't have the time to enjoy. We pay for lazy ass people to live and then many people just take advantage of that. Why should i pay for someone to enjoy games when i probably won't be able to enjoy them as much when i get a real job?

Why games, specifically? Do you listen to music? Read books? Watch television? Watch spectator sports? All these things are forms of entertainment, and would eventually be funded or partially funded by an entertainment tax.

Quote:
Communism is bad. Its a totally unfair way of rewarding people.

Communism isn't an unfair way of rewarding people, because it isn't a way of rewarding people. The communist principle is that people deserve life and the ability to enjoy life, not that those things are a reward.

Quote:
A capitalist economy works to reward those that step out to gain intelligence or take big business risks.

No, a capitalist economy works to reward those who are in the right place at the right time. Whilst it's true that you have to do something to succeed in a capitalist economy, there are people who work hard all day every day and reep no benefits of the capitalist system, whilst there are people who do as little as possible and happen, by pure luck, to become hugely successful.

Quote:
If your too lazy to get an education and do something in your life then you deserve to die in a ditch.

Do you seriously believe that people who are unable to find work deserve to die?

Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve
i think entertainment is essential.

Your opinion and not one shared by the majority.

Quote: once the system is in place, electorates would then be influential in the allocation of these resources.

Right, people who wont even go out to vote for important issues like government are going to do so over the allocation of funding to media. Note: You can't using this system just for games, it would have to be for every creative media (books, films, comics etc) as they all suffer piracy to a greater or lesser degree. The publishing industry would allow just games to be taken over it would have to be all or nothing.

Quote: In britain we have the BBC which well, u can opt out by not having a television - but that would be just stupid - weather you watch it or not you pay the fee.

The BBC isn't a valid example - it is state owned. What you are proposing is to force all creative media into state control (which certainly didn't work in any of the socialist states).

Quote: I would imagine that all technical problems with the system could be mostly counterable.

Then you obviously haven't given it proper thought. Valve can barely get Steam working to download just their games. Now you propose that all games be given away in a similar manner? The technical requirements for this are awesome and the businesses that maintain the Internet infrastructure certainly wont be willing to support such an undertaking for free.

This is a massive bureaucratic and technical undertaking that the majority of tax payers wouldn't be interested in and simply wouldn't accept.

The game industry generates $16 billion dollars in revenue worldwide and provides employment for thousands and thousands of people. You are proposing to kill software retailers, duplicators, PR companies, distributors, publishers and console makers (these latter lose money on their consoles and make it on the sale of software). You are wiping out a $16 billion industry and turning it into a tax and bureaucratic burden on the state to "eliminate" piracy which costs a few million dollars. It simply makes no sense at all.

Quote: Original post by Obscure

Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve
i think entertainment is essential.

Your opinion and not one shared by the majority.

I think the majority do share that opinion, to a degree. What the majority probably think is that entertainment is essential to them, but that nobody else deserves to have it.

Quote:

Quote: once the system is in place, electorates would then be influential in the allocation of these resources.

Right, people who wont even go out to vote for important issues like government are going to do so over the allocation of funding to media.

Well, you seem pretty cut up about it. From what I can see, by far the majority of Americans are vigorously opposed to helping the less fortunate. I suspect that Americans would be only to happy to vote against any candidate who suggested setting up this kind of system.

Quote:

Quote: In britain we have the BBC which well, u can opt out by not having a television - but that would be just stupid - weather you watch it or not you pay the fee.

The BBC isn't a valid example - it is state owned. What you are proposing is to force all creative media into state control (which certainly didn't work in any of the socialist states).

That doesn't follow. The BBC is state owned, but it is not state controlled. In fact both the BBC and state pride themselves on the lack of governmental control. They imagine that the fact that the government could control the state-funded media but choose not to shows that we are a civilised people.

Besides which, what he is proposing is not to force all creative media into state control, but to provide state funding for creative media. To assume that funding automatically leads to control is to follow the slippery slope fallacy.

Quote:

Quote: I would imagine that all technical problems with the system could be mostly counterable.

Then you obviously haven't given it proper thought. Valve can barely get Steam working to download just their games. Now you propose that all games be given away in a similar manner? The technical requirements for this are awesome and the businesses that maintain the Internet infrastructure certainly wont be willing to support such an undertaking for free.

The Internet has been being used to distribute data for quite some time. All the technical problems of downloadable games have been solved. That is not a valid complaint.

Quote:
The game industry generates $16 billion dollars in revenue worldwide and provides employment for thousands and thousands of people. You are proposing to kill software retailers, duplicators, PR companies, distributors, publishers and console makers (these latter lose money on their consoles and make it on the sale of software). You are wiping out a $16 billion industry and turning it into a tax and bureaucratic burden on the state to "eliminate" piracy which costs a few million dollars. It simply makes no sense at all.

The system isn't to "eliminate" piracy. The system is based upon the observation that if the majority practice (or would practice if technically capable) piracy, then it is worth considering whether or not piracy should still be illegal.

People that I talk to would be happy to pay more for a console if the games were cheaper. Hardware doesn't need to be free, because it is beyond most people's means to make unauthorised copies of hardware.

Of course, it's unavoidable that there'd be unemployment as a result. We could take SumDude's approach and let the people that lost their job die in a ditch, but I feel that's a litle unfair. There are more important things that people don't get for free, such as food, water, accomodation and healthcare. If I was going to lose my job because people were getting something for free, I'd rather it was something that people couldn't live without.

Quote: Original post by Obscure
Entertainment is non-essential
Entertainment is by personal choice
Why should tax payers who don't want or like game pay to fund games just because the people who do like games are too dishonest to pay for them?

Good point. However if you put your child in private school all his life you still pay tax to maintain state schools. If you go private on your medical bill you still pay tax to support state hospitals. So a precedent is set :)

Quote: I'm a middle aged school teacher in boonyville, nebraska. My tax money is already paying for lazy people to stay on welfare. Now it's going to pay people to make... what are these? Moving things on the tv?

It also pays for you if you get struck off cos some kid accuses you of looking at him funny though...

perhaps the system could be piloted - ideally the BBC could create a music download server with a sort of reasonably large cash pool - its not ideal as I'd like it set up - but it would be interesting to see it expand.

It might be possible to set up a corporate sponsorship type approach too. It might be worth moving these suggestions to the p2p advocacy groups.

again, I return to issue of entertainment isnt essential.

that sort of statement is the stort of statement made by elitist who believe in a sort devine serfdom type set up. I tell you why:

consider yourself incharge of the country. you should be a good and fair ruler surely? should your people be put into a life of drugery and hard labour - because fun isnt essential? or should the fun be spread around?

there are two choices: just or unjust. a nations wealth is collectively held - an individual is nothing without society (indvidualistic libertarian daydreamer idiots if they disagree, should be stripped naked and dumped on remote island to fend for themselves - then they can own the fruits of their labour - if they can survive more than a week!). Since wealth by right is collectively held - its governments job to keep things all meritocratic and fair.

Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve
Since wealth by right is collectively held - its governments job to keep things all meritocratic and fair.

Not in a capitalist society it isn't. (Not to mention a meritocratic society doesn't seem to be the socialist/communist system you are suggesting as it would only reward those who achieve above and beyond the average with the benefits of society (say. downloading entertainment software, for example), those who do nothing to contribute wouldn't get anything...hmmm...kinda like capitalism).