Both the issues over glass and the 3d printed gun seem to have the roots in the same problem. They allow users to do something anyone who wanted to already could more easily via technology that is likely to become ubiquitous.
Being able to buy hidden cameras to record and upload video of people without them knowing isn't scary, everyone having a device that makes that easy is.
Being able to buy the tools and easily get the knowledge to make a gun out with parts from a DIY store isn't scary, everyone having a device that makes that easy is.
The question is are we right to be scared? Is there a difference between something people who want to can go out of their way to do and a majority of people having the tools to do the same things for other reasons?
It's interesting to me because I'm honestly not sure. Ubiquity of tools seems like it would increase interest in the things those tools can do. I don't think in either case it's a bad thing but I think this is what drives the issues and why "but people can already do it" isn't really at the heart of people's fears about it. We've simply tripped over the outrage threshold of easy access.
So the band signs with a label that at the time was seen as a good place to be. Turns out that's not the case and a number of bands have even taken the label to court over legal issues with contracts including royalties.
Streetlight then say they are not being paid the money they should be getting from Victory and tell their fans the only way that the band will see money from their albums is if the fans buy from their store. In other words a band is reduced to only making money from their albums by acting as the store sell those albums rather than creators because a label is screwing them.
And you want to say that should have just kept their mouth shut and begged for more? That it's ok for Victory to be vindictive assholes by not selling records to the store that will likely sell the most albums simply because it's the bands store?
The label that pissed all over them while telling them that it was raining is now kicking them in the teeth for having the gall to question that?
Victory used to have a fantastic roster of bands, it was the label for the scene I was in to back in the day. It just sad the people running it turned out to be some of the worst people in the industry. Streetlight is far from the only band to have problems with them.
If I set up a stall selling Apples for 5p and someone sets up a stall down the road selling Apples for 3p I may be tempted to say that the person setting up that stall is stealing my customers but you think he should be arrested for theft?
Now lets say in this world of stalls underselling in such a way is in fact illegal but defined a civil offense under that term so that I could, if I chose, bring a suit against the stall seller for damages for "underselling" my product. That upshot would be that while I may want to accuse him of stealing my customers I can't have him arrested for a criminal charge of theft but I can sue him for the civil charge of underselling.
At that point is it right to call "underselling" theft even if "underselling" is defined wholly differently and in this case in a civil sense, than theft which is clearly defined as criminal?
Theft is someone taking something that is "mine" and making it "theirs" in a way that means I no longer have "mine". It does not include "what might be mine in future" or a copy of something that is "mine". Colloquially there is some wiggle room but in terms of the law we've outright had to define who has the right's to copy indepently of theft because the harm of theft in a legal sense is not comparable to the harm of a copy of an idea because inherently a copy is additive while theft is subtractive.
My father has an MD my mother a PHD in psychology. She uses Dr because she's damn well earned it (worth nothing MD are in fact only honorary doctorates, at least in the UK) but she also doesn't present a show in which she gives out psychiatric advice.
It does not surprise me you link to an inaccurate, sensationalist and really badly written article on the topic of that law. I have issues with that law but not with what it is trying to, open up work to use that otherwise would remain lost due to the automatic way we assign copyright.
My favorite part is the outright lie about copyright being a basic human right. That's was fun.
Ah, I've looked into this a while ago and it's confusing and I've forgotten a lot of it but I believe it actually dates way back to some original German laws. But it only found widespread use in the rest of world after a copyright debate in the 1920s(or thereabouts) in which the people pushing for expansion started using it. From there, as far as I can tell, it's seeped into legal language without actually being independently defined and then into public use. It is one of the most perfect acts of framing in history because it settles a fundamental question of the debate in the language which is now used to have it.
I'm not talking about hybrids simply trying to get across that I feel the mechanics of violence are the most explored and refined in the medium.
". Most blockbuster films are filled with action/violence that add nothing to the plot, but which bring in the crowds. There's a million smaller and indie games out there with what you appear to prefer to see. But, they *do* exist, hence the idea that games depend on violence is wrong."
Again you seem to be making the presumption that because I think the industry is overly reliant on violence I have to mean that it is only violent. You want to talk about big blockbuster movies? Fine, yes a lot of them are violent but even a casual reading of box office charts brings up more films that have no violence than the same kind of charts for games.
"You wanted a different experience in L.A. Noire? Fine, I agree. The games was clearly pandering toward Rockstar's existing audience who wanted more GTA-style gameplay than pure detective work. From what I've read, many in Team Bondi would agree, as well. But, this was a design decision by Rockstar, and means nothing more about the medium as a whole than what the film Gangster Squad says about the medium of film. In both cases, they made a product for their target audience. Different games/films address a different audience and so might fit your desires better."
Except LA Noir is one of the few examples of that genre in games, Gangster Squad is not one of the few examples of it's genre in film. You say the makes of a game felt pressured to shoe horn violence in to the game in which you agree it doesn't belong because the type of game it was trying to be and the type of setting and themes it was trying to express where so underrepresented in the mainstream they didn't feel it would sell otherwise and then insist that it's a meaningless example?
"Here, we agree. If parents would parent, and crusading politicians stopped attacking a fictional version of the industry then we'd all be better off. But as a gamer, you're not helping if you pretend that violence is a requirement, rather than simply a design decision made for commercial reasons by some of the less imaginative publishers. Pretending that the huge number of non-violent games out there don't exist because a certain subgenre happens to be the one that major publishers use to create their blockbusters does nobody any favours."
Ok, seriously, we are getting to strawman territory here and I'll just be repeating my self at this point if I respond yet again to the idea I'm somehow saying none violent game exist.
I do enjoy the odd visual novels dating sim and you're right in that I've overlooked them here presenting a mostly western focused argument. I've actually spent a lot of time talking about Katawa Shoujo because I think it's a wonderful work.
The thing is that I wasn't trying to ignore them to make my point, given what I said above I thought that Catherine would have been one of the games to be brought up. I don't think these games don't exist even in western market but even if you account for Japan I'd argue they are a relatively minor section of it. Films purely about human interaction and drama without violence are, I feel, vastly more prevalent than in games and I think there are perfectly valid reasons for this. I just think games, especially mainstream games and especially in the western market are limiting themselfs and gaming as a whole would be better off if we saw more of the willingness of the indie scene to make games that explore new form of mechanics for new forms of expression.
Ok here a challenge, name me all the genre of film you can think of and then name me games that would fit into those categories. I'm aware that this is inherently reductive because genre in film terms often implies narrative and games are not inherently so. This is why genre in games is first and foremost a description of mechanics.
I ask this being pretty confident of the results. Games are inherently different to film in that they have, shockingly, gameplay. You are active in engagement with it and mechanics that best support that engagement are the ones most often used. Violence is an inherently engaging mechanic that relies on something people really like. It's the most iterated and divers mechanic in gaming in my opinion and as such refined.
This is reflected in the genre's that are popular. Conversations and human interaction are much harder to turn in to the same level of satisfying game play as violence. Not that it can't isn't or shouldn't be done but it's most often uses in addition to other mechanics and it's mechanics have remained mostly basic and unchanged for years.
As a result in terms of narrative genre we don't have many big budget mainstream games that fit into genres (i.e. romantic comedy) that are routinely represented at the box office.
I simply feel the industry is stunted as a result. We are only just finding out what games can do as an art form and there is wonderful amazing things been done in the indie scene for example our mainstream is no where near as broad as other mediums including film.
Hell maybe narrative genre in that sense doesn't matter, games are games to be played first and foremost. I just personally feel that there are mechanics and experiences of play that the main stream could be offering but simply aren't.
Oh I agree, if violence didn't sell it wouldn't but that's true in all mediums. My point is mostly based on the idea that violence when abstracted into game mechanics is inherently satisfying for a variety of purely gameplay reasons. In fact you bring up an example of when you talk about how an online FPS is at it's heart a game of long range tag. This ability to provide context for that abstraction of game play when combined with the fact that people just enjoy violence makes it incredibly attractive as a choice of mechanic and as a result I feel that it's over used.
I can't give you a citation as it's mostly opinion, as is the video as it's opinion piece. You are free to disagree but I don't see how just because I think the medium is more reliant on violence means I've somehow forgotten that other types of game exist.
Part of the point of the video is that violence is a great mechanic for games and a popular one. This has lead to it being iterated on and refined more than a lot of other mechanics in games. Just, for example, think about conversations (the core of human interaction) in an RPGs and ask yourself are their any fundamental differences between how Fallout handled conversation and something like Mass Effect 3 does? And then ask yourself how different shooting is these days vs Duke 3d or the like. My feeling is that shooting has been vastly refined and open to more complexity (stalker for example) when viewed in that light.
In fact it's easy to argue that conversation mechanics are less in depth now than in the past due to the introduction of voice acting and the nature of scale vs fidelity (costs far more to record dialog than it does to write it). To go further one of the most talked about and interesting developments in conversation recently in game design circles was the Walking Dead's choice to let you know via a pop up the results of conversations at the end of the conversation. For example you make a choice to say something and your informed a given person will remember that you said that. It provides an instant clear feedback on how your actions are impacting on the game that are independent of player interpretations.
This has personally sparked off me prep work on a proof of concept game where the central mechanic is conversation and if it would be possible to abstract it into a set of mechanics that mirror something like a turned based RPG. One of the things would be to feed back your character interpretations of events coloured by your and the persons you are talking to stats. Why do I bring this up? Well in part I want to expand on why I hold my view in terms of how other mechanics in games have not had the same refinement just to make it clear that far from dismissing non-violent games I'm actually thinking about putting my money where my mouth is and actually making one.
"A matter of opinion. I'd take the art of a "violent" videogame like Bioshock over and above the bland TV and movies that pass for mainstream entertainment any day of the week. The first game in that series had a better story and characterisation than any of the Transformers movies, for example, along with thoughtful subtext and some neat plot twists."
Again you making the assumption that just because I think the industry tends to focus on violence and how that can negatively impact on artistic growth that violent games can't be artistic. For example, LA Noire is used as a case study of how the perceived need for violence as a main mechanic can undermine the artistry of the game. It had long, out of place shootouts that firmly jarred with everything else the game was doing because... well... why? In this case I'm not saying the game could not or should not include violence, some violence is clearly central to it (much like LA Confidential) I just feel the game would have been much better served by it being a vastly less central mechanic. It feels like the makers of the game felt that they couldn't sell the rest of the game and the interesting things they tried to do with conversions as a AAA title with out sections in which you gun down a bunch of guys.
Now as for Bioshock let me link you to my response to an article about how Bioshock violence limits it's audience.
The trust of my point? Violence is both integral to the nature of the game and that there is firmly nothing wrong with enjoying it. The game is the best most wonderful single experience I've had in all the years I've spent playing games. Just because I think the industry as a whole relies too heavily on violence and that is mostly a bad thing for a new medium in which we are only just starting to understand does not mean that I don't think violent games can be artistic.
Yes... my point is that the target market for these games are adults and yet most of this debate fly around "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN".
I feel I may have gone off on one here but I do hope it makes clear that I raise the issue that I think the industry had from my love for it. They are my major hobby and one of my biggest passions and I'd hope I wasn't an uninformed lout as a result :)
Games are more overly reliant on violence than other mediums and that is not a good thing.
This is a very good video on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZM2jXyvGOc and why we need to think about it and branch out.
But that's simply a matter of the industry's love affair with violence threatening their ability to grow artistically. In the hands of adults violent games seem like they really shouldn't be such an issue.
Then you should e-mail Mike directly instead of publicly posting the question in a forum that can be publicly commented on. That of course would mean Mike's answer wouldn't be public, which I guess is what you actually want because you think you've found something to trip him up and want every one to see what a clever little boy you are.
You'd have to force the downloads to use the USB as their temporary download locations as well. For example if you have Itunes installed on your main drive and have it download to a second data drive your data drive copy will, under this ruling, be an infringing copy as Itunes has a default temporary download location for in progress files from what I remember. The file is first "fixed" on the main drive and then copied to the second drive. While this is most likely "fair use" it still ridiculous to rule on the letter of the law of copying that was written before the digital age.
You want to know how crazy this is? This ruling effectively means that raid arrays are breaking copyright law. You could say that since the data is written across drives in the first "fixing" that makes it ok but if you ever try and recover data you will be fixing some part of it in a new medium. Now this likely would be covered under something like fair use but it just points out how crazy it is trying to apply laws like this to new technology.
Hell while we are at it I wonder if defragging your hard drive would count as infringement? You are effectively "refixing" the file to a different part of the physical material by copying bits of it to a closer physical space. Does that qualify as being in the same 'material' and so that's ok?
So the issue here comes down to the fact that Apple do not think games should be art. They do not want games to say anything, they want games to be time wasting fluff that will never cause their consumers to have to worry.
They didn't take this game down because they are afraid it makes them look bad, they took it down because they are afraid it makes the world look bad.