Digital licensing laws need to be updated

[1adam12]

Yes.

Seems to me they would have put The Addams Family up front if that were the case.

I admire all of you who are so sure of yourselves in speaking for Zen. Maybe you're right, but knowing what TPA went through to secure the rights to certain tables, if Zen gets them there may be significant changes like voice redubs or something. The point is not the overall licencing contract, the point is regarding other licensing factors outside of "Scientific".

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[shutyertrap]

I have a feeling we can explain this five ways to Sunday and it still won't land. All I know is if I created an intellectual property and brand, I am not writing a contract to some other business who want to license that property for them to have it in perpetuity. It will be a limited time, and we can talk about renewing it, but at the end of the day it's my IP. If you do not like those terms, don't sign the contract. Even in real estate, the land owner only leases the land to the person building on it. Granted those are usually 90 year leases (or something like that), but eventually it reverts back to the land owner and they can demolish your building once the terms are up.

I know people keep writing me off when mentioning this but... farsight does still have timed rights to 3rd party properties just not the table rights. If farsight wanted they could still retheme any stern as addams family and use it till their time expires so long as its not really the williams/bally table. Not that these frankenstein property tables would be very good... but it would keep them out of zens hands for a while

I can't outright say you are wrong, it's not like any of us know the terms of FarSight's agreements. I will point out though that FarSight had a license to ST:TNG and then had to obtain a new license for Stern Star Trek, so no they can't just slap 'Star Trek' on anything they like. The license was specific to that machine, that layout, that particular use. Otherwise the Star Trek license would have been way more expensive. Same can be said for Terminator 2, as the question was specifically posed to FarSight as to whether securing that would allow them to do T3 also, and the answer was no, it was only for that machine.

As I've pointed out before, the licenses allow for exclusive use for a limited time. Again with Terminator, another game company had bought exclusive timed digital rights to it, and a side deal that included said company had to be written for FarSight that expressly said they could use the license only for the T2 pinball. Exclusivity rights usually last long enough for a company to develop, distribute, and sell. After that another company can purchase non exclusive rights until the first company's rights fully expire. I guarantee that FarSight does not have exclusivity rights to any of the licenses used with Williams, not even Doctor Who (which they CAN still sell a version of).

FarSight could re-skin all the Williams tables, but they'd have to make slight changes to the layouts and rules so as to claim them as their own. In a manner of speaking, this is what Zaccaria has done with their Retro and Remake tables, except they have done so with full permission of the license. Often the case with licensing is if you are no longer actively developing for it, the rights will revert due to non use. Zacc putting out a Remake every couple of months keeps that license agreement alive, possibly extending their exclusivity.

 

[shutyertrap]

Seems to me they would have put The Addams Family up front if that were the case.

I admire all of you who are so sure of yourselves in speaking for Zen. Maybe you're right, but knowing what TPA went through to secure the rights to certain tables, if Zen gets them there may be significant changes like voice redubs or something. The point is not the overall licencing contract, the point is regarding other licensing factors outside of "Scientific".

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

I do know that Zen had the exact same problems with Christopher Lloyd's reps when they tried for BttF that FarSight did for TAF. You are correct in that we don't know if redubs will happen. They did pay for voice rights from Aliens, for the entire balls of fury pack, and a few others while not paying for music rights. If Zen does a deal for licenses that allows them to create original tables too, that might be a factor. We'll just have to wait and see. All I know for sure is that Zen won't do a Kickstarter and that if any company can pull off some of these more difficult licenses, it's Zen.

By the way, TAF is not the holy grail table people are asking for, it's Indiana Jones. Also, we don't yet know what licensed tables Zen will be doing first or when we'll be seeing them.

 

[MBeeching]

I know people keep writing me off when mentioning this but... farsight does still have timed rights to 3rd party properties just not the table rights. If farsight wanted they could still retheme any stern as addams family and use it till their time expires so long as its not really the williams/bally table. Not that these frankenstein property tables would be very good... but it would keep them out of zens hands for a while

I would imagine Farsight negotiated very specific terms of usage and their final products were submitted to those parties for approval. Raul Julia's estate would come down on them like a tonne of bricks if things started to change without their permission.

Farsight are likely stuck with numerous licence agreements they can't use themselves, though on a case-by-case basis each has potential value. Some of them must be a hindrance for Zen whilst others could potentially provide benefits and assist with fast tracking their own table releases - The lawyers must be rubbing their hands with glee!

 

[1adam12]

I do know that Zen had the exact same problems with Christopher Lloyd's reps when they tried for BttF that FarSight did for TAF. You are correct in that we don't know if redubs will happen. They did pay for voice rights from Aliens, for the entire balls of fury pack, and a few others while not paying for music rights. If Zen does a deal for licenses that allows them to create original tables too, that might be a factor. We'll just have to wait and see. All I know for sure is that Zen won't do a Kickstarter and that if any company can pull off some of these more difficult licenses, it's Zen.

By the way, TAF is not the holy grail table people are asking for, it's Indiana Jones. Also, we don't yet know what licensed tables Zen will be doing first or when we'll be seeing them.

I think with their current model, Zen should be able to stick to their no crowdfunding promise. I don't know what sort of income they get from ads, but considering that they are an ongoing source and a table could possibly have a premium unlock price in the for of money, tokens, cash, or whatever, it's possible they could pull something off.

While I haven't been excited about the actual game play, I've been very impressed at how well the tables are rendered. The collapsing castle effect in Medieval Madness is vastly superior to TPA. Seeing a table like Twilight Zone or Addams Family done by Zen could be fantastic.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[1adam12]

I do know that Zen had the exact same problems with Christopher Lloyd's reps when they tried for BttF that FarSight did for TAF. You are correct in that we don't know if redubs will happen. They did pay for voice rights from Aliens, for the entire balls of fury pack, and a few others while not paying for music rights. If Zen does a deal for licenses that allows them to create original tables too, that might be a factor. We'll just have to wait and see. All I know for sure is that Zen won't do a Kickstarter and that if any company can pull off some of these more difficult licenses, it's Zen.

By the way, TAF is not the holy grail table people are asking for, it's Indiana Jones. Also, we don't yet know what licensed tables Zen will be doing first or when we'll be seeing them.

Sorry for the extra reply. I had to Google.

The original Indiana Jones table was incredible. I dumped a lot of quarters into that.

Stern later made an Indiana Jones themed table.

I'm curious as to how that might muddy the waters, if at all. It's certainly plausible that Zen and TPA could each do a Williams and Stern version. However, if Stern currently holds the rights, would that affect Zen's attempts to acquire the voice rights?

This whole discussion has been very interesting, and I appreciate the knowledge shared by those who are familiar with all of details regarding digital rights.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[shutyertrap]

Dude. Just...really?

Okay, let's approach it this way then. You, as a developer, have created a video game with one character in particular that has become popular, to which you fully own the rights. You are distributing it on your own, no outside sources. Another company comes to you, says they want to license that character for their own purposes. Are you going to grant them use of it in perpetuity? Of course not. It's your character, you retain control. And that's the thing about digital, it can live forever without them ever lifting a finger after initially releasing it.

Continuing though with how you want digital licensing to be. Said company releases whatever it is they wanted to release with that character, and it tanks so hard it brings the brand down, so much so that your game sequel is now in question because of the stink now associated with that character. You wait for the fervor to subside, go forward with your sequel, only for them to re-release their product a week before your game comes out (because you know, they wanted to capitalize on the opportunity). Too bad for you, the license originator though. Revoking the license doesn't even matter, because this company can continue selling their product. The licensee is now protected, not the license owner.

I mean is that really the reality you want to live in?

 

[shutyertrap]

Sorry for the extra reply. I had to Google.

The original Indiana Jones table was incredible. I dumped a lot of quarters into that.

Stern later made an Indiana Jones themed table.

I'm curious as to how that might muddy the waters, if at all. It's certainly plausible that Zen and TPA could each do a Williams and Stern version. However, if Stern currently holds the rights, would that affect Zen's attempts to acquire the voice rights?

This whole discussion has been very interesting, and I appreciate the knowledge shared by those who are familiar with all of details regarding digital rights.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Stern's license for making Indiana Jones tables is over. They no longer hold the rights. More to the point, they owned the rights to make that physical machine, they did not own the rights to anything Indiana Jones.

The current theory, and we've had semi confirmation from FarSight, is that for a table like Deadpool, Zen currently holds the digital pinball rights to the license. That's to any digital pinball, recreation or not. In the case of Indiana Jones, if Zen got to the WMS version first, it would in theory prevent FarSight from making the Stern version. So long as Zen keeps paying for exclusivity rights, no one else will get to touch it. The key being, they'll have to keep paying.

 

[wilbers]

Let me ask this...

This whole debacle is being orchestrated by licensing horders, and being made worse by companies like Farsight that play ball. They basically helped SG by fighting to allow users to buy access to those tables after they learned the license was expiring. They helped SG's insidious cause further by saying they'll still support those tables for people who owned then prior to shutdown. I am not sure, but I assume they will even restore those tables to users if they sign into a new machine? All of this supports the false claim of entities like SG who say end users "own" a copy of the table, when in reality Farsight is still the only owner of a copy of each table (disks notwithstanding).

What Farsight should have done when the license expired was drop support for those tables, immediately removed the tables from their game, drop restore options for the tables. This would have pissed users off, and possibly triggered much-needed lawsuits to get this bs in front of some more modern-minded judges. Farsight could argue, rightfully, that users don't own the copies, they just buy access to TPA's copy. User could argue they should own the copy and Farsight should have to support that ownership. This would drag in Scientific Games and their lawyers, and they'd have to fix those antidelivian licensing practices once and for all.

License hoarding is something else - buying license for something and not doing anything with it (such as to frustrate a competitor, or just intentions changing). Not what is happening here at all.

Anyone that bought the tables before the deadline can still redownload them on the same platform if they change their console or PC - its tied to someones account, not the hardware - for example I bought a new laptop last November and can have it installed on that as well as my desktop (just that I only have 1 of TPA Williams tables as I only found out about it when they were about to be removed). Same is true with lots of software you are buying a license to use it according to what the license says (even if virtually no one bothers to read it) - applies to most of software on physical media as well, not just for downloaded software.

 

[Citizen]

You realize that if license holders had to let licensees sell digital commodities that utilize their intellectual properties in perpetuity, it would make license holders so overprotective of their IPs and drive licensing costs up so sky high that TPA would likely have never existed in the first place, right?

Your vision for how you think digitial licensing should work is unrealistic and would only result in IP licensing grinding to a halt. And your assertion that it is actually how it works if some big company would just challenge it is just not true.

I don't even disagree that IP laws could stand to be updated, but these ideas are just totally off the wall. FarSight isn't running an arcade. They're selling a product. They absolutely can be told that they can't generate new unlock codes, tiny little amounts of code, code being a physical product going by your own definition. Code is the digital commodity that's being sold to you when you buy a table. Just like how a physical licensee can no longer generate new physical tables once their license expires.

 

[EldarOfSuburbia]

They're not selling tables. They're selling access to play on tables in their digital arcade.

No, they're selling you a license to put that table in your digital arcade.

 

[msilcommand]

It's not my arcade. I only dl a copy of Farsight's app, and access copies of Farsight's tables in said digital arcade.

Here's the thing. Exclusive licensing stifles competition. Farsight should have been licensed to sell access to those tables on (for example) PS4's TPA into perpetuity. SG should have also licensed Zen and whomever else on their specific game apps to make healthy competition. Right now, we should have Farsight with their full catelog of tables that they paid hundreds of thousands to devs to build in TPA for people to buy access to. Zen should still be licensed to build their own version of those tables to compete, and so on.

The whole reason Farsight still had crap UI and an outdated business model for online gaming is because they had no competition.

I'm not saying current licensing laws and practices don't support what SG did. I am saying it needs to change, because it doesn't correctly reflect digital access to licensed materials, and it stifles healthy competition.

The licensing laws need to be reviewed with independent tech experts at the helm, and updated from 2000 to 2019.

 

[wolfson]

don`t worry be happy ,Aussie style

 

[shutyertrap]

Oh my god, it's like arguing with a flat earther.

It's not my arcade. I only dl a copy of Farsight's app, and access copies of Farsight's tables in said digital arcade.

Nope, it is your arcade. You still have access to it. The only way it can be closed is if FarSight closes down their servers or you had all your purchases through Steam. You bought the arcade like a franchise, and FarSight delivered the product. Nobody new can franchise an arcade for themselves.

Here's the thing. Exclusive licensing stifles competition. Farsight should have been licensed to sell access to those tables on (for example) PS4's TPA into perpetuity. SG should have also licensed Zen and whomever else on their specific game apps to make healthy competition. Right now, we should have Farsight with their full catelog of tables that they paid hundreds of thousands to devs to build in TPA for people to buy access to. Zen should still be licensed to build their own version of those tables to compete, and so on.

You are completely off your rocker. Should Zen have then paid the exact same price for the license that FarSight did? Because there's no way in hell they would since an existing product has already flooded the market. Where would be the incentive? And what happens when SG sells their ownership of the license to another company? Do FarSight and Zen continue to have the license in perpetuity? Essentially they are then co-owners of the license, and the value of true ownership of the license would be diluted to the point a new buy wouldn't pay its true worth.

The whole reason Farsight still had crap UI and an outdated business model for online gaming is because they had no competition.

Like hell they didn't. Zen and Magic Pixel both had digital pinball games on the market. The tables sold might have been different, but you better believe they were competing for the same customers. This has to be one of the silliest statements you've made so far. You're new to this forum, so I can forgive you not knowing this, but this very forum has been on FarSight's case to match the polish of Zen for years and years. There are probably any number of reasons why FarSight didn't correct certain things, but lack of competition wasn't one of them.

I'm not saying current licensing laws and practices don't support what SG did. I am saying it needs to change, because it doesn't correctly reflect digital access to licensed materials, and it stifles healthy competition.

The licensing laws need to be reviewed with independent tech experts at the helm, and updated from 2000 to 2019.

I don't think you'll find one license owner that would agree with you, digital or not. More to the point, and you've failed to answer on this, if you owned a license neither would you. You put something out there in perpetuity, the cat is out of the bag and you aren't ever getting control of it again. That would simply be the downfall of your company, because either people wouldn't do business with you at all, or people would take massive advantage of your 'generosity'.

Recognize you're on the wrong side of this one, as so far it's you and only you against heaps of other people here that recognize sound logic.

 

[msilcommand]

Riddle me this...Co A licenses Bob to build a digital simulation of a physical pinball table. Bob pays his devs 500k to write the code to create the digital table simulation. Bob starts selling digital access for people to play on his table. After 3 years, Bob has only made around 200k selling access to that table, and he's spent around 50k more keeping the table updated. Co A then cancels the license, telling Bob the table isn't really his to sell access to, and he has to remove it from his arcade. Now, who is responsible to pay Bob for the 300k loss? Taxpayers? Willy Wonka?

You do understand the absolutely ludicrous nature of the position you are so fervently defending, right?

Again, I'm not saying the laws and structures aren't in place supporting the garbage you're defending. I'm saying it is outdated, and needs to be brought into 2019 to reflect how digital sales and applications actually work, and to promote competition rather than competition-stifling exclusivity.

Cheers

 

[shutyertrap]

Bob is a ****e business man and clearly didn’t either a) budget correctly, b) market correctly, c) over estimated his customers, or d) built a crap game and no one wanted to play it. He’s on the hook for it, he took the gamble.

Again, this is not a digital only scenario. Plenty of businesses fail for similar reasons. You keep focusing on Bob, but you never put yourself in the position of company A. As was pointed out by someone else, if granting your license to be used by someone else means they get to do so forever, you’d never grant that permission or you’d ask an astronomically high price to cover the fact there won’t be another ‘Bob’ to come along who’d wanna make the same thing.

I suppose you despise patent and copyright laws too?

 

[1adam12]

Bob is a ****e business man and clearly didn’t either a) budget correctly, b) market correctly, c) over estimated his customers, or d) built a crap game and no one wanted to play it. He’s on the hook for it, he took the gamble.

Again, this is not a digital only scenario. Plenty of businesses fail for similar reasons. You keep focusing on Bob, but you never put yourself in the position of company A. As was pointed out by someone else, if granting your license to be used by someone else means they get to do so forever, you’d never grant that permission or you’d ask an astronomically high price to cover the fact there won’t be another ‘Bob’ to come along who’d wanna make the same thing.

I suppose you despise patent and copyright laws too?

I think my issue with the licensing is this strange need for exclusivity. It feels like it simply comes down to the deal that will bring in the most money to the company contracting the rights to their product.

It so many people feel Zen is superior, there should be no problem with both them and Farsight having access. The market will determine a winner. Additionally, given Zen's reliance on bells and whistles, what incentive do they have to release some nice vintage EM machines? Farsight was and is far from perfect, but I appreciate their mission.

This all reminds me of the Madden/2K battle. Once 2K sports started to outshine the behemoth that was Madden Football, EA bought exclusive rights to the NFL.

I get what both sides are saying in this discussion. Unfortunately, it simply comes down to money. It always does.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[Pete]

They should just make everything free for everyone all the time. Like the give a penny take a penny jar at bob's convience store, only its take everything. Because why should anything be worth anything. I paid for a copy of those bally/williams tables so i should have full rights to make copies of them and start my own pinball app that i didnt make and get rich off it. Friggin copywrite laws telling me what to do this is total garbage. Buying albums should be like the stock market and each cd is a stock and everytime someone buys one from the store i should get a percentage of the sales. I blame Jay Obernolte, everything is his fault for not single handedly changing all the laws, and im sure he is why zacs got removed from google and also he conspired to make the ps4 version of zen have improperly coded 1 ball and survival mode score requirments for fish tales... why else would star 2 demand 50k and star 3 through 5 demand less than 50k so it just shoves you many stars ahead after getting 50k? And dont even get me started about video pinball for atari 2600... i tell you its a goverment conspiracy! Big foot friggin lockness the pyamids its all so perfectly clear whats going on. Shape shifter lizard people.

 

[1adam12]

They should just make everything free for everyone all the time. Like the give a penny take a penny jar at bob's convience store, only its take everything. Because why should anything be worth anything. I paid for a copy of those bally/williams tables so i should have full rights to make copies of them and start my own pinball app that i didnt make and get rich off it. Friggin copywrite laws telling me what to do this is total garbage. Buying albums should be like the stock market and each cd is a stock and everytime someone buys one from the store i should get a percentage of the sales. I blame Jay Obernolte, everything is his fault for not single handedly changing all the laws, and im sure he is why zacs got removed from google and also he conspired to make the ps4 version of zen have improperly coded 1 ball and survival mode score requirments for fish tales... why else would star 2 demand 50k and star 3 through 5 demand less than 50k so it just shoves you many stars ahead after getting 50k? And dont even get me started about video pinball for atari 2600... i tell you its a goverment conspiracy! Big foot friggin lockness the pyamids its all so perfectly clear whats going on. Shape shifter lizard people.

You took the wrong pill again.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[msilcommand]

Bob is a ****e business man and clearly didn’t either a) budget correctly, b) market correctly, c) over estimated his customers, or d) built a crap game and no one wanted to play it. He’s on the hook for it, he took the gamble.

Again, this is not a digital only scenario. Plenty of businesses fail for similar reasons. You keep focusing on Bob, but you never put yourself in the position of company A. As was pointed out by someone else, if granting your license to be used by someone else means they get to do so forever, you’d never grant that permission or you’d ask an astronomically high price to cover the fact there won’t be another ‘Bob’ to come along who’d wanna make the same thing.

I suppose you despise patent and copyright laws too?

No, Bob invested money to build that digital pinbal table, which he was licensed to build, and he should own it on that specific platform to sell access to into perpetuity. No greaseball company should be allowed to come back a couple years later and turn him upside down on it. Just because he didn't yet turn a profit doesn't mean he wouldn't have. Game development and sales are tricky. Some core games make squat, which is why so many companies go f2p now, and then monetize in other ways.

There's no way for you to excuse or explain away a bad and wrong system. As Millenials age, and start becoming our country's leadership, these things will change, because they came up steeped in the digital world, and they won't still be thinking in 1995 terms.