Comments on: Congress passes, President Bush signs strict anti-piracy law

By: Liz Surette

Liz Surette — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:09:47 +0000

If the statute is well drafted and interpreted strictly by the courts, I would hope that no innocent consumers would be punished. I should think that anti-piracy laws punish piracy, not lawful purchases. If that isn’t true, then the statute should be void for vagueness or overbreadth. Only time will tell…

By: Justin Motsch

Justin Motsch — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:51:42 +0000

I doubt anyone would reasonably argue that piracy does not hurt developers, but I side with consumers first and foremost, then developers. I am sure that if we woke up tomorrow and digital distribution was magically the new standard for releasing games, empowering developers to either side-step or act as their own publishers, they would employ the same tactics and arguments for limiting consumer rights in order to maximize profits. Generally I have no object to the industry making as much money as it can, but when it punishes consumers in the name of anti-piracy I tend to object.

By: Liz Surette

Liz Surette — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:37:31 +0000

Yes, but remember that for every game you purchase, an amount goes straight to the developer in royalties. It may be small potatoes compared to what the publisher gets, and I wish it were more, but that’s how developers make their money. Even though publishers stand to gain the most from the Act, I can’t ignore the benefit to developers–who I side with first and foremost. In a perfect industry, the relationship between publishers and devs would be a completely symbiotic publicity-for-product tradeoff, but unfortunately there will be economic pressure and exploitation. Even though this law makes publishers richer and therefore more powerful, developers in turn receive more money and possibly a greater degree of financial independence. Again, I’m not condoning these methods of piracy prevention, but the idea that piracy does not substantially hurt developers is ridiculous.

By: Justin Motsch

Justin Motsch — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:04:31 +0000

My primary gripe with this act is that it is effectively “wolf in sheep’s clothing” legislation. Going back to English common law, the purpose of copyright and trademark law was to protect the creative and artistic expressions of those who create them. The interested parties who will claim protection under this act are those who have the least amount to do with actual creativity and art. It seems very back wards to me.