Book II CD or DVD

[Evnissyen]

Faithful:
I suppose you could always make up a legal issue . . . if only to show up cocky know-it-all members like Bernie.

After all: just because you can't see an illegality doesn't mean there can't be one, if you want.

[Faithful]

Faithful:
I suppose you could always make up a legal issue . . . if only to show up cocky know-it-all members like Bernie.

True, true, after all he is CrazyBernie!

[CrazyBernie]

*sigh* Jealousy is such an ugly beast.



I was actually going to mention that the same rules would technically apply to a downloaded copy... as long as you cleanse your system of the existing copy and bequeath your installation key to the new recipient, then no harm, no foul. While a company like Ubisoft would totally tweak out and call their lawyers over something so trivial, I don't think BW would have a problem with you gifting a copy to someone... especially since it means you're dedicated to buying two copies of the game just to suit your own selfish desires.

[Evnissyen]

Yeah, in my opinion it all comes down to respect for the artists. While in contrast I don't give much of a damn for 'big business', since they're out to screw us all anyway they can, anyhow . . . artists, on the other hand, deserve to be paid well for their efforts. They enrich our lives: we should give back. This is why I'm bothered by people who've taken decidedly anti-copyright positions . . . so many of them artists, too, ironically. I still don't see how any artist can honestly say they believe in free art in a Capitalist society, although I've met too many who do . . . nobody has yet been able to effectively explain this perspective to me so I can understand their beliefs, oh well.

That is to say, I mean . . . I understand the desire that art should be freely accessible to everyone . . . I just don't understand how an artist can support this actually taking place in a Capitalist society. In a Communistic state where every self-determined artist is taken care of by the government: maybe (at least if the government's getting the supportive money by other means). But not if the artist has bills to pay and nobody else is going to pay them for her, or him.

Anyway...

If you end up buying two copies of a game, it's really hard for me to see any issue with giving one away. I wouldn't get offended if somebody bought two of my books and then gave one away . . . it'd be exactly the same if you bought one copy for yourself and then another copy for somebody else as a birthday gift. In the end, the person who deserves the money gets the money, and two other people's lives are enriched.

When I'm buying books: I prefer to buy them new if they're emerging authors, but if the author's no longer alive: I seek out a used copy whenever I can, unless it's from a press that I feel really conscious about supporting, or an unpopular or obscure author whose works I want to keep in print, in which case buying the book new sends a message to keep this person in print, and also supports the press who's keeping the person in print.

Anyway... complicated stuff. I'll shut up before I start tying myself in knots.

[silverkitty]

I still don't see how any artist can honestly say they believe in free art in a Capitalist society, although I've met too many who do . . .

two words: donations, and patronage.

the first is shaky at best, and the second hasn't been practiced in a few hundred years, but those are probably the models of rent payment they have in mind.

[sirdilznik]

The case and disc art looks great! If a Tux logo was on there somewhere it would be perfect (though I'm happy just for the Linux mention)

[Evnissyen]

I still don't see how any artist can honestly say they believe in free art in a Capitalist society, although I've met too many who do . . .

two words: donations, and patronage.

the first is shaky at best, and the second hasn't been practiced in a few hundred years, but those are probably the models of rent payment they have in mind.

Yeah . . . while donations at least allow people to decide, based on their finances, whether or not they want to pay for art . . . I do not believe that it can work, generally speaking, as a means of reliable funding. I suspect that shareware developers who don't encourage people to buy their products by limiting accessibility do not receive enough money to pay for their time expense... . I do like the shareware approach, and when I download and test out software, and it restricts me from certain functions (an inability to save files is a good approach, I feel) but still gives me enough access to make an informed decision about its capabilities: if I like it I'll pay for it. If I like it and it's free: I won't pay for it. I won't donate. I'm not even sure that if I were wealthy then I would do so... and I suspect that's the case for the good majority of the middle and upper classes as well . . . and that's a serious problem.

What it comes down to there is that you're relying on people's goodwill, which is not a reliable approach at all. I guess since there are people who put out free software then maybe it works to a certain modest extent . . . I don't know . . . but I suspect what's the case there is that these people don't mind sacrificing their time and effort of the benefit of the masses . . . which is noble and fine and admirable, but... I still feel that artists and developers should be paid fairly for their efforts. What if they get in a financial bind later on? Are they going to regret their decision? Everyone needs security, after all . . . unless their born into money, I suppose.

As for patronage: Yeah, this never works. Throughout history there have always been far too few wealthy patrons to go around.

If we're going the patronage system: we'd have to go back to talking about Communism... or at least to establish an enormous system where the government pays artists to be artists . . . which would -- let's face it -- cost a brutally excessive amount of money, and probably face abuse. (I'm an artist myself (trained painter (and, yes, I can draw, ahem) as well as a writer, so I, like every other artist on these forums, can attest to the fact that our human nature is no different from anyone else's human nature. We take what we can get. When we see an advantage we take it. We all need to survive, and if we're surviving and making a little extra: we want things. It's only natural.)

So you all know: Although I'm very liberal and favor a strong central government that takes care of its people: I'm also opposed to government support of the Arts. This might seem ironic considering my chosen career path, but personally: I don't feel that the Arts falls into a category of one of those things that the Government should be responsible for. If the Government's purpose is to ensure the safety, health and well-being of its people: where do the Arts apply? The Arts enrich the mind and senses; they do not make a person healthier or safer.

However . . . at the risk of seeming to go back on my dismissal of donations (I'll explain in a moment why it doesn't): I've been toying with an idea for a while, and if I were wealthy and a celebrity I would actually try to implement it. Unfortunately I'm neither and never will be; however: my idea is this: That a broad, nationwide artist's fund be established, like any organization who relies on donations to run . . . an independent fund that is therefore free of the tides of political shifts . . . an independent fund which, by spreading the idea of the importance of Arts funding, helps establish a greater sense of an American artistic culture. It would be nice, also, if such a fund were focused more strongly toward emerging artists and artists of financial need . . . to weigh financial need equally with merit (something that the state-funded councils do not do.)

Why this is different: this would be a broad-based, well-established national fund, not simply every artist in the nation asking for individual donations to fund their life-work. And on that last note: It doesn't fund the artists' actual career and therefore permit 'free art'. Like every state Cultural Council's grants it simply helps artists to manage their finances and time, at a specific moment, thereby facilitating their ability to create, at that specific moment. The amount they get is one-time only, and of such a small amount, effectively and generally speaking, that it cannot at all 'replace' the need for financial earnings. The artist must still charge for his or her art, or suffer the consequences.

Any thoughts on any of this?

(btw: Jedi-Learner: I like your new avatar . . . better than the previous.)

[Donleon]

So... i don't understand
you can't buy Book II DVD in a pc games shop. You only can let the DVD sent to ya house

[CrazyBernie]

So... i don't understand
you can't buy Book II DVD in a pc games shop. You only can let the DVD sent to ya house

Correct. You can order it, and while waiting for the disc to arrive, you can also download it and start playing right away.

[CrazyBernie]

Why this is different: this would be a broad-based, well-established national fund, not simply every artist in the nation asking for individual donations to fund their life-work. And on that last note: It doesn't fund the artists' actual career and therefore permit 'free art'. Like every state Cultural Council's grants it simply helps artists to manage their finances and time, at a specific moment, thereby facilitating their ability to create, at that specific moment. The amount they get is one-time only, and of such a small amount, effectively and generally speaking, that it cannot at all 'replace' the need for financial earnings. The artist must still charge for his or her art, or suffer the consequences.

Any thoughts on any of this?

So... what do you consider scholarships?

[Evnissyen]

So... what do you consider scholarships?

Grades-based.

Also: privately funded, and not granted to broad swaths of artists. (Once, in art school, I had a conversation with this guy who was telling me it was easy to get a scholarship, that there were lots of obscure scholarships out there that people didn't know about and didn't apply for, that were easy to obtain. We were talking about writing, since I'd commented on how well-written I thought a paper of his was, and then he went on to say it was easy to get a grant or scholarship. I was momentarily re-encouraged, but I still found myself unable to find one, oh well.)

But most essentially: scholarships fund education, not living expenses and material expenses.

Remember: I'm talking about funding, here, not education.

Grants -- since I mentioned them -- are different, and they are applicable to real-life work expenses . . . but again they're all privately funded or government-funded, and they're not broadly applicable. There are some niche grants here and there, some people are able to find lesser-known grants if they look hard . . . they're not in the majority.

[silverkitty]

As for patronage: Yeah, this never works. Throughout history there have always been far too few wealthy patrons to go around.

If we're going the patronage system: we'd have to go back to talking about Communism...

No, I specifically meant the former kind of patronage, where it's wealthy individuals, not governments responsible. All we really need is for it to become fashionable to show off the art created by your wards again. Where every A-list celeb and CEO has to have unique and new art created specifically for them or risk being seen as "uncool" by their peers. Not sure how that would help software, but it would work for music and painting and sculpture and such. If it became fashionable again. Since we can't dictate fashion, there's nothing likely to make this happen, unless I become super wealthy. Then I'll hire a couple artists to make stuff and sneer down my nose at my wealthy guests who can't show off the same, and maybe it'll catch on

[Evnissyen]

Yeah.. easier to just make people buy your work, methinks. Plus, psychologically speaking: adding a dollar value adds intrinsic value. One of the first things you learn in art school: the higher the price, the greater the worth. If you price your work low: your admitting it has low value. If all art were free: I suspect the general populace would pay less attention to it, not more, and regard it with less respect. A price tag demands respect, especially a high one. It also invites collectors, which itself adds to the mystique of art, and therefore its intrinsic 'value'. This is how Capitalism has conditioned us.

This aspect of human psychology is something both Starbucks and Apple know very well.

Plus: if you don't copyright and put a price tag on your own work: other people will put a price tag on it, and exploit it at their will, and turn it into a product of their own design, and you won't get a penny for that and you'll have no control over who doesn't get to exploit it.

But on the Patronage system, yeah, I was thinking both the early 20th Century (particularly the Surrealists) and also the Renaissance. In both cases: the ratio of artist:patron was quite high. There never was and never will be enough patrons to go around. If you wanted to try to get more patrons I suppose you might try to, yes, somehow create a Society of Art, like you suggested, or else devalue your work. If you devalue your work: people will have less motivation to fund it, unless somehow we lived in a Society of Art . . . but like you said: hard to dictate fashion . . . and fashion can never be maintained, especially a fashion built on pretense and false inflation of the 'intrinsic value' of art . . . and I don't think fashion-collecting alone would support every artist out there, or even the majority of them, though I suppose you could try it, if you found a way.

If you want to inflate the value of art: it seems to me the best and easiest way to do it is by adding a price tag.

I'm not at all sure how things worked in the Athenian and Roman societies, however, beyond state patronage.

Since we can't dictate fashion, there's nothing likely to make this happen, unless I become super wealthy. Then I'll hire a couple artists to make stuff and sneer down my nose at my wealthy guests who can't show off the same, and maybe it'll catch on

Whee! That would be nice. Here's to hoping you do, or else get someone else who's wealthy to do this . . . we need some more Peggy Guggenheims and Gertrude Steins, these days.

[iamrichard]

ALOT and i mean ALOT of text.

I do hope you have a social life... Dont you?

Your keyboard must be broken by now ...
Wonder if you still write this much when the game is out.

[silverkitty]

It's sad that the mis-Information Age has changed people so much that they now consider "enough text to make a reasoned argument" to be "so much text it must break the keyboard." Once upon a time, that much text would barely cover the abstract for a good paper explaining something in great detail, with research to back it up.