Most modern board games, and all of the ones that Wil Wheaton showcases, are designed with fun and innovative mechanics, designed for replayability because of how they play. Board games that are not fun to play, but just fun to look at - such as ones that have silly cards, but after reading through all of the cards there is no more enjoyment in the game - are not featured by him.
Some video games are like the silly cards games - you want to see all of the cool graphics that they have in the game, but the gameplay is exactly like a thousand other games you have played before; the only interest is the visuals. On top of that, even for games with better gameplay, there are many people who only play games because they want to see the graphics, and not work at the gameplay in order to see them, which is not the case for board games.
Add to that that many games are about the puzzles, and once they are solved, the game is essentially done, and that explains - partially - why video game walkthroughs are different from board game walkthroughs.
Second, tens of millions of people already know about big video game titles, while only a few thousand people know about even some of the big board game titles, like Tsuro or Puerto Rico.
A YouTube video isn't going to boost the number of people who know about a major video game by more than a fraction of a percent. A YouTube video by Wil Wheaton boosts the number of people who know about a board game five or ten-fold, and many of them may not be board game geeks.
Video game companies have large marketing departments, and their attitude is that a bad review is not better than no review; they want to control the message. They try to bully game journalism into only giving good reviews, and they are pretty successful in that regard. They are going to try to bully people who make disparaging remarks about their games on YouTube, and the way to do that is to use DMCA to take down the videos.
Lastly, video game companies, like other media companies, have large legal departments with nothing to do but worry about copyright infringement - video games can be digitally copied, while board games can't; board game companies are small and don't have big legal departments - Hasbro, Mattel, Jaxx, and a few others are the exceptions. You can bet that if Wil Wheaton did a negative review about Hasbro on his site and used their IP to do it then Hasbro's lawyers would - at least - be having a conversations about it.
Yep, exactly. A leaked movie DOES affect the box office earnings by dissuading the people who would only see the movie if they know nothing about it.
A good movie will always get attendees. A bad movie gets a spike until people know it's bad. When the movie is leaked, that spike might not happen, because people already know it's bad before opening night (otoh, people are still going to see TMNT).
What does it say when your business model relies on the ignorance of people to pay for your product before they know it's bad?
Add to this the massive vapidity of the current movie industry built on wall-to-wall adaptations of kids novels, cartoons, and sequels. Maybe, just maybe because a type of movie worked well for about five or ten years, based on a few good ones and a lot of mediocre to bad ones, doesn't mean that it's going to forever. Maybe it's time for Hollywood to change direction.
A generation that has grown up on amateur videos has a new taste for amateur videos, equal to or above professionally made ones. It's possible that the video wouldn't have been popular ten years ago.
I am reminded of the scene in Anne of Green Gables where Anne is paid 25 dollars for writing references to Rollings Reliable Baking Powder into a love story she wrote. (Her friend Diana actually slips in the references, against her knowledge).
One can only presume that this was happening for quite some time before then.
If you look at USC17, Sec 109, the right of first sale clearly permits selling the material, and clearly forbids renting the material.
Selling the material does not deprive the author of their rights; one person merely transfers to another, and is not laden with something he no longer needs.
Renting is a viable income process, however, and doing so deprives the author of same.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. ...
"Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending."
It sounds to me like you're implying that Southwest should compromise its basic brand distinction, not to mention its principles, in the name of possible short term gain.
If the US companies are aiding governments in their violations of human rights, it is reasonable ... or at least consistant, for the US government to forbid US companies from dealing with those governments.
It would follow that all US businesses should be forbidden from dealing with China, but that would be consistant ... or at least reasonable.
I also support the rights of private locations to enact jamming on their premises, if they so desire. Maybe it would be better to simply stand at the door and inform people that they are not permitted to have active cellpones in the theater. Unfortunately, too many people think that it is their right to ignore your establishment's rules.
Everyone has a choice as to whether they want to enter or not - if you miss "an emergency call" because you were asked to turn off your cellphone, that is your problem; you could just as easily have not patronized an establishment that asks you to turn it off.
As far as it being too late to argue that we used to live without cellphones, but now they are a necessity, I say "poo". If you live paralyzed in fear twenty-four hours a day that you might miss an emergency call, don't go out. When people have emergencies they are supposed to contact the authorities, not your cellphone. And, if you are purposely going to a place when you will not be reachable by cellphone, you have to leave instructions for someone else to deal with the emergency who will be available.
In the meantime, those of us who have been suffering from rude noisy people will finally have places to go where silence is enforced; that is our right, and our choice, as well.
Maybe because is the real world, we can actually do other things while we are talking on the phone (multitask). With video phones, you lose that capability.
Video phones seem like they would be useful for three things: introducing new team members at work, seeing your grandchildren, and porn.
Re: combining gadgets. Short: not necessarily. This same family going on vacation might take: a few small water bottles, some large water bottles, some ice packs in the cooler, a suction pump for drawing water, pots for cooking water, etc... We don't combine these functions because, while essentially what we want is water, each one is designed for its function in relation to the water, with a simple user interface, quick startup, good quality, low error rate. As Scotty said in Star Trek III (paraphrasing), the more features you throw in, the easier it is to gum up the works. Each of the accessories you mention give better functionality for some tasks, rather than others. It's true that more accessories means more chance of failure. However, it also prevents a single point of failure for all access. Yehuda
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Yehuda Berlinger.
Because video games are different from board games
Most modern board games, and all of the ones that Wil Wheaton showcases, are designed with fun and innovative mechanics, designed for replayability because of how they play. Board games that are not fun to play, but just fun to look at - such as ones that have silly cards, but after reading through all of the cards there is no more enjoyment in the game - are not featured by him.
Some video games are like the silly cards games - you want to see all of the cool graphics that they have in the game, but the gameplay is exactly like a thousand other games you have played before; the only interest is the visuals. On top of that, even for games with better gameplay, there are many people who only play games because they want to see the graphics, and not work at the gameplay in order to see them, which is not the case for board games.
Add to that that many games are about the puzzles, and once they are solved, the game is essentially done, and that explains - partially - why video game walkthroughs are different from board game walkthroughs.
Second, tens of millions of people already know about big video game titles, while only a few thousand people know about even some of the big board game titles, like Tsuro or Puerto Rico.
A YouTube video isn't going to boost the number of people who know about a major video game by more than a fraction of a percent. A YouTube video by Wil Wheaton boosts the number of people who know about a board game five or ten-fold, and many of them may not be board game geeks.
Video game companies have large marketing departments, and their attitude is that a bad review is not better than no review; they want to control the message. They try to bully game journalism into only giving good reviews, and they are pretty successful in that regard. They are going to try to bully people who make disparaging remarks about their games on YouTube, and the way to do that is to use DMCA to take down the videos.
Lastly, video game companies, like other media companies, have large legal departments with nothing to do but worry about copyright infringement - video games can be digitally copied, while board games can't; board game companies are small and don't have big legal departments - Hasbro, Mattel, Jaxx, and a few others are the exceptions. You can bet that if Wil Wheaton did a negative review about Hasbro on his site and used their IP to do it then Hasbro's lawyers would - at least - be having a conversations about it.
Re: Sadly, they could have a point
Yep, exactly. A leaked movie DOES affect the box office earnings by dissuading the people who would only see the movie if they know nothing about it.
A good movie will always get attendees. A bad movie gets a spike until people know it's bad. When the movie is leaked, that spike might not happen, because people already know it's bad before opening night (otoh, people are still going to see TMNT).
What does it say when your business model relies on the ignorance of people to pay for your product before they know it's bad?
Add to this the massive vapidity of the current movie industry built on wall-to-wall adaptations of kids novels, cartoons, and sequels. Maybe, just maybe because a type of movie worked well for about five or ten years, based on a few good ones and a lot of mediocre to bad ones, doesn't mean that it's going to forever. Maybe it's time for Hollywood to change direction.
It's Coke from the faucet all over again.
Yehuda
Oh, the irony
The couple may not be making money off the video, but they created a web site: http://www.jkweddingdance.com/
Asking for donations to an organization that fights domestic violence!
Ah, the irony.
Yehuda
Also, the YouTube generation has new tastes
A generation that has grown up on amateur videos has a new taste for amateur videos, equal to or above professionally made ones. It's possible that the video wouldn't have been popular ten years ago.
Yehuda
This idea is centuries old
I am reminded of the scene in Anne of Green Gables where Anne is paid 25 dollars for writing references to Rollings Reliable Baking Powder into a love story she wrote. (Her friend Diana actually slips in the references, against her knowledge).
One can only presume that this was happening for quite some time before then.
So why exactly are we arguing about it in 2007?
Yehuda
Bill,
I think you are misreading the statute.
That is entirely probable.
Yehuda
You are confusing the right of First Sale with the
If you look at USC17, Sec 109, the right of first sale clearly permits selling the material, and clearly forbids renting the material.
Selling the material does not deprive the author of their rights; one person merely transfers to another, and is not laden with something he no longer needs.
Renting is a viable income process, however, and doing so deprives the author of same.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. ...
"Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending."
Or, as I more succinctly put in my poetic treatment of the copyright code:
"You can always sell off
What you've legally bought, honey
But you can't lease or rent it
If you're doing it for money"
Yehuda
If it works ...
It sounds to me like you're implying that Southwest should compromise its basic brand distinction, not to mention its principles, in the name of possible short term gain.
Doesn't sound too good to me.
Yehuda
For the same reason they impose sanctions on count
If the US companies are aiding governments in their violations of human rights, it is reasonable ... or at least consistant, for the US government to forbid US companies from dealing with those governments.
It would follow that all US businesses should be forbidden from dealing with China, but that would be consistant ... or at least reasonable.
Yehuda
Old news
The pi/2 discount has been around since A9 was first introduced.
Yehuda
Another voice in support of jamming
I also support the rights of private locations to enact jamming on their premises, if they so desire. Maybe it would be better to simply stand at the door and inform people that they are not permitted to have active cellpones in the theater. Unfortunately, too many people think that it is their right to ignore your establishment's rules.
Everyone has a choice as to whether they want to enter or not - if you miss "an emergency call" because you were asked to turn off your cellphone, that is your problem; you could just as easily have not patronized an establishment that asks you to turn it off.
As far as it being too late to argue that we used to live without cellphones, but now they are a necessity, I say "poo". If you live paralyzed in fear twenty-four hours a day that you might miss an emergency call, don't go out. When people have emergencies they are supposed to contact the authorities, not your cellphone. And, if you are purposely going to a place when you will not be reachable by cellphone, you have to leave instructions for someone else to deal with the emergency who will be available.
In the meantime, those of us who have been suffering from rude noisy people will finally have places to go where silence is enforced; that is our right, and our choice, as well.
Yehuda
Video phones
Maybe because is the real world, we can actually do other things while we are talking on the phone (multitask). With video phones, you lose that capability.
Video phones seem like they would be useful for three things: introducing new team members at work, seeing your grandchildren, and porn.
Not necessarily
Re: combining gadgets.
Short: not necessarily.
This same family going on vacation might take: a few small water bottles, some large water bottles, some ice packs in the cooler, a suction pump for drawing water, pots for cooking water, etc...
We don't combine these functions because, while essentially what we want is water, each one is designed for its function in relation to the water, with a simple user interface, quick startup, good quality, low error rate.
As Scotty said in Star Trek III (paraphrasing), the more features you throw in, the easier it is to gum up the works.
Each of the accessories you mention give better functionality for some tasks, rather than others.
It's true that more accessories means more chance of failure. However, it also prevents a single point of failure for all access.
Yehuda