this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
358 points (98.9% liked)
Memes
45244 readers
3170 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm a games industry professional. I would continue to do this work as an unpaid job if my basic needs were met on a societal level.
You think you're asking a neutral question, but you're not. Companies operating within capitalism will behave in the interests of capitalists. IP laws aren't required for the AAA studios other than to domineer control over an idea. A game like Call of Duty is a titan made by 1000s of professionals. One of those games gets launched every year. By shear force of momentum, there are very few companies that could ever replicate it in any fashion.
Now imagine if COD was made by a company in which IP didn't exist, all the profits went to the workers rather than shareholders, and that the workers have a say in the launch schedule. Would you be willing to pay for a game in that instance?
I don't follow. How would no IP give more money to the workers? How would no IP change how the company was run?
I'm not arguing IP here, I just seems to me that you are mixing two different things. You can have a employee owned company and still have IP.
Or am I missing something obvious?
I think their point is that if the people making the games were given fair compensation that they would be more willing to sacrifice IP rights.
I don't see what makes them think that other than their own personal feelings on the matter, but I think that's the message.
That couldn't have been the point.
Companies use (read: abuse) IP to keep an artificial, government-sanctioned monopoly they use to extract money from users. Add to that skins, microtransactions, lootboxes, yearly releases and all the other vilest shit you can find in a modern videogame and you'll see it isn't about the studio staying afloat - it's abuit the publisher raking in the $$$.
People who are creatives take it as a point of pride when their work is spread, remade and remixed. What they do not like is if that remaking and remixing is done by a soulless company in the vilest and most soulless way to generate profits. Oh, and except for thise with the best deals, IP stays with the company.
It's not about cratives "not being paid enough" so they need IP protection - it's the very same companies whose IP is protected who don't pay their workers enough. IP doesn't bring money to workers directly nor does it protect workers from anything since again - the IPs are owned by the studio/publisher.
Call it "personal feelings", but it's how the world works.
More people would be able to innovate on said "non IP". Multiple lines could be developed by multiple independent teams, extending the non ip however they see fit. By encouraging competition, the better content would thrive.
It lowers the barrier of entry, enforcing competition and lowering distribution cost. And without the ludicrous profit margins and legal overhead from big conglomerates, it would be cheaper for the consumers, and more of the fees could be distributed to the actual people working on the creation.
This is prettyranty, sorry if it's not too clearly articulated.
I'm trying to reframe the point of the discussion, which is about IP. Nitpicking the example is counterproductive, because it's absurd to assume that no one would ever pay for a piece of software.
What's stopping you from doing this now? Seems like it would be naturally the place that industry professionals would flock to and would see dramatic success.
Because I don't have the capital, and jumping into forming a large worker cooperative is incredibly risky. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to, but I've found my niche and it's organizing unions within the tech industry.