Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I understand that it's removal is the precursor to the launch of the legitimate version. If that is the case, then I reckon Hasbro have behaved reasonably in letting these two guys have it up for as long as they did.


Scrabulous generated cash from Scrabble by delivering paid-for advertising to users accessing a stolen game. They piggy-backed on Hasbro's marketing investment to reap undeserved rewards. They even stole the name.


I'm a big believer in copyright - I think the rewards for ideas and inventions should be returned to those who have created and invested in them. Without this incentive we'd never have such world bridging pastimes in the first place.

Sounds to me like SOMEBODY in the advertising industry has adopted the mindset of record companies who haven't grasped what's happening in the 21st century ;-)


Given the length of time involved why exactly have Hasbro/Mattel been so slow to do something that people clearly want and is sooo easy to implement? My guess is they wanted someone to do the hard work, wait for it to be established and then use strong arm tactics to claim the spoils.


Were the guys cheeky in appropriating the game - sure but if Hasbro were at all seious about copyright they would have made a much bigger noise a looong time ago. I know various rumblings have surfaced over the last year or two but nothing that couldn't also be read as a marketing tool to keep the profile up

I'm on record on this site as agreeing with musical copyright. ;-)


There's been years of ingenuity, imagination, effort and investment in making Scrabble as popular as it is. You don't just steal it and make money off it 'coz you fancy it.


'Backlash' against Scrabble is idiotic, if someone has a backlash against me because I wouldn't give them my car then they can go swing! If no-one buys Scrabble then the ultimate loser is the public, who have no game, and no-one makes any new ones.


Intellectual property theft is like me making money by copying and pasting 'The Greater Thoughts of Sean MacGabhann' from this website to a multi-million dollar novel. SMG would be the first to see me in court I suspect ;-)


With intellectual property in the music industry, multiple issues get conflated in order to win consumer support for an essentially selfish motive. In no particular order:


* Bands get a raw deal on rev share contracts from record companies

* Bands want free marketing because they all think they're good even when they're bad

* Nobody likes bean-counters and grey suits and it fulfils a primal instinct to consider them 'parasites'

* Stealing non-tangible assets (sound or images) from musicians is considered a victimless crime

* Petty anarchists don't want to pay for any entertainment, they want it all for free

* Fair minded individuals feel they should be able to enjoy entertainment purchases on multiple private platforms

* People bring up silly examples like 'Happy Birthday' to support their case

* The advent of digital technology makes it easier to make multiple copies without reduction in quality and get away with it


In no particular order, if bands are offered bad contracts it's because they sign them. If they sign them it's because they want marketing and access to facilities, because they know it has a value. If they didn't want it, they wouldn't sign it, they'd just play in the local pub. Most music companies lose money on most bands.


If you have an issue in this area set up a free legal consultancy for new bands. I bet you won't because it costs money and effort to get the education and the resources necessary. You'll want to get a return.


Bean-counters and grey suits are nothing of the sort. In my experience these guys are very hardworking financiers, marketers and technicians. If their contribution has no value, then the bands should do it themselves and see where it gets them. B*llock nowhere is my guess.


Advertising and promotion costs money. On another thread here people are bemoaning the lack of quality on TV but don't like paying for it. Guess what - there's a connection here too.


Petty anarchists don't want something for free, in fact they want other people to pay for them. Running a band is an expensive pastime. We should be up in arms at the sheer arrogance of these thieves who are the reason why buying music is so costly, they are stealing from bands, from people who promote bands, from venues, from media outlets and from the people who pay over the odds for retail music.


Wanting to play music on multiple platforms for one individual or household is being addressed by the technical community.


The 'Happy Birthday' argument is just plain silly. Copyrights have limited duration and are established to allow artists and their families to enjoy the benefits of their hard work. Happy Birthday was originally 'Good Morning To You' and in the public domain. You cannot copyright something already in popular usage. I note that Google is already being subject to copyright oversight because to 'Google' something is rapidly become to mean 'search' and will be subject to less copyright control as a result.


Finally, because a crime is simple to commit and easy to get away with is not reasonable grounds for suppoprting it - so is punching strangers in the street. I cringe every time I hear my close friends roll out this argument. I assume this argument is what SMG is referring to with 'welcome to the 21st century'??


Music (like money) doesn't grow on trees, many people have to work very hard to generate it and get it to us. If bands don't want their revenue they can distribute it online copyright free. Many have tried this and few have repeated it. If it was a successful marketing solution record companies wouldn't exist.


If bands do want revenue then please don't mix and match your arguments 'music should be free because record companies have nasty contracts' is a particularly silly one.

phew - and to think I edited my original post only to get a reply to some of the points I removed!



A slim volume to be sure and with seriously limited audience - but be my guest


I don't think I was suggesting anything like the argument you have demolished. Certainly not seriously. But in the record company's case and digital rights.. for all of the hard working financiers they have failed dismally to adapt to new technology. Yes it will get sorted but the old model of record companies being the paternal figurehead to "the talent" has changed. That must be obvious surely. I'm not advocating anyone steal anything or even that bands should give music away free but the companies (certainly the behemoths) as they currently exist are no longer necessary.


As for the Scrabble thing - again I'm not advocating criminal activity - I'm simply saying that the arrangement for years has been mutually beneficial and if it was such an affront to the copyright holders they would have done something sooner. They were complicit - not victims

I hadn't noticed it had been removed and I've still got four games on the go. Played last night and this afternoon.

As for the music argument. Fuck the majors. It's bollocks. I can remember record sleeves with "home taping is killing music." It didn't and it still thrived and will continue to do so.

I used to make loads of tapes for friends whether they be mix tapes or whole albums but if they liked something I'd recorded for them they'd usually go out and buy it in another format.

The Copyright issue is a big one. I have found that the general public doesn't have much understanding of the law and as a result online debates around internet piracy focus on rubbish arguments based on half understood legal points.


On the other hand Scrabulous is great. I have won every game I have ever played after reading a Mockney Piers thread on the merits of cheating.



Charlie

Quite right Jah, that was the benefit of the loss in quality in multiple copies in the eighties and nineties. They'd be tempters for the 'real thing'. A great benefit for the band.


It doesn't apply in the noughties with the tech quality at our disposal, that's why it's a problem now...

When I was a nipper, I purchased a Recording Licence from the Post Office. This meant that one could legitimately record music from vinyl to tape, or whatever. This was stopped - don't know why. It seemed eminently sensible.


Regarding Hasbro and Scrabble copyright, in the history of Scrabble there have been various nefarious goings on with copy/manufacturing rights so I don't have that much sympathy.

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I don't know all this. Children are starting school and people are scared because the children might be attacked by asylum seekers? What do you think spray painting St George flags does to make children safer? The flag campaign has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism, or about addressing male violence (many of those behind the campaign have violent criminal records themselves). It's about xenophobia, fear, and intimidation.  The co-founder of the 'raise the colours' campaign, Andrew Currien, was a key member of the English Defence League’s leadership bodyguard team, and now runs security for the far-right party Britain First. He's previously been jailed for his part in a racist death. Meanwhile, Farage has been repeatedly warning about a summer of violence on the streets (almost willing it) and through the 'Centre for Migration Control' (actually just one man the Reform UK activist Robert Bates, masquerading as a 'think tank'), has been regularly seeding fake / made up statistics and 'research reports' to GB News etc. It's the usual suspects on the far right, exploiting an extremely troubling incident to stoke division and advance their agenda. The reason that we've seen a huge increase in asylum hotels is because of the Conservatives deliberate policy of not processing applications and Farage's disastrous Brexit (which led to a massive increase in irregular immigration). We have the Right creating a crisis and then exploiting for their advantage.
    • The issue, with children starting school again, is that there is an unknown risk, and people want to know their children are safe, which they do not. You know all of this, I don’t need to attempt to outline the views for you as it’s widely available.  There is outrage at how some people are behaving. Did you not see women attacking a man being interviewed? As with all things, the actions of a few is damaging.
    • What priority are asylum seekers being given over the community?  Whilst it's terrible that a girl has been assaulted, why are the criminal actions of an individual being seen as reason to attack a whole group of people? Many of those involved in the 'raise the colours' campaign have criminal histories, including domestic violence. Perhaps there should also be community outrage at that, instead of those people apparently being lionised as 'patriots'. There is a very clear attempt by the like of Farage etc. (who contributed significantly to the current 'crisis') to stir up unrest. The flag campaign has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism. I don't think anyone believes it does. 
    • All to do with the issues in Essex, with a child allegedly assaulted by and asylum seeker residing in a local hotel, ensuing community outrage, particularly with asylum seekers given priority over the community. The whole thing is toxic. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...