@NoelVeiga: @NoelVeiga said:
If a market is left to be policed by the customers, then it's poorly regulated. If the copyright law can't cope with software, then it needs to get updated. It does just fine in film, tv, print and music, so it needs to be adapted to work in this space as well. There is nothing about games that doesn't support anti-plagiarism legislation. And if small devs can't afford the cost of defending their case in court, then that's the legal system's fault and it becomes a political issue at that point. It'd be regrettable if instead of lobbying for better gaming-based copyright we instead resorted to the fundamentally broken, draconian patent regulation instead.
I mean, it is possible for this market to adjust once people start becoming more aware of quality or creativity differences within it. It already happened once (remember "doom clones"?), but it would be a shame for us to make it through that process without coming up with some legal protection so that indie devs can defend their copyright without breaking the ability to build upon each other's ideas. Because the best way to ensure that nobody passes bad regulation is to pass good regulation first.
If copyright is extended to gameplay, it is going to spell the doom of innovation in games. Patents are already destroying the software and hardware industry thanks to submarine patent warehouses, and copyright is worse when it comes to lifespan (over 100 years and rising). You want to know why you almost never see minigames in loading screens? Namco has a patent for it, and no one wants to pay Namco to license that patent. Instead we get to sit through loading screens, twiddling our thumbs, despite including a little minigame to play during that time being an obvious invention in the mind of just about any gamer alive - and thus should be outside of patentability.
Plus, what will happen in situations like Desktop Dungeons when the clone is released before the original? Will we get cloners who catch wind of a new idea who then rush out to secure a patent/copyright on the gameplay concept before the independent, less-funded original developer has a chance to? (Answer: Of course we will, if there's even a slight chance it will be profitable.) Patents and copyrights overwhelmingly benefit large companies more than small ones, in no small part because of what it costs to hire a lawyer to deal with them. With enough money to throw around, everyone else just starts looking like a big, fat target. The game industry has been burned too many times to trust law-makers, and hey - the ESRB is a method of self-policing that works great. Why can't we find a way to solve our issues ourselves and leave the government out of it?
Log in to comment