- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm also hoping this will open up an avenue way down the road for more generalized legislation addressing the problem of software being deliberately designed with a killswitch just to turn everything into a "subscription" even when it really ought not to be. There has to be some kind of a line you can cross where it's obviously bullshit and right now that line does not exist, especially in the US. We need some kind of a rule that at least gauges the difference between an actual subscription from an ongoing practical service (you need to pay monthly because it's realistically the only way the business can function), versus abusing DRM to arbitrarily disable shit unless you pay a continual tax for absolutely nothing. The two big practices that need to be regulated in this vein are:They're scared, and they think by lying they can turn gamers against SKG.
They don't want their players to keep playing their old games by releasing the necessary software for running them, because these old games would become their very own competitors.
They release a bad sequel? People are no longer forced to migrate to the new title because the old one became unplayable. No more easy profits.
If SKG succeeds, it will force them to make better games, or people will just mod the shit out of old ones while they go bankrupt. A win-win either way!
What's actually funny is that nobody in the exchange (neither Ross, nor that lolbertarian (?), nor you) seems to have asked the one question that mattersRead a few comments to get a gist of how this went, seems most thought it was an interesting, respectful conversation. This peak lolbertarian made me laugh though...
Ross (and everyone else here) understands property vs privilege, Stop Killing Games has spoken about it many times.What's actually funny is that nobody in the exchange (neither Ross, nor that lolbertarian (?), nor you) seems to have asked the one question that matters
Do artists need state-backed intellectual monopoly rights to make money?
No.
You don't need copyright to sell a game, just like you don't need a printing license to write a book
Copyright is not a property right, it is a restriction on what other people can do with their copies of something they bought
Also, assuming the lolbertarian (?) in question correctly described Ross's position, that position is indeed contradictory
If profit motive corrupts art, but removing profit motive ruins art, then there is just a back-and-forth between purity spiral and rent-seeking
The lolbertarian (?) you quoted tries (clumsily) to highlight that, but gets tripped up by not clearly rejecting Ross's false premise that IP is the only path to profitability
still though, if you're mocking libertarians without knowing the difference between property and privilege, you might wanna step back and interrupt your laughter
That's absolutely retarded. If you don't have protection of IP then everyone could replicate your work and claim it was their own.Do artists need state-backed intellectual monopoly rights to make money?
No.
You don't need copyright to sell a game, just like you don't need a printing license to write a book
Copyright is not a property right, it is a restriction on what other people can do with their copies of something they bought
I get where you're coming from, and if Ross were merely critiquing cash grab design, then that would land cleanly, but that is not what he argues in the debate or elsewhereRoss (and everyone else here) understands property vs privilege, Stop Killing Games has spoken about it many times.
I haven't watched the video, but I doubt Ross is saying profit is directly correlated to the quality of a game. I would guess he's talking about things such as publishers creating games to be cash cows rather than creating games that are entertaining to play and respect the consumer. Look at how sports games have shifted from couch co-op games to pack opening games as an example.
I have no choice but to ask - In what sense? How do you understand it?Ross (and everyone else here) understands property vs privilege
That's not how authorship works. You don't need a copyright monopoly to prove you made something. Or do we live in a situation where you need a patent to prove you built a house?That's absolutely retarded. If you don't have protection of IP then everyone could replicate your work and claim it was their own.
"Power gets results" is not a moral theory, it's more like a weather reportLibertarianism is a mental illness.
You get what you want by using power. Violence is a form of power.
If artists and big companies use IP to get the government to exert violence on their behalf, screeching about the NAP and wanting to live in Ancapistan is nothing but an autistic temper tantrum.
The only way to get something is through force; this is how reality works. Even convincing autists of the NAP is a form of force, just a weak and ineffective one. Being weak is disgusting, and preaching weakness is even more disgusting.
The NAP is disgusting. Being openly proud that you would not strike first only makes you weak.
"Guys, if only the people in Gaza followed the NAP, the Palestinian Holocaust wouldn’t happen."
This idea that power and violence are inherently bad is divorced from reality and incredibly stupid. If I use extreme violence to get exactly what I want, then using it was nothing but good for me. If I have the power to change something the way I want, that is only good for me. Anyone who thinks something bad happens at the end of the story to the person who used force and violence to get what they wanted confuses Hollywood movies with reality.
Completely fairI somewhat agree with you but also think the discussion might be starting to get a bit far afield. Regardless of how right or wrong Ross is about IP as a principle in a debate with a libertarian, it really doesn't have too much to do with SKG which is a more specific agenda about legislating a business practice in software that's hostile to consumers. Personally I am (broadly speaking) anti-copyright but I also don't want the thread derailed so I'm cagey about jumping into an anti-copyright debate in this specific thread. Suffice to say it's a bit out of control right now and if nothing else needs some reigning in.
Well I agree with that.For what it's worth, I think LiquidZulu's strongest point in the debate/discussion/conversation video I linked earlier wasn't even about IP in general, it was that SKG's very method (getting the EU to start a conversation on mandating game preservation) is an attempt to fix an anti-consumer landscape that only exists because of prior government interference
Copyright, DMCA, forced obsolescence, artificial license constraints, all of these things aren't some "free market" outcomes, they're the architecture of the cage that we've been put in
hopefully people will keep spreading the message to continue signing the petition, moldman will probably mention that some may be bogus but it's to be expected of him.It did just hit 1,400,000 signatures, and it keeps going!!
Congrats to the eurobros. Hopefully this results in something worthwhile.Ross is live right now with ""ActMan" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRXpP0guXo
They saw the counter reach 1.4
View attachment 7668809
I don't find fault in SKG for trying to basically stop the bleeding, so I'm not going to sperg out and call you a filthy statistWell I agree with that.
I still think it's pragmatic to pursue the SKG initiative in the EU to its extent for the time being, for lack of any other immediate practical solutions. But yes, we do but edify this legalist golem that shouldn't have been created to begin with and will hopefully after a lot of struggle in time be demolished. But until then.
I only chimed in because I knew of the debate video I posted earlier (it is certainly on-topic!) and because, right before that, I saw open mockery of libertarianism in the thread. And, like, if someone wants to take shots, they should at least try to pick a target in the right weight class
But I agree with you, the SKG focus in this thread is more specific and worth not derailing
What's important to me is recognizing the difference between doing something in an attempt to stop the bleeding and forgetting who is holding the knife
At least from my perspective there is a gigantic red flag in SKG because it treats the state like a neutral referee instead of the creator of the problem
Even when the goal is good (ex ante! you don't know what the situation will be like after the fact) channeling that goal through the same machine that created the cage... will just reinforce that machinery
i hope more people wake up to what libertarianism is about (a jewish controlled op ideal), which usually turns them into a cope brigade for commies.Libertarians inserted themselves into the SKG conversation and shit it up with misinformed nonsense. Not in this thread, but in other threads on this forum, in YouTube videos, Twitch streams etc. Hence the mockery.
Don't take it personally, I'm sure there's a lot of logic in your thinking, but on this issue we saw peak Libertarian autism.
This is just pure lolbertarianism.
how do you think? bribes.I wonder how lobbyists are going to play it. Their first moves weren't very impressive.
Sorry I missed this:I have no choice but to ask - In what sense? How do you understand it?
He talks about consumer rights, sure, but when it comes to copyright, he defaults to the same moral logic that underpins intellectual property law. That's not opposition to privilege, that's compliance with it
Regarding profit, Ross doesn't just critique predatory monetization, he frames financial motivation itself as something that corrupts art... while relying on copyright law to make creative work profitable. That's incoherence
Like I said, I imagine there is a lot of logic behind your ideas on the whole, I just find libertarians inserting themselves into shit like this leads to some good milk and the guy I quoted from YT comments is a retard.Like, if someone like you wants to mock libertarianism, try doing it against someone who actually represents the position accurately
Taking potshots at a vague approximation of a libertarian isn't a flex.
The initiative isn't meant to be "here is a bill we want to pass and if we get 1m votes you have to debate it". It is instead an initiative that forces the EU to debate an issue that the populace is concerned about. If they think it is a problem they'll get their own magistrates to write a proper law on it they can vote into effect. If the lobbyists arent retarded they can do a lot of work there. But they have to be willing to give up a little, if they try to stand their ground on this I think the EU gets annoyed and will just push through something.the bill being vague will spawn some really funny shit,