>> ^qfan:

"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM
What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.


Well, I think he's always held the opinion that morality does not come from religion.

>> ^gwiz665:

Ultimately, the service they would provide would be content before any of the knock offs. Plenty of companies have tried to make knockoffs of wow, some even with otherwise very compelling universes in the baggage (lord of the rings online, warhammer online), but no one has come close yet. Star Wars the Old Republic might, but I doubt it. A rose by any other name is still WoW. And right now they have a critical mass of users, which is all they need. They could shit in a shoebox and call it Mist of Pandaria and millions will buy it on the release day.

Sure, there exists private servers of Wow at this point too, and some people like to play on them, but for me? I wouldn't even want to. There's no challenge when everything is possible.

I think we're talking about different things. Here you're describing people making "knock offs" of WoW by actually trying to independently create a new game from scratch without directly copying any artwork or code from WoW, but still kinda looks and feels and plays like WoW.

I'm talking about firing up the DVD-burner, and making a 100% exact copy of WoW. If that were legal, people would do it. In other words, the "private server" thing. Right now they're mostly script kiddies diddling themselves with Legendary items, because if they tried to actually replicate the WoW-server service and charge money for it, they'd be forced to shut down, and probably get thrown in jail too.

If that constraint weren't there, I'm sure you'd see an explosion of "competitors" for WoW "service". And I'm sure the market would explode with all kinds of people trying to differentiate themselves on service and price, but I'm sure the competition would force the average price well below what Blizzard's charging.

And that's the rub -- without being able to hold a monopoly over the monthly service charge, or even be able to demand $40 for the expansions, would Blizzard even bother with a Mists of Pandaria expansion?

I do think we could make things a lot better if they'd stop extending the time limit on things going into the public domain. Any content older than 10 years should be public domain, period.

Ultimately, the service they would provide would be content before any of the knock offs. Plenty of companies have tried to make knockoffs of wow, some even with otherwise very compelling universes in the baggage (lord of the rings online, warhammer online), but no one has come close yet. Star Wars the Old Republic might, but I doubt it. A rose by any other name is still WoW. And right now they have a critical mass of users, which is all they need. They could shit in a shoebox and call it Mist of Pandaria and millions will buy it on the release day.

Sure, there exists private servers of Wow at this point too, and some people like to play on them, but for me? I wouldn't even want to. There's no challenge when everything is possible. I'm certain that even if a joint effort between developers of all sorts banded together to copy and create an MMO like wow, it would likely be crap, because they have no other incentive to make it than "because we can". Design decisions based on that are not good - look at linux. Even Mozilla is a company nowadays. A command structure is essential in creating a massive work of art in a reasonable time.

Making a copy of WoW isn't "just" making a copy of WoW, it's enormous. By the time someone has copied it to the finer details, the game will have moved on to something else; systems change all the time.

A good example of something happening like you say is Vampires: Bloodlines where the community made a huge amount of "community patches" to fix the game, after the developer went bankrupt. I like that, but they could do it because the things they were fixing were straight forward. If they wanted to make entirely new things, who decides which things are good and bad? Like wikipedia, they would need custodians. A private company like Blizzard does not have that problem.

I was certainly a little too broad when I said all intellectual property is bunk. First of all I have a problem with the umbrella term of IP. I don't think it's helpful. Different types of IP have different solutions and problems. Some are more bunk than others. (Wtf is with they way rights to music works? What is it now, 100 years after the artist dies? Crazy.)

Like you I am philosophically on the "you can't own ideas, man"-wagon, but practically I'm more loose with my morals - hell, morals are fluid baby.

I'll say this. I would rather have 50000 people playing my game and 50 people paying for it, than I would have 50 people playing my game and paying for it any day.

>> ^NetRunner:

I think this is the most plausible way I've seen anyone square this circle. I'm just not sure it really holds up to scrutiny.
Philosophically, I'm in the "information isn't property" camp, but I also put food on the table by creating intellectual property.
The confluence of my own philosophical tastes on this topic would be that not only should "making copies" be legalized, it should actually be criminal to withhold any sort of scientific or engineering advance from the broader public, especially for selfish gain.
But, I think that would essentially destroy software companies as we know them. I think Blizzard & WoW would have trouble making the case to people that their service is worth $140/yr. That's especially true in the kind of world in which any content they generate can just be copied by a knockoff service provider just as easily as the original copy of WoW was in the first place.
I have trouble even imagining what sort of service they'd be able to compete on in that world. Uptime? In-game customer service? Best policing of player misbehavior? It can't be bugfixes (copyable), and it can't be content (also copyable).
I think ultimately WoW would have to become something more like an open source project -- the community provides all bugfixes and content gratis. Blizzard ultimately would have to give up any kind of creative or engineering control at that point, and also give up on having a revenue stream of millions of dollars a month, too. They'd just be a glorified hosting company. Companies like Microsoft probably wouldn't even be that.
It'd probably be better for the whole world that way, but not so awesome for incumbents in the industry.
You know, people like you and me.
>> ^gwiz665:
Essentially you couldn't. You would not be able to provide a better service without spending a very very large amount of money and effort into doing it. An MMO is a service, and you have to provide more than just stable servers for it to work, you also have to create new content, bug fixes etc to maintain the integrity of the product.
You can design your way out of it easily. Free to play is one way of doing it, which we have a lot of success with on iOS and the big shots on PC are waking up to as well, finally. Apple in general have their app rejection policy which keeps the most things at bay, but of course there is jailbreaks, which I don't much care for.
I don't have a problem with people copying, although I would of course prefer they give me lots of money. If they corrupt our product however, with map hacks, cheats etc. then it's a much different issue.
I think it's a problem that many different types of media is lumped together under "intellectual property", because I do think things like Art, music etc should be protected from forgeries and that the original artist should be compensated for his time, otherwise we would have no art at all.
The industry is changing to provide a better service still though. Look at music - who buys CDs anymore? We have things like Spotify and Grooveshark who stream just about any music easily supported by commercials.
Any Blizzard game, and all their future games, will need a persistent internet connection, both for piracy issues but also for better service - instant patching, social networking etc. Same with steam.

Maher is woefully misinformed on the gravity of SOPA's reach. I think his position goes well beyond simply playing the role of devil's advocate. He has (had?) a personal stake in the issue because of his own personal media ownership. He really shouldn't have brought it up without researching.

I watched this on Movie Central as part of my cable TV package. I tend not to buy/rent stuff when there's plenty to watch on cable anyway. But much like Metallica, his stance on piracy has likely alienated his own fans. I bet he hopes people quickly forget what he said here.

I think this is the most plausible way I've seen anyone square this circle. I'm just not sure it really holds up to scrutiny.

Philosophically, I'm in the "information isn't property" camp, but I also put food on the table by creating intellectual property.

The confluence of my own philosophical tastes on this topic would be that not only should "making copies" be legalized, it should actually be criminal to withhold any sort of scientific or engineering advance from the broader public, especially for selfish gain.

But, I think that would essentially destroy software companies as we know them. I think Blizzard & WoW would have trouble making the case to people that their service is worth $140/yr. That's especially true in the kind of world in which any content they generate can just be copied by a knockoff service provider just as easily as the original copy of WoW was in the first place.

I have trouble even imagining what sort of service they'd be able to compete on in that world. Uptime? In-game customer service? Best policing of player misbehavior? It can't be bugfixes (copyable), and it can't be content (also copyable).

I think ultimately WoW would have to become something more like an open source project -- the community provides all bugfixes and content gratis. Blizzard ultimately would have to give up any kind of creative or engineering control at that point, and also give up on having a revenue stream of millions of dollars a month, too. They'd just be a glorified hosting company. Companies like Microsoft probably wouldn't even be that.

It'd probably be better for the whole world that way, but not so awesome for incumbents in the industry.

You know, people like you and me.

>> ^gwiz665:

Essentially you couldn't. You would not be able to provide a better service without spending a very very large amount of money and effort into doing it. An MMO is a service, and you have to provide more than just stable servers for it to work, you also have to create new content, bug fixes etc to maintain the integrity of the product.
You can design your way out of it easily. Free to play is one way of doing it, which we have a lot of success with on iOS and the big shots on PC are waking up to as well, finally. Apple in general have their app rejection policy which keeps the most things at bay, but of course there is jailbreaks, which I don't much care for.
I don't have a problem with people copying, although I would of course prefer they give me lots of money. If they corrupt our product however, with map hacks, cheats etc. then it's a much different issue.
I think it's a problem that many different types of media is lumped together under "intellectual property", because I do think things like Art, music etc should be protected from forgeries and that the original artist should be compensated for his time, otherwise we would have no art at all.
The industry is changing to provide a better service still though. Look at music - who buys CDs anymore? We have things like Spotify and Grooveshark who stream just about any music easily supported by commercials.
Any Blizzard game, and all their future games, will need a persistent internet connection, both for piracy issues but also for better service - instant patching, social networking etc. Same with steam.

I haven't read all the comments here so forgive me if anyone else has mentioned this.
I don't think Bill said anywhere here that he "Supported" SOPA.
As always and to start off the subject he plays Devil's advocate here. He clearly states he hasn't even read up on it.

He's right on one point though, The "pirates of stuff" aren't going to support the law. And yes, people will use the internet to "steal stuff" when they can get away with it. "People want free sh!t", is a true statement.

But not once does he say he either Supports or is Against it.

Your video, Bill Maher supports SOPA, gets owned by guests, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
The new season of Sherlock just finished in the UK. I have money sitting here and I will happily give it to the people who made the show to let me watch it (for a reasonable price), but there is currently no legal means for me to acquire that content.
Now the standard internet response here is that I should go pirate it, but I do not believe that is moral. But really content peoples, you're not making it easy.
As a licence fee payer I funded the production of Sherlock. In that capacity I give you permission to go pirate the show.

They also assume that if someone downloaded it, they won't subsequently purchase a legitimate copy... but some of the biggest consumers of channel BT are also the ones who buy the most movies/cd's/downloads too, but only if they liked the downloaded one.

If the big media companies succeed at getting what they want, more people will end up like me... no illegal downloading, but precious little legal downloading or purchasing either.
>> ^kymbos:

The thing I don't get about these estimates of losses due to piracy is that they appear to assume that anyone who downloaded the film/song etc would have paid for it otherwise. That is just not the case.

*dead. SOPA victim.

I see that. I just tried to stream videos from my Amazon prime account, but failed, since I'm in China. Can't use Netflix either.

I generally don't care about sound quality up to a point.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^longde:
I'm curious; as far as music goes, I thought Amazon and iTunes were OK. What practical restrictions are there to use in those two? I haven't seen any and I use both services. In the beginning iTunes had restrictions, but not know as far as I see.

"We could not process your order. The sale of MP3 Downloads is currently available only to US customers located in the United States. "
Fuck. That. Shit.
I genuinely believe in protecting IP. And I'm absolutely willing to pay for the content I want, but the content providers are actively pushing me towards piracy. It's even worse where movies and tv are concerned. The new season of Sherlock just finished in the UK. I have money sitting here and I will happily give it to the people who made the show to let me watch it (for a reasonable price), but there is currently no legal means for me to acquire that content.
Now the standard internet response here is that I should go pirate it, but I do not believe that is moral. But really content peoples, you're not making it easy.
It's actually ridiculous. Can you imagine a bricks and mortar shop telling people they don't want their money?

>> ^longde:

I'm curious; as far as music goes, I thought Amazon and iTunes were OK. What practical restrictions are there to use in those two? I haven't seen any and I use both services. In the beginning iTunes had restrictions, but not know as far as I see.


"We could not process your order. The sale of MP3 Downloads is currently available only to US customers located in the United States. "

Fuck. That. Shit.

I genuinely believe in protecting IP. And I'm absolutely willing to pay for the content I want, but the content providers are actively pushing me towards piracy. It's even worse where movies and tv are concerned. The new season of Sherlock just finished in the UK. I have money sitting here and I will happily give it to the people who made the show to let me watch it (for a reasonable price), but there is currently no legal means for me to acquire that content.

Now the standard internet response here is that I should go pirate it, but I do not believe that is moral. But really content peoples, you're not making it easy.

It's actually ridiculous. Can you imagine a bricks and mortar shop telling people they don't want their money?

>> ^longde:

I'm curious; as far as music goes, I thought Amazon and iTunes were OK. What practical restrictions are there to use in those two? I haven't seen any and I use both services. In the beginning iTunes had restrictions, but not know as far as I see.


For me, it's a format issue. I tend to purchase from places where I can get lossless or mpe 320, at least.
Bandcamp is a great example of that; by far my favorite source of paid music; it helps, of course, that many bandcamp artists are "pay what you want" priced.

I look at this video as these companies being fearful of "XYZ" happening, so they made it happen on their own terms, creating the scenario they needed to get enough fervor to push through their agenda.

Many politicians in Washington want us to live in constant fear of "what ifs", because it justifies their budgets and pet projects in those budgets. It gets people to say yes a lot to them, because if you don't <bad guy/thing> will win!

So their tipping point happens with 911, which is why so many people still believe there's a conspiracy to it. After then, all this crazy shit got passed through because we didn't want <bad guy/thing> to win, or they'd murder/rape our women and children and kick our dogs. And they STILL put forward these crazy ideas of what people could do. Like the pilot might pack a bomb on so he needs to be scanned, like he couldn't nose dive the plane while he's steering it. Or liquids, when clearly many small bottles of liquid just as easily be used to create a chemical bomb.

They want people up in arms and outraged and they do that by constantly berating you with the things they want you outraged on. On some forums you can't even go a day without a piracy discussion and how people are scum and ABC developer has to put draconian DRM in just to make a small profit, and how you should buy it with crazy DRM despite not liking the game or the DRM otherwise you're a pirate and should be in jail.


They keep you so pissed at each other and afraid of what other people are doing to you directly or indirectly, that you don't bother to suspect something more to it.

Because your neighbor is probably a terrorist who is pirating software to take control of the nukes to cause global warming so he can get free healthcare and live like a king on welfare.

Not sure what other hot button topics I could throw in there to make it look anymore crazy, but Im sure there are more.


Additional point, they are saying Youtube, megaupload, etc are piracy/copyright infringement tools. If they didn't own the companies outright when they did it, they BOUGHT companies who promoted the very thing are now slapping everyone for. How does it make sense that they can absolve themselves of distributing the tools people use, and punish others for providing similar tools? And my answer to that is, they aren't making money off other people doing it.....so Profit.

And now, other people are doing exactly what they themselves or companies they owned did 10 years ago, but they are making money via ads. So they are taking their previous "customers" by providing better tools, and those customers are making them money via ad placement hits. So in essence, they are already attacking the competition, but want SOPA to make it easier. You will essentially have to kiss their ass and police your network to great cost to yourself to keep from being shutdown by one stray byte of copyrighted stuff.

>> ^kingmob:

I still say the best argument to piracy is things like iTunes, Amazon MP3, and Netflix.


Agreed. Steam too.

Give me the ability to download the content I want without overly restrictive DRM and I will happily pay for it. Oh and geographical restrictions can fuck right off too.