masterspace

Go back and reread my comments, you have evidently not understood anything I wrote.

GOG as an example would have been better. But you didn’t choose that. You chose a system that DOES have DRM and DOES act like a publisher and takes a cut. That isn’t a good way to sell your “new system” when Steam does EVERYTHING the “old system” does.

Given that you can see a different comparable example, and yet instead of just going "yeah like GOG", or thinking to yourself "yeah GOG would be a better example, I get what he means though", you're going "YOU didn't SAY gog WHAT an ASSHOLE", I again, urge you to reflect on whether you're having a good faith conversation or whether you just have a stick up your ass about something and are venting online.

And no, Steam prevents people who haven't purchased a game from playing it. You are fundamentally not understanding what I'm writing if you're not seeing how that's different from a system where everyone has access to everything.

PC games that don’t have DRM still sell like crazy through Steam.

Steam… IS a DRM. https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/drm

Steam is not popular because of its DRM. And again, in this scenario, everyone would have access to everything. The system's only job would be tracking what gets downloaded / played and rewarding creators based on that.

But it doesn’t sound like you care to imagine a different system or why it would be better, you seem to just want to demand that the concept of ownership stay exactly as th US Congress and Court System, in all their unquestionable wisdom, determined it should be.

Nope, just asked to to clarify how this ***magic ***system can work without someone to enforce it. And you’ve yet to answer that.

Given that you're dismissively talking about a "magic system" while trying to defend against being closed minded towards it, that defense rings pretty hollow.

And I've never said there wouldn't be anyone to enforce it, I said there would be no incentive not to use it.

How do you prove how much a work is even used/viewed? That would require heaps and loads of DRM management and to go after those who circumvent those measures... which takes money/infrastructure... and GASP That's exactly what the publishers are doing now! Look at that!

We've proven time and time again that people will pick the legal option as long as it's more convenient and a better product than the illegal one.

Spotify and Netflix stomped piracy in every region they entered, PC games that don't have DRM still sell like crazy through Steam.

And while it would require monitoring of metrics, that's not the same as DRM that prevents you from using something.

But it doesn't sound like you care to imagine a different system or why it would be better, you seem to just want to demand that the concept of information ownership stay exactly as the 1900s US Congress and Court System, in all their unquestionable wisdom, determined it should be.

It's also on EA Play / Gamepass Ultimate if you're eyeing either of those or other stuff on them.

This involves trying to imagine a system other than the one we currently use.

The concept of exclusive ownership makes sense for material goods because if I have an object, you cannot have that object. If I want a copy of that object, it takes the same amount of resources as it took to make the original object. It's a fundamental property of matter and energy, but information does not have the same properties. Information can be stored infinitely smally, and replicated for virtually nothing, as many times as you want.

In the digital age, where every single person now has an incredibly powerful information processing machine that is networked to every single other one, it means that once information is digitized, it costs us virtually nothing to distribute it to everyone on earth who wants it.

Copyright only exists, because once we started to be able to do this with early technologies like the printing press, vinyls, VHS, etc, it showed that you could rapidly drive the value of that work down to zero dollars, because in capitalism, thing only have value if they are scarce. Air is a necessity for everyone to live but it costs nothing because it's all around us. It suddenly gets valuable in places where it's scarce, but as long as it's abundant, it has no value according capitalism. So continuing to allow the free copying of works meant that the original creators would never get rewarded. This made some sense at a time when it took months and a ton of resources to chop down trees, make paper, print a book, and ship it across the world and then get a response back regarding it.

But now, in the digital age, we have all the tools we need to build a middle man free service that would allow everyone to watch or read anything, and reward the creators based on how much their works are used or viewed or remixed. It's basically how music streaming services and the behind the scenes remix/sampling licensing deals work already, they just have a ton of corporate middle men taking profits at every step.

In print media, advertising driven models are hamfisted work arounds that do the same thing of providing the information to everyone, but again, with middle men that fuck the authors and ruin the experience for readers.

Spotify, Apple Music, etc could all still exist, they'd just all have access to the same content catalog and you'd be picking and paying solely based on the quality of the interface and service they provide.

It's also not a crazy idea that once you create an idea you don't get to exclusively own it. For the vast majority of human history, copyright did not exist, and the only way that stories and songs and ideas were passed on was through chains of people copying and retelling them.

If you're referring to copyright as the actual effective title as owner of the works then yes. If you're referring to copyright as in our system if copyright == monopoly, then no.

That was fine then, but it makes zero sense today.

If a book is on sale widely to the public, and it costs nothing to copy and distribute that book to everyone, why shouldn't we?

The fundamental problem with copyright is it is a system that rewards creators by imposing artificial scarcity where there is no need for one. Capitalism is a system designed around things having value when they're scarce, but information in a world of computers and the internet is inherently unscarce the instant it's digitized. Copyright just means that we build all these giant DRM systems to impose scarcity on something that doesn't need it so that we can still get creators paid a living.

But a better system would for paying creators would be one of attribution and reward, where everyone can read whatever they want or stream whatever they want, and artists would be paid based on their number of views.

Fuck Copyright.

A system for distributing information and rewarding it's creators should not be one based on scarcity, given that it costs nothing to copy and distribute information.

Yes they do, just indirectly, it's how they monopolized the online advertising business.

Do be fair, I think that Jedi Fallen Order and Jedi Survivor are some of the best Star Wars games ever made, maybe a tier behind the icons like BF2, Kotor, and Tie Fighter, but not that far and in hindsight I wouldn't be surprised if it's up there with them.

Respawn are really great devs that know how to nail fluidly, difficulty, and just all the little details that make all their games a blast.