underground gamer is offline for good

[Ziggy]

I think it was mentioned some where earlier in this thread, a reference from the chat conversation that was linked. Something about old crappy soccer games that know one cares about, EA IIRC, but IDK if that was the truth or just joking or whatever.

edit: Also, maybe change the thread title now, like we usually do when there's a major change of events.

underground gamer is offline for now good

[marurun]

Actually, more than half the stuff on my external hard drive is stuff that was either never available or only partially available (old tv shows mostly), but the folks who have them were generous enough to share. For example, since WB has stated numerous times that there won't be a dvd release for Freddy's Nightmares, some nice person went out of their way to compile high quality tv rips of the entire series during its run on Chiller. That's the kind of stuff I go looking for (as I said, I think preservation is important), and there's quite a lot of it out there.

I don't know how I missed this bit on some of my passes through this thread. It is important to note that this is one critical side-effect of the copyright grant: the ability to deny distribution. Companies don't just use copyright to generate revenue through direct sales. They also use copyright to keep less-valuable properties out of the market to keep them from diluting sales of high-value properties. In that sense, copyright (mal)functions in a manner similar to some farm subsidies: it provides financial incentive to the practice of limiting, or even ceasing, production. A company can actually legally ensure you do not have access to a particular production or creative expression, with the exception of those which have already been sold into the marketplace.

It is one of those aspects of copyright that was probably not anticipated when the laws were originally drafted.

[Retrodude]

For what it's worth, at one point, I sent a letter addressed to the various studios via the MPAA website suggesting they set up their own subscription-based torrent site as a legal alternative to the Pirate Bay and use that to release stuff they otherwise wouldn't bother with. I never got a response.

[AppleQueso]

For what it's worth, at one point, I sent a letter addressed to the various studios via the MPAA website suggesting they set up their own subscription-based torrent site as a legal alternative to the Pirate Bay and use that to release stuff they otherwise wouldn't bother with. I never got a response.

Most companies don't make business decisions based on letters sent to them by random nobodies on the internet, so that makes sense to me.

[RCBH928]

@Ivo

How can you play it safe when everything is copy righted any way? I never understood why they had that 10 year old games rule. It is either legally distributed or not.

@marurun

Great info , I never thought of it that way . I can see this happening big time in the games industry. I can play RE2 and have just as much fun or more than playing RE6 , or Mario 64 over Mario Galaxy.
But I always thought that the market is so huge to be able to buy most of the "less valuable" properties and keep them away just to surge the "more valuable" properties sales. Unless like there is only 3 companies in the market.

[AppleQueso]

@Ivo

How can you play it safe when everything is copy righted any way? I never understood why they had that 10 year old games rule. It is either legally distributed or not.

I think the idea is that while it is all copyrighted, focusing exclusively on older stuff that isn't currently generating any profit for publishers anymore would mean that publishers might be less likely to come after them.

As has been demonstrated though, that doesn't guarantee anything.

[Retrodude]

@Ivo

How can you play it safe when everything is copy righted any way? I never understood why they had that 10 year old games rule. It is either legally distributed or not.

I think the idea is that while it is all copyrighted, focusing exclusively on older stuff that isn't currently generating any profit for publishers anymore would mean that publishers might be less likely to come after them.

As has been demonstrated though, that doesn't guarantee anything.

If they want to go after people sharing current stuff, that's fine, I've never had a problem with that, but trying to prevent people from sharing stuff they have no interest in rereleasing legitimately and aren't making any money from anyway is incredibly selfish IMO.

[AppleQueso]

If they want to go after people sharing current stuff, that's fine, I've never had a problem with that, but trying to prevent people from sharing stuff they have no interest in rereleasing legitimately and aren't making any money from anyway is incredibly selfish IMO.

Well I do know that when it comes to trademarks, if you don't enforce them, you lose them. This is why for example Sega shut down that Streets of Rage remake when they don't bother with any of the Sonic fangames out there. At least this is how I understand it.

It costs money to persue legal action, I don't think these companies would bother unless they felt like they were losing something because of it. Maybe they felt that sites like UG underminded their future re-release prospects or something, who knows?

Most companies don't do anything out of mean-ness or spite. Some way or another, it's about profit.

[dsheinem]

If they want to go after people sharing current stuff, that's fine, I've never had a problem with that, but trying to prevent people from sharing stuff they have no interest in rereleasing legitimately and aren't making any money from anyway is incredibly selfish IMO.

Six months ago I would say that Nintendo had no interest in rereleasing Earthboung legitmately.

One month ago I would have said that the Killer Instinct franchise is dead and we'd see no new games.

Who the hell are you to pretend to guess the mind of copyright holders? Stop pretending you are taking the moral high ground just because you think you aren't costing companies any sales by pirating something that you don't think they care about. You're just as "in the wrong" as someone downloading a game on release day, so don't pretend otherwise. Either accept it and live with your actions and their potential consequences or move on or stop doing it.

[MrPopo]

If they want to go after people sharing current stuff, that's fine, I've never had a problem with that, but trying to prevent people from sharing stuff they have no interest in rereleasing legitimately and aren't making any money from anyway is incredibly selfish IMO.

Six months ago I would say that Nintendo had no interest in rereleasing Earthboung legitmately.

One month ago I would have said that the Killer Instinct franchise is dead and we'd see no new games.

Who the hell are you to pretend to guess the mind of copyright holders? Stop pretending you are taking the moral high ground just because you think you aren't costing companies any sales by pirating something that you don't think they care about. You're just as "in the wrong" as someone downloading a game on release day, so don't pretend otherwise. Either accept it and live with your actions and their potential consequences or move on or stop doing it.

I'd like to emphasize the bolded point. He's not saying don't download. He's saying stop bullshitting about the consequences and morality of it.