Lightor

Yeah, Nintendo seems to think they are untouchable. They can do whatever, charge whatever, not even innovate anymore with the Switch 2, and attack fans. I’m done with Nintendo, the only way I’ll ever play any of their games is on the high seas.

I think UBI would actually solve a lot of issues, the creative communities’ financial struggle being one of them.

The cases where large companies do win won’t make news though. “Large companies settles with individual” isn’t really headline material now, is it?

Ok, and not every time a person wins there’s a headline either, this is a moot point.

Also, small companies != people. Neither me nor you are a company and even small companies have significantly more resources available to them than someone who just created the next Lord of the Rings and didn’t see a penny.

So, what is your point? People can win against big companies, even over IP. It has been done before, if you want I can list a bunch for you. I just researched to make sure I wasn’t off base. You don’t always have to have the most money to win. You know why? Because of IP law, the very thing you want to destroy.

There are significantly more companies who would rather start killing politicians than see IP law gone. They rake in billions of shareholder value, much moreso than any AI company out there.

Ok, and? Because a company makes money due to X doesn’t automatically make X a bad thing. I’ve not seen one good plan laid out on how destorying IP would help the common man, it doesn’t.

I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.

No, but you are clearly implying something with “Copyright didn’t exist for millenia. It didn’t stop authors from writing books.” This ignores that those authors couldn’t have their work downloaded and spread across the globe in minutes. You are bringing this up to prove a point, but give how much things have changes over the last few hundred years, the point falls flat. It is irrelevant once you look at all the nuance and reasons why and how they were able to create.

What I am arguing is that these laws do not allow people to create intellectual works as people in the past were no less artistic than we are today - maybe even moreso.

They do allow them. They allow them to make money off of their art. Back in the day you didn’t have an interconnected global economy, you didn’t have to worry about retirement or your 401k, of course it was easier back then, late stage capitalism didn’t set in. But IP laws are what protect creators these days, so they can take a year off of work and write a book and still be able to eat.

Have you seen the impact of IP law on science? It’s horrible. No researcher sees any money from their works - rather they must pay to lose their “rights” and have papers published. Scientific journals have hampered scientific progress and will continue to do so for as long as IP law remains. I would not be surprised if millions of needless deaths could have been prevented if only every medical researcher had access to research.

Yes, absolutely a good point. But because a system is broken is not a reason to get rid of it. The legal system is broken and millionaires just get away with crimes, should we just get rid of all the laws? No. We should work to make them better.

IP law serves solely large companies and independent artists see a couple of breadcrumbs.

Source needed. Because this is a bold claim, that based on what I can find, is not true. People sell IP to companies all the time, so yes they then benefit from it, but the creator of the IP gets paid.

You brought up how lives have probably been lost because of scientific journal IP. How many lives do you think will be lost when big pharma realizes there’s no money in creating a vaccine for a new disease? Who is making that investment? The govt? lol

Abolishing IP law - or at the very least limiting it to a couple of years at most - would have hardly any impact on small artists. It would directly impart them! The small artist who had a good beat or came up with some slick lyrics would have them jacked. Every production company would be scrapping small artists looking for what they could take or steal, with 0 impact. This also goes with authors and writing books. How can they sign a book deal when a publisher can’t guarantee it won’t just get copied and given away? They now have no reason to pay authors.

They do not benefit from IP law - so why should we keep it for the top 0.1% of artists who do?

They ABOLUSTLY do benefit from it, you’re just looking at it as a “less money needs less protection” lens which I highly disagree with. A small artist can have a lot going for them and miss their opportunity because they were stolen. Or they were sampled and never for paid but the person who sampled them got rich. I mean there are dozens of ways to see why this would be a problem. The least of which is, why even make music or movies anymore? If every movie and song ever created can be legally pirated, companies just stop making them.

IP laws help everyone. EVERYONE. Just because companies make money off of them doesn’t make them bad. Just because small creators don’t make a lot of money doesn’t mean they shouldn’t own what they create. Everyone in favor of this just seems to want stuff for free without realizing the impact of that choice, it’s extremely shortsighted.

I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.

Which the parents pay for… They just don’t know what words mean anymore.

Yes, I have.

But how exactly does getting rid of IP laws since that exactly? Because that’s what’s being proposed.

Small companies have defend themselves from Apple. People make money from their inventions and writings. There are tons of examples. You’re creating this idea of unbeatable huge corpos that isn’t true. They don’t always win, you can easily prove with with a 1 minute Google search.

They also don’t want it just because of AI, this would enable them to steal and mass produce any IP anyone makes. This includes physical inventions.

Also copyright didn’t exist for a long time and neither did the Internet or global trade. Times change. We went millennia without many things, it doesn’t automatically make them wrong or bad. What a silly basis.

This is a bad faith argument.

Forms of IP have existed for a long time. And back in your days you didn’t have one company that could have global reach in second.

You still ignore the fact that if I spend 5 years of my life writing a book, it could be taken away with no money to me. So people can no longer dedicate their lives to creating when they have bills to pay.

Yes, and I think this is how it should be looked at. It is a hyper focused and tailored search engine. It can provide info, but the “doing” not as well.

You seem sad

This is a horrible idea. Why would an author dedicate years of their life to a book only to make no money off of it. Why would I spend time and money prototyping a new invention only to not see a dime from it as a big company steals my idea.

People need to eat and live. If you can’t survive by creating, you do something else instead of creating. How can people not see this very simple concept?

You could literally write the next Lord of the Rings and another company could print and sell the book, sell merch, and make a movie about it and you’d see 0 money. But no one would make movies any more because what’s the point?

All these indie games disrupting the gaming industry, gone. Game dev takes a lot of time and money, guess big companies will be the only ones who can afford to do it. The indie guy trying to sell his game for 5$ will be buried by a company that steals it and dumps a few hundred K into it to make a better version and the original creator is left with nothing.

People think about getting an the stuff from companies for free and forget that big companies would benefit most with no protection to the little guy. There is a reason why the rich want to do this, honestly think about it.

Cool and how many games are there on the system? With no backwards compatibility for these expensive games? How many shooters are popular on switch? Or is it that they lock down their IP and it’s marketed strongly towards children and cashing in on nostalgia.

But sure, nuance doesn’t matter. Nintendo is clearly the best system with the best games. I wonder how gaming PCs are even selling anymore, no one even should be playing on anything else it’s so obviously good. Jesus…

You can try to rationalize it all you want, bottom line is people don’t have money to buy $80 games these days. Those people aren’t going to the movies either.

I bought a rug that I’ve gotten years of value out of, should it have been thousands of dollars then? The idea that time used is how you measure value is flawed.

Edit: look what popped up on my feed, so looks like it’s not just me

https://tech.yahoo.com/gaming/articles/former-blizzard-boss-says-hard-090054442.html

Cool. And Sony can sell to PS and PC, same with Xbox. They have two markets, one that they don’t have to support with hardware. They can also make games that look nice and run nice because they have much better hardware. Plus they actually do cross play with each other, making bigger player pools for match making and such.

We’re not talking about consoles sold. I’m talking about game choice and experience. If you want to look at how you can play the games, there are a few more PCs than Switches sold.

But sure, Mario Party is fun every so often.

Oh I get it. We made the jump from Google Cloud to AWS, and I’m sure there are companies that are even more vendor locked. But a good example of what people can do when they don’t have a choice is the new PCI 4.0 roll out that has cost companies millions they wouldn’t spend unless made to do so. Will it be a mountain to climb and cost a ton, yeah, but change in the right direction isn’t always easy.

I’m with you, it will be hard, and they need a good system for extensions and the like, with a reasonable time line. But this is good change IMO, even if it’s painful.

This is why you give notice; this isn’t an overnight thing. If anything, this would help strengthen and decentralize hosting platforms while giving a huge amount of business to companies to help them migrate. I think the real shake is going to be those locked into provide IP like Redshift or Fargate.

Man I’ve just forgotten about Nintendo at this point. Microsoft and Sony get that exclusives aren’t working when people don’t have enough money to buy every system anymore. I see Nintendo as a niche console with a handful of games. There’s just not enough to justify buying one, and I grew up on Zelda and Metroid. I love them, but it’s not worth buying another console for a few high priced games with questionable performance.

There are plenty of providers, this is a little reactionary. I’ve worked with a local data center for hosting in every state I’ve lived in.

You gotta give.

So you like ads, just not GameStop ads? I mean, GI had a lot of info about games, too. Beyond Nintendo and PS, you could actually learn about PC games.

You don’t want a magazine that’s adverts but you like Nintendo Power and PSM…