Copyrights represent the value of an IP.

Period.

If you can't own an IP, you can't sell an IP. Thus, the IP has no value to you (or anyone).

Therefore there is no incentive to create an IP. Certainly no incentive to invest millions of dollars in it.

Games cost millions of dollars to make. Who would invest millions of dollars into making a game that you could not own the copyright for? It simply makes no sense.

People talk about IPs being left to rot. So what? If I owned the rights to Iron Man, would it not be up to me whether to make one or three or fifty movies? Would it not be my right to say, you know what, let's take a break from making Iron Man movies for a few years. People are getting burned out on them.

If I could not make these decisions, there would be no value in owning the Iron Man IP.

It's really not that complicated. Let's say stealing apples was suddenly legal. For whatever reason we decided that apples are fruits of the earth (figuratively) and thus, no one should have to buy them. Well, then stores certainly wouldn't buy them anymore, as there would be no point in having them. And thus, orchardists wouldn't bother growing them.

If you eliminate the ability to own (and thus control) things, you eliminate the incentive to make them.

And that nothing gets created in those places.

Perhaps you have a link otherwise, but my understanding of Friedman had him being in favor of copyrights and patents but being in favor of shorter finite terms. Like a copyright that would last 50 years instead of 100.

No copyright would be a disaster.

That's how the world works.

It's how ALL businesses work. If I open my own restaurant I can decide what's on the menu and where new locations are located (if at all). If I rather work for Olive Garden (even if I'm the head corporate chef who comes up with the recipes), I don't. Either way I am the creator of the food that is made. So what?

In example A, I can control whether my recipes are featured, sold to other restaurants, or published in a cook book. In example B, the "suits" decide what happens even if they choose to let it "rot." Why is that bad? Why shouldn't they?

That's business. There is nothing wrong with this. If the IP holder didn't own the IP he wouldn't be paying the developer to make the game.

You didn't actually disagree with anything I said. You merely attacked it as being something on fox news. Two can play at that game. What you are suggesting, quite literally, is communism. The worker gaining the fruits of his labor. That sort of thing. Yawn. I hate to break it to you, but communism doesn't work. Just look at the game industries in China, North Korea and Cuba to see what I'm talking about.

You need capital to make games.

If you want to create something you own, you need to come up with your own funding. If you need to seek funding from a corporation, that corporation is probably going to seek something in return. They are the ones taking the risk. You are working and getting paid. They take it in the shorts if the game tanks. Imagine you had a lot of money and a developer wanted you to pay them to make a game. What would you want in return for your investment?

And you act like contracts are something that is forced on a person. Contracts are two sided. If you don't want your fruits to be owned by suits, don't sign a contract that gives the suits control of your creative output. It isn't like you don't get to read your contract.

There's nothing inherently wrong with copyright law. And this DotA argument isn't even about copyright law. It's about trademarks.

Ask yourself why a person might spend five years creating a game? Is it because they have nothing better to do? Or because they are getting paid to create a game?

The answer is because they are getting paid.

So ask yourself why would someone pay someone to create something? Is it because they are generous idiots? Or because they are investing in something that they hope to be of value?

The answer is that they hope to obtain something of value.

This is basic stuff.

That thing of value is not the mere fact that a game exists, it is the right to be in exclusive control of that game. If there are no copyright laws, that thing of value disappears. Thus, there is no incentive for anyone to pay developers to make games. Thus, games don't get made.

It does not matter who owns the copyright. The developer/publisher can sell the copyright to Rupert Murdoch who can in turn sell it to Halliburton. It does not matter. The mere fact that the dev/pub had something of value to sell is what allowed the game to get made in the first place.

You have to be incredibly short sighted to miss this. Copyright laws create value which is what pays artists.

Age gates aren't for the benefit of the public. They are for the publisher. They are a CYA measure that allows the publisher to say: "don't blame us for your child looking at this stuff, blame your lying kid. We put up an age gate."

Plus, it takes two seconds to enter the info. For purposes of age gates I was born on 11/11/1911 simply because it's quick to enter. This is despite the fact that I am not 100 years old.

Hopefully this game has robust AI routines for intimidation and risk/reward, because in a game where bullets are scarce (and where enemies have shit-all in the way of loot) getting into gun fights is counter productive. You simply waste ammo killing a person who it would have been better to simply avoid or intimidate.

Shooting guns also draws a lot of attention.

There's a scene in the book referenced in the article above which illustrates this. The protagonist in The Road is protecting his son. They have two bullets left in their one gun. A group of bad guys is looking for them. Sure, he can kill any one of them. Maybe even two. But why? Better to bluff your way out.

I don't think we've seen that in a game and it's an entirely realistic predicament.

And online games are exactly like buffets.

As for whether you get to sell your hypothetical buffet plate more than once, that's up to your wife isn't it? If you sell it to your wife and she gives it back to you, yes, you could sell it to cousin Larry. If, on the other hand, you sell it on Craigslist or at your local Foodstop, you don't. It's exactly the same.

But your last argument really sums it up. You say it's about "greed." Greed is a loaded word. But we can agree that it's about money. OF COURSE it's about money. But greed implies too much money.

I don't know how much you follow the industry, but this industry doesn't make too much money. EA lost millions last year. So did Nintendo. So did Sony. So did Capcom. THQ is basically going under. No one is greedy. They are trying to survive. And, yes, online passes are a way to make money.

They haven't added an online pass requirement to an already purchased game. Not ever. Games with an online pass are sold with online passes.

If you are complaining that this isn't adequately stated on the box and that you were unpleasantly surprised by the inclusion of a pass, I don't know what to say. I haven't bought a game (other than ME2) which had a pass like system and in the case of ME2 it was pretty clearly put on the box. It said, FREE DLC CODE INSIDE!

Publishers are pretty upfront about which games include a free online pass and which ones don't need a pass.

There's no flaw here. The online portion of the game is being treated like a service because it IS a service.

And I don't know whether you are an entitled young whipper-snapper. Do you torrent games, movies, shows, and music?

Gaming is not a cheap hobby. I recognize this. As such, I don't buy as many games as I'd like to. I pick and choose. For the 360 last year, the only boxed games I bought for me (meaning not the kids) was Portal 2, Skyrim, and FIFA 12. Same with movies and music. I don't buy every album and movie that suits my fancy. I can't afford to. I get it that younger people are used to getting shit like movies and music for free, and well, too bad for them. I say to them, welcome to the real world where things cost money.

And restaurant food is not saleable.

And games are like an amusement park. Or at least they are like the plastic season pass to the amusement park. The game itself (at least the online portion) is not in your house. It's in a server somewhere. Hosted by the company.

Your argument that Office isn't a game cuts the wrong way. As a utility, Office is far far more important than any game. It's a goddamned utility.

You speak of rights as in no one has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with your games. This has nothing to do with telling you what you can and can't do. It has to do with selling an online service. As the creators of that service, they would say, you know what? YOU don't have the right to sell our service to other people.

Back to your restaurant example. A closer corollary is an all-you-can-eat buffet. You and your wife enter a buffet. Can you buy one plate and then pass the plate to your wife? No. It's all YOU can eat. Not all you can eat plus all your wife can eat plus cousin Larry.

That's what online games are.

You are scared about contracts and agreements? As if that's something new? Every time you have ever purchased anything ever, there was a contract or sales agreement. Ever.

Going to the movies is a contract. You purchase a license to a single seat for a single showing. You don't get to sell your ticket to another person. You don't get to sit and watch the movie again. That's the deal. Don't like it? Don't go to the movies.

It isn't like being forced to rent a phone. Phones (especially in the days before cell phones, and skype, and whatnot) were a necessity. Choosing what to do with your family on a Saturday afternoon is not. You can go to the beach. You can go to a movie. You can go to a park. It's up to you to determine if Disneyland is a good deal.

And as a publicly traded company it is Disney's fiduciary responsibility to be as profitable as possible. (note that profitability is not measured over the short term, but rather the long).

1. It's bad for publishers financially
2. A few times it didn't work well
3. It wastes upwards of 30 seconds of a gamer's time.

2 and 3 are pathetic arguments. Early implementation of Online passes have failed about as often as entire online services have failed. It's a non starter. Plus, it could easily be fixed by simply having the system default to a free demo of a license in the unlikely event that the store is down while the multiplayer services are up.

The inputting of a license is even worse. Don't have 30 seconds to spare? Then you probably shouldn't be playing video games. You probably have a bus to catch.

The only potentially valid argument is the financial. Now I'm not an economist. But neither is Jim Sterling. But we can probably assume SOMEONE has crunched the numbers on this. Hmmm. Who would have the resources and interest to pay an economist to figure out whether the used game market helps or hurts publishers? Perhaps the publishers?

In other words, Jim is just guessing. He's using personal anecdotes to make his argument and has no idea what he's talking about. There is not even so much of a suggestion as to how much money will be gained or lost by this. He doesn't like it, so he argues it will hurt everyone. He has no idea. But multiple publishers have all looked at this problem and all come to the same conclusion. If they are wrong, their games will suffer. We don't need to guess. The market will sort this out.

If this video rant is the best your side of this argument can do, you are going to lose this battle.

Why is the shifting from a good to a service so upsetting? Phones used to be a service and shifted to a good (I'm old enough to remember when you had to lease your phone). Cell phones are still virtually a service. Why not games?

Software has been doing this for decades already. Operating Systems and Office Suites are licenses. Not discs. New computers often come pre-installed with Microsoft Office. Only it's with only a temporary license.

When you buy Office, you are not buying the disc. You are buying the license or if you spend more you are buying three or ten or however many licenses. Why should games be any different? Because you want to spend less on games?

This whole "it should be mine to do what I want with" mentality is ridiculous. I understand you'd LIKE it to be yours to do what you want with, but it's not up to you. You didn't make the game. It is your choice to purchase or not.

If you want to send a message to the publisher, don't buy games that have licensing agreements. Simple as that.

Imagine two theme parks. One, sells a season pass for $150 that has your picture on it and is not transferrable. The other sells a 'friends and family' pass that has no picture on it and can be used by whoever carries it but it costs $400. You have a choice as to which you want to buy. But park one is not wrong to sell a single license pass. It's their park and they can decide who gets to come in and for how much. It's your choice to not go there though.

This is simply not true. Not in all states. Not even in most states.

I pasted a portion of the Revised Code of Washington a few comments above. (Note: I didn't cherry pick Washington - it's the only state I'm licensed to practice law in.)

Specifically: "...it is a defense which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the offense the defendant reasonably believed the alleged victim to be the age identified in subsection (3) of this section based upon declarations as to age by the alleged victim."

This couldn't be any clearer.

In Washington and California and many other states the scenario you described (assuming the accused reasonably believed the alleged victim) is not a rape.

Our criminal justice system is not acting justly when it punishes reasonable actors. Having consensual sex with a person you reasonably believe to be of legal age is not a crime. If it was, I'd be breaking the law every time I had sex with my 38 year old wife.

If I sell you a car and it turns out that when you came in and signed the sales contract you had just awakened from general anesthetic, I have done nothing wrong if I was unaware of your incapacity. People are not expected to magically know what's going on in your head. All I have to go on is you appear alert and aware. What more can I do? A blood test? A Voight-Kampff exam? As long as I act reasonably, I am doing nothing wrong, EVEN IF YOU WERE MEDICALLY INCAPACITATED.

My point is, if someone appears reasonably capable of consenting, an actor should be able to accept their consent. Period. If not, then no one is safe consenting ever. Otherwise, the following day, anyone could simply claim they were too drunk to consent. That's crazy.

The key word in all this s reasonable. A just society does not punish people for acting reasonably.

I do not appreciate your ridiculous insinuation that I want to sleep with underage girls. I said no such thing and have no interest in "rolling the dice." I'm a happily married 40 year old. This isn't about my belief system. I'm looking at this as it pertains to the criminal justice system.

Second:

Do you have a citation for this "most states" claim? I honestly can't find one. Wikipedia suggests 22 of 50 in 2007 enforcing strict liability.

And this defense is not some relic of times past that's on the way out. It's new and expanding. As it should be. It's the law in progressive places like California and Washington.

My point is (and more and more states would agree), if you begin a relationship with someone you honestly believe is of age, and they tell you they are of age you are not committing a crime. In fact, in that scenario, you are the one who has had a crime committed against them. It's called a rape by fraud.

I'm not saying I want to sleep with 16 year olds, nor that I think other adults should either.

But strict liability in criminal matters is stupid. Actors are not required to administer lie detector tests on each other. Or verify birth records through Orly Taitz. If it's reasonable to believe a person is a consenting adult, you should lawfully be able to engage in a sexual relationship with them.

And again, I can't speak for any jurisdiction but my own, but here in Washington State:

"(1) In any prosecution under this chapter in which lack of consent is based solely upon the victim's mental incapacity or upon the victim's being physically helpless, it is a defense which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the offense the defendant reasonably believed that the victim was not mentally incapacitated and/or physically helpless."

RCW 9A.44.030

" (2) In any prosecution under this chapter in which the offense or degree of the offense depends on the victim's age, it is no defense that the perpetrator did not know the victim's age, or that the perpetrator believed the victim to be older, as the case may be: PROVIDED, That it is a defense which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the offense the defendant reasonably believed the alleged victim to be the age identified in subsection (3) of this section based upon declarations as to age by the alleged victim."

RCW 9A.44.030

It's NOT rape to have sex with a minor IF you reasonably believe the minor is of age based on false declarations of the minor.