seen from China
seen from Japan
seen from Malaysia
seen from Netherlands
seen from China
seen from Netherlands
seen from Thailand
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Taiwan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
Álex Rins being a good umbrella girl for María Herrera in Aragón, 2013 ☂
María was the first woman to top the podium in the FIM CEV Repsol series, taking gold in the Moto3 race in late May of 2013! She added a second victory later in the season at Circuito de Navarre, and led the championship into the final round at Jerez.
Álex would go on to win his own Moto3 race that same year in Aragon in late September, so maybe being a grid girl for a friend is a lucky charm :)
So a lawyer YouTuber by the name of Moon Channel made a lengthy video about the chances of Stop Killing Games. His conclusion is that even though the movement won't achieve its goals, it still shows that the public is frustrated and dissatisfied with the status quo of IP laws and that it can still prevent companies from pushing the line being drawn. Even though you may not agree with SKG, I was wondering if you have any thoughts about the conclusion that Moon Channel states?
Here's the thing. There's really no good end result involved when the goal is regulation - the best you'll get is the absolute minimum compliance from those involved. When platforms required "exclusive content" from games to publish on their platform, the third-party publishers complied - we'd ship the exact same game and set aside a single piece of content like a piece of armor or an animation like an emote as the "exclusive content" for that platform.
Take it from a system designer - if there's only incentive to do the minimum of what the law requires, that's the most common result you'll get. The players need a way to align their incentives with the publishers in order to create a situation where both sides get what they want. Coercing them via regulation will only get minimal or malicious compliance at best, and will simply kill a lot of games that could have been beloved by those players because they would never get the green light in the first place. Instead, lobbying for some kind of tangible benefit in the cards for the publishers to provide a quality end-of-life sunset update for service games (like a delayed tax break for a chunk of the game's development costs) would go a lot further to incentivize the kind of behavior the players want.
[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]
Got a burning question you want answered?
Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter
Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on BlueSky
Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr
Frequent Questions: The FAQ
JK Rowling got wealthy through rent-seeking with a non-rivalrous good; not exactly as bad as being an arms dealer but pretty fucking bad! Her ability to get rich off writing Harry Potter is a direct consequence of all of our freedom of speech being continuously violated!
Private property serves a number of social functions at present (that don't all have to be served by the same mechanism, but I digress), but IMO the most important is to mitigate the tragedy of the commons. One can debate various other mechanisms and whether they would be better or worse towards this end, but needless to say there is no tragedy of the commons for information. The social functions which could possibly be served by JKR owning the Harry Potter franchise seem extremely limited, and not remotely worth abrogating a fundamental human right over.
Another important function that private property serves is to incentivize the creation of goods by giving the creator special rights and rewards. You appear to have fallen into the classic trap of focusing on [re]distribution of goods, ignoring the question of how goods get made and whether goods get made. The likely alternative to JKR owning the Harry Potter franchise isn't "everyone gets it for free", it's "franchise never comes into existence".
With that said, the Life-Plus-70-Years copyright term is absurdly long and I'm going to look the other way on piracy. America's first draft of 28 years was more sensible. Still, JKR very much got rich in the first 28 years of Harry Potter publication.
Getting philosophical about information, I make the information-theoretic argument that the Harry Potter books are too specific, complex and arbitrary for independent reinvention. Random search over human utterances is not going to produce even the first HP chapter in the lifetime of the universe. Observation of the physical universe can produce longer sets of physical laws, but those would be found by other people searching too. If it weren't for Rowling, you would never have wanted to convey the particular piece of information that is a Harry Potter book, so the harm being suffered here also seems extremely limited.
(Inspired by I think it was Scott Aaronson who had a better original post along these lines, though I can't find it right now, about the DeCSS system and "illegal numbers" like 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0. There's a "surely you can't own a number" intuitive appeal by way of computers representing any kind of textual or visual information as a number. But, people's intuitions about "a number" are very much shaped by small numbers, and by small we mean less than 10^100, not the kind of number that is the digital representation of a book. So the retort is that small numbers should be free-libre, but big numbers too big for you to ever count or even use as a GUID can have claims staked on them no problem. Informational work would have to go into identifying specific numbers or small ranges to stake a claim on them, so no spamming, no claiming primes and no round numbers.)
Ankh-Morpork no longer had a fire brigade. The citizens had a rather disturbingly direct way of thinking at times, and it did not take long for people to see the rather obvious flaw in paying a group of people by the number of fires they put out. The penny really dropped after Charcoal Tuesday.
Terry Pratchett, Jingo
looove INCENTIVES
how did those 3 weekends he didn't win go, i wonder??
ohoho, don't you worry your pretty little head about that - Danny has already considered the punishments~
Saudi Arabia – March 2023
Max finished second.
Checo won. The car had pace, but not quite enough. DRS zones weren’t working in his favour. Whatever. It didn’t matter.
What mattered came about an hour later, while he was still fuming in his driver's room.
His phone buzzed.
Daniel Ricciardo: photo
Max’s heart kicked.
He opened it.
A quick reminder of the incentives we have going on this month.
We have individual incentives as well as the overall goals going on, and already have enough participation to hold a dedicated stream to fulfilling the star making!
Thank you so much to those that have joined in so far. Lets get those baubles decorated & filled with colourful stars!!
Support Werepuppy Creations
