Forums > MobyGames > MobyGames earn much money on your FREE contrib!
SlimG (1) on 11/23/2006 10:19 PM · Permalink · Report
I've tried to contribute several games and they all get rejected several times each because either the description or media submitted isn't exclusive to mobygames. This makes me mad because contributing shouldn't be hard, And this raises several questions for me:
What is the difference between a mobygames usertaken screenshot and any other screenshot from the same game taken from any other place on the net wich have the proper licensing to do so? I do believe that the reason that site need original exclusive materials is that they can sooner or later start taking money for some or all of their services without getting sued by other sites for trying to sell material that came from their site. in example wikipedia's license lets any site use their content as long as they don't try to earn money on it.
Why should you contribute to this site when it gives you nothing back? when you also know that the people behind the site already earns money on your contribution thru the advertising, the shop, and plain money contributions from people who aprechiate the database.
I can't see a single reason for choosing to contribute to this site instead of wikipedia, wikipedia uses an open license that grants you the ability to do whatevver you want with their content, this site got this "All rights reserved. Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form.", wikipedia has several times more games than this site and is growing significantly faster because of more contributors on their site, then you might start thinking, why do they choose wikipedia when they could be contributing to this dedicated game database?...
The reason I bother to write this is because i HATE sites trying to earn money on the FREE contributions made by pleasent people. I don't care where you contribute, just don't let people like mobygames earn money on your FREE contributions, that's not ethical!
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/23/2006 10:47 PM · Permalink · Report
And you know what, he raises some very good points which I've wondered about many times as well.
Zovni (10504) on 11/24/2006 12:43 AM · Permalink · Report
Fuckin' A!!!
I'm sure the guys at MG are making a bundle from those submitted screenshots of "Obscure-and-obsolete-text-adventure XVII". Thanks for opening our eyes Captain Born-Yesterday!
I think reasoning the shortcomings of Wikipedia and the issues behind running a website are things someone better informed can talk to you about. For the moment rest assured that neither Wikipedia nor MG have gained a significant amount of monetary reward over your Final fantasy character entries.
And i'd like to know why do you care about the money behind all this if you are doing it for free anyway... :) and no, we both know that last paragraph was bullshit.
Depeche Mike (17455) on 11/24/2006 1:06 AM · Permalink · Report
To be honest I've kinda always hoped that this site wouldn't get bought by someone and stays as a user driven database. If Moby ever did get bought then I'd really be sad as to the contributions everyone's made. I don't know, I like the fact-ness of this site as opposed to wikipedia and have used it in papers for school. I wouldn't mind knowing where the money, if anything, at Moby goes to. No offense meant but I'm a Libra and Iget paranoid about fairness.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 11/24/2006 1:25 AM · Permalink · Report
Why should you contribute to this site when it gives you nothing back?
Nothing? I learn about all sorts of old games I missed that I need to go back and pirate.
Since it's not like I'm economically contributing anything to the gaming industry, I can at least sign away a bit of my free time to contribute some additional recognition and posterity to parts of it. It's not like there's a gun to my head in a review sweatshop; the material is indeed being freely given away by its users. Maybe we're chumps, but at least I've had the good fortune to stumble upon an exploitative boss whose interests and priorities overlap with mine.
I can't see a single reason for choosing to contribute to this site instead of wikipedia
No one here is going to tell me that my obscure game submission isn't sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion (in fact, its obscurity is often among its most notable points); also, once I finally get it established, I don't have to worry about some anonymous moron inserting spam repeatedly into my description.
I'm not a huge fan of the Moby ads, so I block them. I'm not a huge fan of us watermarking our images, but I understand that you don't get something for nothing, even on Wikipedia, and exclusive content has some value. All things considered, I trust the goodwill of Trixter's street cred a lot more than Jimbo's.
chirinea (47495) on 11/24/2006 1:30 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Well, I do contribute for free, and regardless, MG gave me a T-shirt and 2 games. For free. And I live in Brazil, they paid all the costs to make those things come all the way down here. So I'm happy with the money MG is making from my contributions...
Depeche Mike (17455) on 11/24/2006 2:02 AM · Permalink · Report
Hey how'd you get a t-shirt?
Depeche Mike (17455) on 11/24/2006 2:19 AM · Permalink · Report
Do positions change? I'm only very familiar with Dos/Windows and NES/GameCube.
chirinea (47495) on 11/24/2006 2:23 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Yes, they do. But sometimes we end up needing extra help in some areas. Kitsune, for example, became an approver by one of those times, when we were overwhelmed with MobyRank submissions.
Anyway, I wouldn't apply just for the t-shirt. It is cheaper to buy one at MobyShop than to become an approver! =P
Foxhack (32100) on 11/24/2006 2:33 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--]Yes, they do. But sometimes we end up needing extra help in some areas. Kitsune, for example, became an approver by one of those times, when we were overwhelmed with MobyRank submissions.
Anyway, I wouldn't apply just for the t-shirt. It is cheaper to buy one at MobyShop than to become an approver! =P [/Q --end chirinea wrote--]I was a MobyRank guy at first, but I asked to help out with Trivia and Game Groups, too. I don't do much, but I help out as much as I can.
Foxhack (32100) on 11/24/2006 2:59 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--]I know that, Kitsune. I myself started approving only SMS stuff, now I have a broader access approving stuff, but I'm far from helping as much as I would want to. [/Q --end chirinea wrote--]I posted that for DepecheMike. ;) I replied to the wrong post though. :p
Luis Silva (13443) on 11/24/2006 9:44 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
You got a t-shirt?
*Goes on strike
*Notices he hasn't approving stuff in a long while because he's lacking focus
*Installs a game purchased to add to the database
Foxhack (32100) on 11/24/2006 2:03 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Uh. I'm only working here because Rob bribed me with a shirt three or four years ago. Unfortunately I can't wear it anymore because I'm bigger than back then.
And he also bribed me with another one when I joined the approval team a few months back. I'm still waiting for it. :P
chirinea (47495) on 11/24/2006 2:17 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Kitsune Sniper wrote--]Uh. I'm only working here because Rob bribed me with a shirt three or four years ago. Unfortunately I can't wear it anymore because I'm bigger than back then. [/Q --end Kitsune Sniper wrote--]
I'm accepting old MG t-shirt donations! Which color that particular one is?
Foxhack (32100) on 11/24/2006 2:21 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--] [Q2 --start Kitsune Sniper wrote--]Uh. I'm only working here because Rob bribed me with a shirt three or four years ago. Unfortunately I can't wear it anymore because I'm bigger than back then. [/Q2 --end Kitsune Sniper wrote--]
I'm accepting old MG t-shirt donations! Which color that particular one is? [/Q --end chirinea wrote--]Oldschool light sky blue.
And sorry, I'm keeping it for whenever I lose weight. ;D
Foxhack (32100) on 11/24/2006 2:06 AM · Permalink · Report
ALSO!
[Q --start SlimG wrote--]wikipedia has several times more games than this site and is growing significantly faster because of more contributors on their site, then you might start thinking, why do they choose wikipedia when they could be contributing to this dedicated game database?...[/Q --end SlimG wrote--] Have you even SEEN their game database? It's a MESS AND A HALF. Constant vandalism, editing, horrible spelling, no quality control, and most importantly, IT'S PLAGUED WITH SONY/NINTENDO/MICROSOFT FANBOYS.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 11/24/2006 4:49 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
SlimG said these quotes, not Kitsune. I can never get them to say the right person anyway. :-)
[q=SlimG]What is the difference between a mobygames usertaken screenshot and any other screenshot from the same game taken from any other place on the net wich have the proper licensing to do so? I do believe that the reason that site need original exclusive materials is that they can sooner or later start taking money for some or all of their services without getting sued by other sites for trying to sell material that came from their site. in example wikipedia's license lets any site use their content as long as they don't try to earn money on it.[/q]
Good question. I think the idea is that not we want to make money off of it, but because we feel that people like you and I contribute our time and energy to getting those screenshots. For that, they should be protected to respect the user's efforts.
[q]Why should you contribute to this site when it gives you nothing back? when you also know that the people behind the site already earns money on your contribution thru the advertising, the shop, and plain money contributions from people who aprechiate the database.[/q]
For one, you contribute because you like video games. You don't do it for the money or for the credit. Its for the love of video games, and the idea that those video games need to be preserved.
To answer the other question: I do not know how much money the creators make off of my contributions, and personally do not care. Whatever they make, they deserve it for simply making this database. Most of us know the people who created and run the website, and they are good people. They love video games "just as fantastically" as we do. They put a lot of effort (and even money they earn from the website) into improving and maintaining the database. If I give them a paycheck through my efforts, then so be it.
As well, you shouldn't be pointing a finger. Wikipedia probably makes tons more money than this site does and that also goes to a single man. How does it feel then, to have your efforts turned into cash for the creators expense?
[q]I can't see a single reason for choosing to contribute to this site instead of wikipedia, wikipedia uses an open license that grants you the ability to do whatever you want with their content, this site got this "All rights reserved. Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form.", wikipedia has several times more games than this site and is growing significantly faster because of more contributors on their site, then you might start thinking, why do they choose wikipedia when they could be contributing to this dedicated game database?...[/q]
Who cares if its copyrighted? The knowledge is not copyrighted, just the exact text and pictures itself. Its still good for research. Directly copy-pasting whole bodies of text from Wikipedia just proves that you are A.) Very lazy and B.) A hypocrite, because you are directly taking credit and/or benefit from others free contributions. Mobygames copyrights everything that gets contributed to it for a reason: so people like you don't come in, copy-paste it, then benefit off of it. The reason for copyrighting is to protect, not to control and make a profit.
Wikipedia may have several contributors and growing significantly, but that info can be vastly distorted by "fanboyism". Also, video games are a significantly small part of Wikipedia, and from my experience with the Wikins, vastly disrespected by a lot of its other contributors. Video game articles seemed to be constantly attacked on the site. We dont do that here. Video games are what we're here for. And like Kitsune said, their database is a mess and a half.
The fact that its solely a VG database makes it worth-while. It means that everyone is here for the same reason and we are damn proud of it. This website has a much greater sense of community than Wikipedia. On Wikipedia you aren't a contributor like you are here. Here you have a voice, and here people know your name. The higher-ups, even the creators themselves, are constantly talking with us peons. I'm good friends with many approvers, and have even met one of the creators of MobyGames in real life. On MobyGames, you are appreciated as a person. On Wikipedia, you are a statistic.
I can also voice my opinion here. MG authorizes my reviews and has also given me support for my writing. Wikipedia is completely objective, I cant do it there.
As well, Kitsune mentioned a good points that Wikipedia has poor quality assurance. Here, we make painstaking effort to be sure that all information is accurate and complete, and that nothing is just "theories, speculation, etc.".
[q]The reason I bother to write this is because i HATE sites trying to earn money on the FREE contributions made by pleasent people. I don't care where you contribute, just don't let people like mobygames earn money on your FREE contributions, that's not ethical![/q]
It is ethical when you give them consent too. I know the people who run the site. They are friendly, nice people who love video games just as much as we do. I can assure you, they are not trying to swindle us through free contributions.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 6:23 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]For one, you contribute because you like video games. You don't do it for the money or for the credit. Its for the love of video games, and the idea that those video games need to be preserved. [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--]
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--] Mobygames copyrights everything that gets contributed to it for a reason: so people like you don't come in, copy-paste it, then benefit off of it. The reason for copyrighting is to protect, not to control and make a profit. [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] How do those two statements fit together?
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--] As well, you shouldn't be pointing a finger. Wikipedia probably makes tons more money than this site does and that also goes to a single man. How does it feel then, to have your efforts turned into cash for the creators expense? [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] That's not true.
Trixter (8952) on 11/24/2006 4:55 AM · Permalink · Report
These are valid points. To answer them, I have two points of my own to make:
And now, I have to ask you:
[q] I've tried to contribute several games and they all get rejected several times each because either the description or media submitted isn't exclusive to mobygames. [/q]
Wikipedia doesn't condone plagiarism either, so what's your point again?
Depeche Mike (17455) on 11/24/2006 6:56 AM · Permalink · Report
Hey I'm not a peon. I like our screen-shots because they're reliable and sometimes have witty banter. Speaking of which, someone asked not too long ago (or was it a poll) if we ever bought a game just to contribute it to Moby. Well today I became that sad nerd, not only did I buy 3 games just to contribute, but I bought them for a system I don't own! Oh well at least they were cheap. (the 3 Burger King Xbox/Xbox 360 games in case you're wondering.) Oh and the subject was bothering me so I fixed it a bit.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 11/24/2006 9:49 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
How do those two statements fit together?
They aren't supposed to. They both have nothing to do with each other.
That's not true.
Crap, somehow I had a feeling it wasn't.
EDIT: Now my question is: is this guy even here anymore. We've been arguing his points, but he doesn't seem to be responding.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 11/24/2006 1:15 PM · Permalink · Report
We've been arguing his points, but he doesn't seem to be responding.
Whether we agree with them or not, I think he raised some interesting points, and there's some value in this kind of vigorous public debate. If we conducted it more often, we might achieve sophistical mastery 8)
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 2:54 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]How do those two statements fit together?
They aren't supposed to. They both have nothing to do with each other. [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--]
Read them again.
And why do you reply to someone entirely else?
Ace of Sevens (4479) on 11/29/2006 2:58 AM · Permalink · Report
I kept plannign to contribute those game tomorrow until you finally beat me to it. Curse you!
Apogee IV (2275) on 11/24/2006 1:09 PM · Permalink · Report
Personally, I like to contribute whatever I can to MobyGames because I'm all for the preservation of knowledge and information. Yeah, but video games...geeky right? Hell yeah! But keep in mind that you never know the future relevance of seemingly trivial stuff. Video games will arguably be around in some form or another for a long time to come, and MobyGames is the only site that really archives all aspects of the games, which future generations might want to check out. This is also why I prefer MobyGames from Wikipedia, which just lacks the specialized structure that MobyGames operates under. Also, like Trixter mentioned, the information is screened , thus ensuring a somewhat even level of consistency in both quality and formatting.
However, that also brings up a vital question: What will eventually happen with MobyGames? Have any of you founders/admins thought of any way to ensure that the database will be archived and kept around?
Hitman23 (96) on 12/21/2006 8:46 AM · Permalink · Report
I have found Moby Games to be a valuable resource when looking up information on games I own or plan to purchase.
[Q --start Apogee IV wrote--] However, that also brings up a vital question: What will eventually happen with MobyGames? Have any of you founders/admins thought of any way to ensure that the database will be archived and kept around? [/Q --end Apogee IV wrote--] I agree with Apogee IV in that I hope Moby Games is always available on the web in some form; it would be a tragedy to lose access to all this data.
My only suggestion would be to allow users who have a certain amount of contribution points to download a limited amount of the website's database (in xml?) for personal, non-commercial use.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 11/24/2006 1:29 PM · Permalink · Report
He's right, we should all start stealing shitty screenshots from other websites and demand money for it...
nullnullnull (1463) on 11/24/2006 2:39 PM · Permalink · Report
The guy is an a hole. If the description or screenshot is taken from another website whats the point? Is he wants to steal and plagarizie other peoples work and claim it as his own. Go for it. Just do it on some other website. Also is the description is just a complete copy of what the PR people give amazon or what gamespot wrote why should we even exist? The point is that the descriptions are objective and original. As in not the same shit you see reprinted all over the Internet.
He's just pissed that his contributions have been rejected. Instead of reading the guidelines and putting a little work he makes wild claims about our intentions. I for one have never been paid one dime from MobyGames. The site has cost me money out of my pocket. We do earn money from advertising and stuff but that goes into games we giveaway, tshirts we give away, attending conferences, more servers etc etc.
A big f you dude.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 2:59 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start flipkin wrote--]He's just pissed that his contributions have been rejected. Instead of reading the guidelines and putting a little work he makes wild claims about our intentions. I for one have never been paid one dime from MobyGames. The site has cost me money out of my pocket. We do earn money from advertising and stuff but that goes into games we giveaway, tshirts we give away, attending conferences, more servers etc etc. [/Q --end flipkin wrote--]
Well, a lot of companies make no profit during their startup phase, and Mobygames is one, or it would not be mobygames dot bloody com.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 11/24/2006 3:24 PM · Permalink · Report
In other words, you're worried that MG isn't sharing the profit they don't make...
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 3:30 PM · Permalink · Report
I don't like working for free if there is any profit to be made. And I don't like working for free if someone else lays claim to my work.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 3:36 PM · Permalink · Report
I wasn't here then, but it doesn't seem like a good business plan then, while also not without precedents in the commercial world.
Depeche Mike (17455) on 11/24/2006 4:04 PM · Permalink · Report
Who started Moby? Flipkin right? And who else?
Depeche Mike (17455) on 11/24/2006 4:06 PM · Permalink · Report
By the way I think it says a lot for MG that the forums are so tidy and polite even though registration is free. I guess the respectable database thing is working.
Depeche Mike (17455) on 11/24/2006 4:07 PM · Permalink · Report
His 2 points of credit were for ratings. My Dad could do that!
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 4:11 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Zovni wrote--]Therefore i think we can both agree that money would hardly be the primary motivation behind the site. Right? [/Q --end Zovni wrote--]
Hint hint: Is this mobygames.org or mobygames.com?
nullnullnull (1463) on 11/24/2006 4:54 PM · Permalink · Report
MobyGames was started Feb 1999 by Jim and Brian. I joined 18 months later. We are approaching year eight. Hardly a start up.
Shoddyan (15004) on 11/24/2006 8:20 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start flipkin wrote--]MobyGames was started Feb 1999 by Jim and Brian. I joined 18 months later. We are approaching year eight. Hardly a start up. [/Q --end flipkin wrote--]
For those who may have missed information in the past (it's easy to do). The nicknames are like this:
- Jim = Trixter
- Brian = Brian Hirt
- and also starring Dave as the voice of flipkin
We should really add proper links in the FAQ to their user sheets, if for no other reason then to use the IM system, and maybe even better insignia (icons) for all staff with/instead of those stars :)
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 7:28 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Zovni wrote--]Well I'm unaware of current fees regarding domain names, but you may have a point. IMDB is a dot com too though... [/Q --end Zovni wrote--]
Wikipedia is a dot org. Guess why.
SlimG (1) on 11/24/2006 6:31 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
The reason i haven't visited the site before now is partly because i wrote the post just before i went to bed, and for some reason i haven't received any email notification that my thread was replied on, I simply can't quote everyone who has answered my thread since there is simply to many, i'll try to expand my explanation to cover most of your questions.
This is my opinion:
When a organization base themselves upon the free contribution of people, it's not ethically right for them to earn a profit for themselves, it's ok to use money for maintenance on the required equipment for the cause.
This is what i fear:
I don't believe that MB earn make much of a profit now, but I see several evidences that MB plan's to start selling their services, my guess is that they will wait until their database has grown larger and all their games hosts proper description and additional media.
Why do i believe that MobyGames could become one of these organizations?:
They require that all contributions are exclusive to MB, it doesn't matter for them if the licensing on other sites allow them to copy or link to their media. The reason for this I believe is that although there are sites with such open licensing out there, there is one rule that applies to almost all licenses, especially the open ones: you cannot earn money on the things you borrow/copy from the license-holders site, if this rule is broken whoever broke that rule will be accused of theft.
I copied one question from MB's FAQ (http://www.mobygames.com/info/faq3):
-----------------------------MobyGames Privacy Policy----------------------------------
Do you sell your user information to other parties? Not currently. For specific details and terms, please consult our Privacy Policy.
<hr />I also copied these two rules from MB's Privacy Policy (http://www.mobygames.com/info/privacy/)
-----------------------MobyGames Privacy Policy-----------------------
User Contributions:
Non-personal voluntarily-contributed information and data, including but not limited to reviews, articles, game entries, box and screen images, is the property of MobyGames. MobyGames reserves the right to sell, license, share or rent this information and data.
Order:
MobyGames may in the future conduct sales transactions. We will request information from the user on our order form. Here a user must provide contact information (like name and shipping address) and financial information (like credit card number, expiration date). This information is used for billing purposes and to fill customer's orders. If we have trouble processing an order, this contact information is used to get in touch with the user.
<hr />This means:
- You don't own your contributions, MobyGames is the owner of everything you contribute.
- MG will most certainly sometime in the future take payment by selling/renting their services away, and you who contributed your time and work won't have anything to say.
My opinion:
I won't contribute to an organization that later will make profit on my good will contributions, the only way I would still be a contributor on a site like MB is if they change their Privacy Policy to state that contributed material MADE by the contributor is OWNED by the contributor, which makes it illegal for MB to earn a profit on something that involves contributions owned by someone else then themselves without exclusively asking the owner if they are allowed to make a profit on his contribution. If MB continues with their current Privacy Policy i personally hope they
The upside of this:
MB will most likely start to pay their contributors in some way to make them continue to contribute even after MB starts to make a profit.
The downside of this:
All your contributions has already become MobyGames property, you aren't even legally allowed to copy the pictures you contributed from their site to use elsewhere.
I've written this text because it seems like there are many contributors on this site that are unaware of the situation
Sciere (930490) on 11/24/2006 6:41 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I don't mind the policy per se, as long as the site is continued to be run as it is now. Imagine where the screenshots, covers and descriptions would turn up if they weren't protected somehow. If for some reason MobyGames would go completely commercial, the support of many loyal contributors and approvers would vanish as well, and the site itself can only remain relevant and be maintained with continuous streams of new submissions and the quality control along.
Next to occassional contributors, the site relies on a quite select group of 20 to 30 key people who are sometimes interchangeable, but hardly replaceable.
I don't want to think about the amount of time I have already spent on MobyGames, but the site has given much back in reward, purely in videogames knowledge.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 7:29 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Sciere wrote--]I don't mind the policy per se, as long as the site is continued to be run as it is now. Imagine where the screenshots, covers and descriptions would turn up if they weren't protected somehow.[/Q --end Sciere wrote--]
Where? Hell? Soviet Russia? Zimbabwe? Prison?
Sciere (930490) on 11/24/2006 7:39 PM · Permalink · Report
cdcovers.cc, winning someone a flat screen, a digital camera or an iPod by simply uploading all the covers we carefully scanned.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 7:48 PM · Permalink · Report
That is the exact reason why this thread exists, namely the fear that someone else is profiting (in the material sense) from your hard work.
Shoddyan (15004) on 11/24/2006 8:13 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start SlimG wrote--] I won't contribute to an organization that later will make profit on my good will contributions, the only way I would still be a contributor on a site like MB is if they change their Privacy Policy to state that contributed material MADE by the contributor is OWNED by the contributor, which makes it illegal for MB to earn a profit on something that involves contributions owned by someone else then themselves without exclusively asking the owner if they are allowed to make a profit on his contribution. [/Q --end SlimG wrote--]
I don't think it's very practical to have something stating that Mobygames doesn't own it's content and it's illegal to make a profit off of it. First of all, there would be layers and layers of "red tape" in trying to contact all of the contributors every time we wanted to do something new with the data, like allow site content to be used in a documentary, or article, or presentation for example. More importantly though, we would want Mobygames to be making more money and become increasingly self-sustained. Already there is revenue that comes from the banner ads and merchant affiliates, which balances the books enough to keep everything plugged in. Admittedly, server space and bandwidth is pretty cheap right now, but I've been around the Internet long enough to have experienced good sites of information who have suddenly disappeared because they could no longer afford their own infrastructure. Talking about profit above and beyond sustaining what we already have: Money of course allows us to add new features and come up with future plans that might be too expensive for the average website. Even the materials that Mobygames brings to a conference or to an event has a price tag to it. And while not the focus or even the largest expense, everything adds up... the same way that different, small, revenue sources can.
It's important to note that even Wikipedia, which I greatly respect, needs to keep it's books balanced insofar as making money is concerned. Since wikipedia is considered the quintessential "shared contribution" website, and features thousands of users, applying your suggestions to them would result in a nightmare of accounting... in trying to figure out what each person is contributed and how much they're "owed" from various sales income that wikipedia receives.
Of course one important difference is that wikipedia foundation is a non-profit organization. Currently Mobygames does not share that status.
nullnullnull (1463) on 11/24/2006 8:14 PM · Permalink · Report
The main reason is that MobyGames is the combination of many many contributions. If for instance the contributor for game entry A years later is pissed at us for some reason and wants all his/her contributions taken down. If MobyGames did not own the content we would be forced to do so. Now imagine that other contributors had contributed reviews, screenshots, cover art to game entry A. All these contributions would have to be taken down as well since there is no orignal entry to hang off of for instance. How can you have a review or a screen shot for an entry that no longer exists? Also game descriptions are often the product of many revisions. What happens if the person who wrote the revision in the middle wants the content taken down. How the hell do we accomplish this?
If you look in the FAQ or ToS you will see MobyGames allows people to use MobyGames content for casual non-commercial use.
Riamus (8480) on 11/24/2006 8:38 PM · Permalink · Report
If you take time to read everything, you will find out the reasons for such text and the admin views on it. You will also find out that you CAN submit your stuff elsewhere.
Anyhow, as mentioned, there really isn't profit from this site and probably will not be other than from advertising and the store. And that money is basically just to maintain the site. Consider the amount of bandwidth and server requirements for a site like this. It's far from cheap.
Also, as mentioned, games are given away for free as are shirts to approvers or to those who visit the conferences that MG attends. Other things are also given away at those conferences. This is FREE stuff that people can get thanks to MG.
The most important thing is that, no matter where you contribute, you are CHOOSING to do so for some reason. For most, it's because they support the site or the goal of the site. For others, it's to tell what they think about something, or to offer their knowledge on a particular item or items. There are many reasons, but everyone CHOOSES to give freely when contributing to the sites. Few sites are going to pay contributors for their contributions, except in the case where those contributors work for the company/site. Because only the admins actually work for MG, everyone here knows they won't get paid for their contributions. Everyone also knows that if there are ads and a store, that MG could make money off of them. And, who cares if they do? People don't contribute here to make money, but to help the site.
Besides, in a vast majority of sites, you will find similar wording about anything contributed to the site. Most magazines and newspapers also have similar wording regarding text and images contributed.
The who point with this site is that the site is all original material. We don't follow what so many subpar sites do and just copy/paste everyone else's work onto our site. Instead, we only include new and original things on this site, which is what makes us unique. Also, we are considerably more accurate than just about any other site out there with regards to gaming. This site was nominated for a Webby last year because it was so good.
Think of it in terms of giving someone a gift. If you give someone a gift for some reason and they decide to turn around and sell it a few years later because they no longer need/want it, are you going to be mad at them for making a "profit" off your "free" gift to them? I'd hope not. Once you give something to someone, even if you give it to them for free, it becomes their property and they have every right to sell it if they choose to. Obviously, if we're talking a gift to a person, you wouldn't like it if they sold it the very next day, but that isn't the point. The point is that once you give it to them, it's theirs to do whatever they want with it.
Contributing to a site is just like giving the site a gift. You know you're doing it for free. You know that once you give it to them, they can use it in whatever way they want to. If you don't like how they use it, you simply don't contribute again. If you like how they use it, then you keep contributing.
You might as well stop trying to scare people away from this site so they go to contribute on Wikipedia. Anyone who knows what they are doing online will verify what a site does with their information when they REGISTER to the stie and when the CONTRIBUTE to the site. Obviously, if you disagree, then you don't do either thing.
Btw, contributing to this site is VERY easy to do. It just takes a little work rather than googling a site and copy/pasting the information into this site.
Indra was here (20755) on 11/24/2006 8:30 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I have a problem with idiots. I really do sometimes. Especially paranoid ones.
Hell, even if MG goes commercial I wouldn't care less. We've read the policies, we know what we're doing. We've agreed to the standards MG offers, we signed up knowing that (sooner or later).
It's not like we're 12 years old and we're suckered into doing this. We are adults with the capability to reason and choose the choices we make. For now, most of us have love for games or information. MG for now gives us that outlet.
Reality: We agreed to the polices MG when we signed up. Oh you didn't read it? That's your problem. Welcome to contractual law. Learn it. Deal with it.
Reality: MG is a commercial site. See the .com hello? They have a store. Hello? Did we sign up regardless? Yes. Realize it. Deal with it.
Reality: MG costs money. So do these freakin cigarretes I'm smoking. It doesn't take an idiot to understand that LIVING costs money. So unless you never got with the program of living costs. We're just here for the ride. Know it. Deal with it.
Reality: We are here on our own free will AND choice. Notice those bronze stars from the contributors? What? First they force us to contribute and then force us to donate money? Of course not. We do it because WE WANT TO. This separates the adults from the whining morons. Understand it. Deal with it.
Take responsibility for your own actions and your own choices. Welcome to the real world.
Anyone else with bright ideas? I'm in a bad mood.
PS. Sorry for being a bit aggresive than I usually am in forums. MG gave me access to a lot of my childhood memories (playing games). I tend to be protective of my memories. In the end, it's all we have.
Me, I'm just doing what I can for MG just as a means of thanking them for those lost memories.
-Indra. Bad ass lawyer, Insane MG Approver and Got No Life (GNL) MG Contributor.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 8:43 PM · Permalink · Report
Indra, you're not making it any better by pointing out how contractual law works. It only serves to perpetuate the image of a capitalistic Mobygames.
Somehow I've never understood why Mobygames puts watermarks on pictures. They expect you to share things with them, but won't share with anyone else. It's something that crosses my mind every time I upload a scan, and I make an effort to find another place to put it as well, somewhere where people don't try to make things done by others look like theirs or where people don't try to act as though you can claim any ownership of a digital replication.
Indra was here (20755) on 11/24/2006 8:53 PM · Permalink · Report
As long as I know what I'm getting myself into, I really wouldn't care less. MG doesn't force me into doing something I don't want to do. We CHOSE to be here Iggy. That's the point of my argument (and everyone else's).
Anything else is irrelevant. But that of course is subjective opinion...as always.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 9:21 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--]Anything else is irrelevant. But that of course is subjective opinion...as always. [/Q --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] Perhaps it is irrelevant to your lawyer's mind, but hardly to everyone else. We don't always know what we get into, because only lawyers read the fine print.
Riamus (8480) on 11/25/2006 1:59 AM · Permalink · Report
It is true that most people don't bother to read the fine print. However, that really is their own (and my) fault. If you agree to something without reading to it, then you still agreed to it. If you're concerned about agreeing to something that could be bad, then take the time to read it or at least skim it. As a note, the information regarding how the site is run isn't exactly fine print. I don't read any license agreements on installs, but I knew when I signed up what this site's policy on contributions was. And I bet that the majority of people know that as well.
Regardless, I can't in any way see how it hurts someone if their contributions are the property of MG. As admins have repeatedly stated, you CAN contribute your stuff elsewhere if you choose to (though you should do that after contributing here or it could be rejected). Stuff like reviews and so on. You just can't rip it off from someone else and contribute it as your own work.
nullnullnull (1463) on 11/24/2006 8:57 PM · Permalink · Report
At first we didn't put water marks on scans or screenshots. Then the scans started turning up at gamespot, coverscc and all sorts of places. Some contributors didn't care, others were pissed. A lot of sites we didn't agree with what they were doing. Pop up spirals, warez, spyware installs whatever. Water marking is the easiest way to discourage other sites from using MG content w/o permission. Some screenshots are not watermarked. Mostly becuase the mark interferes too much with the scan.
Don Komarechka (1615) on 11/24/2006 9:14 PM · Permalink · Report
< off topic > At one point I had developed a really cool script that modified images to include hidden information by offsetting colour channels by single values. As long as you had the unmodified image to reference any duplications found on the internet or elsewhere, you could retrieve any information that the image contained, including the original author. It would even survive compression, since it stored data in blocks of pixels. It also could survive cropping by repeating the data in interesting ways. Originally not my idea though, but still fun to code. < /off topic >
As far as this discussion goes, I agree with what most people have been saying that are pro-MobyGames. This site is a fantastic and always-growing resource that contains information not found anywhere else, and garners a certain respect and status because of that. I personally do not care what happens to my submissions, so long as they have the potential to be useful to others.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 9:26 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start flipkin wrote--]Some screenshots are not watermarked. Mostly becuase the mark interferes too much with the scan. [/Q --end flipkin wrote--]
You have probably encountered, just like I, the fact that Mobygames is often useless as a source for contributing product codes to Mobygames because the water stamp is stamped straight across the bar code. And when it's not, it's usually above the credits which could be turned into new release info. It forces contributors to go to other sites with no (or less intrusive) watermarking.
Besides, you can call me an old internet hippie idealist, but I remember a time and age when the internet was about sharing information, not locking it in. For further food for thought, I direct you to the missing illustrations of the new feature article here.
chirinea (47495) on 11/24/2006 9:49 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start flipkin wrote--]Some screenshots are not watermarked. Mostly becuase the mark interferes too much with the scan. [/Q2 --end flipkin wrote--]
You have probably encountered, just like I, the fact that Mobygames is often useless as a source for contributing product codes to Mobygames because the water stamp is stamped straight across the bar code. And when it's not, it's usually above the credits which could be turned into new release info. It forces contributors to go to other sites with no (or less intrusive) watermarking. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
That got fixed this year with the new watermark (transparent blue and green logo). Since I know MG still has all those original scans, that would be nice to have the watermarks replaced for those new ones.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 10:20 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--] That got fixed this year with the new watermark (transparent blue and green logo). Since I know MG still has all those original scans, that would be nice to have the watermarks replaced for those new ones. [/Q --end chirinea wrote--] I find it very hard to read an EAN code, much less fine print, through even the new logo. What looks like an 8 could be a 6, and I don't want to risk submitting the wrong code.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 11:35 PM · Permalink · Report
I know EAN uses a checksum, but I wasn't sure of UPC.
Corn Popper (69027) on 11/24/2006 11:45 PM · Permalink · Report
it does
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 11/24/2006 11:38 PM · Permalink · Report
I make an effort to find another place to put it as well, somewhere where people don't try to make things done by others look like theirs or where people don't try to act as though you can claim any ownership of a digital replication.
I bet if you asked nicely Jason Scott would open a directory for these purposes at http://www.textfiles.com/digitize/items/ ... his focus isn't so very game-centric but the reasoning is spot-on.
Luis Silva (13443) on 11/24/2006 9:39 PM · Permalink · Report
I've come from wikipedia because Jimbo and his boys are pretty much running the show as they please, and the so called "notability rules" (which goes against the "collection of human knowledge" in the first place) only apply to some articles. I've seen a lot of gaming-related articles going to the dustbin with the fantastic "nn/fancruft/I don't what it is, so delete". Don't get me wrong, I loved to write there, still use it a lot (it surely beats google searches for certain topics), but I won't contribute a single more line because of some of those power-crazy assholes they have running the show. Reading some of the pages where admins
Anyway, I'm doing here exactly the same I used to do with Wikipedia: push up my English writing skills, waste a few time and have fun. If MG went commercial I'd be more heartbroken than pissed, even if some of the profits went my way.
Depeche Mike (17455) on 11/24/2006 10:15 PM · Permalink · Report
Though as far as Cover Scans are concerned, even if MG was bought by someone who wanted to turn a profit, they don't "own" the artwork on the covers and therefore can't profit off of it. Unless they found some shady way like that fascist/sexist dick at gamewallpapers did.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 10:19 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start DepecheMike wrote--]Though as far as Cover Scans are concerned, even if MG was bought by someone who wanted to turn a profit, they don't "own" the artwork on the covers and therefore can't profit off of it.[/Q --end DepecheMike wrote--] Exactly. So why protect it like a treasure?
Zovni (10504) on 11/24/2006 11:20 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] Exactly. So why protect it like a treasure? [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
A good example of why do so would be that russian hax0r duplicate Mobygames that popped-up a long time ago. The admins should probably remember it.
In other words, "teh internetz" isn't a nice place at all, and some form of protection has to be in place.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/24/2006 11:36 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Zovni wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] Exactly. So why protect it like a treasure? [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
A good example of why do so would be that russian hax0r duplicate Mobygames that popped-up a long time ago. The admins should probably remember it. [/Q --end Zovni wrote--]
The watermarks don't prevent anyone from duplicating Mobygames.
Corn Popper (69027) on 11/24/2006 11:47 PM · Permalink · Report
it doesn't prevent but does discourage people and serves as proof that they are using material from the site
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/25/2006 4:55 AM · Permalink · Report
You don't need any watermarks to prove that someone has copied an entire site, since the site itself is proof enough. All it does is prevent copying of a single image, which seems petty to me.
Shoddyan (15004) on 11/25/2006 11:46 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]You don't need any watermarks to prove that someone has copied an entire site, since the site itself is proof enough. All it does is prevent copying of a single image, which seems petty to me. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] People have to be familiar with the original site to notice that... otherwise they don't know it's a copy and take the information there as the good advice. I can't tell you how many times I've seen information copied from wikipedia propped up on other websites who are then acting as an authority for a product or service (or "knowledge base") even though none of the information is theirs and it's obviously dumped from wikipedia feeds. If properly credited, that's not a bad thing... it's in cases where it isn't and the purpose of copying an article on Gasoline Emmisions is simply for the website to sell some accessories for cars.
Besides... in cases where content is copied, you also get well-intentioned people who come across [original site] and get concerned that everything is a duplicate of [copied website].
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/26/2006 12:21 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start WildKard wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]You don't need any watermarks to prove that someone has copied an entire site, since the site itself is proof enough. All it does is prevent copying of a single image, which seems petty to me. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] People have to be familiar with the original site to notice that... [/Q --end WildKard wrote--]
Well, I thought the Mobygames staff were familiar enough with their site to notice that and enforce it. And would that really matter? I like the sharing of information, and I don't see why Mobygames should be fighting with all other sites like The Legacy or HOL when they share a common goal. And I don't see why someone who just wants to make a fansite about Obscure Developer X should be prevented from borrowing information. That's my view of what the web is for.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 11/24/2006 11:36 PM · Permalink · Report
[q]Exactly. So why protect it like a treasure?[/q]
Just because we respect property rights of game companies, it doesn't mean other idiots will respect our rights and not copy it.
Depeche Mike (17455) on 11/25/2006 12:24 AM · Permalink · Report
"A good example of why do so would be that russian hax0r duplicate Mobygames that popped-up a long time ago. The admins should probably remember it."
What happened?
Indra was here (20755) on 11/25/2006 10:44 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start DepecheMike wrote--]"A good example of why do so would be that russian hax0r duplicate Mobygames that popped-up a long time ago. The admins should probably remember it."
What happened? [/Q --end DepecheMike wrote--]
I vaguely remember they were ripping off a lot of our content, spesifically cover art for their own commercial gain. If they asked nicely, MG administators would probably just say go ahead. They didn't ask nicely and when they were "warned", they didn't answer nicely either.
At least that is what I remember.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/25/2006 4:57 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--] [Q2 --start Zovni wrote--]Exactly. So why protect it like a treasure? [/Q2 --end Zovni wrote--]
Just because we respect property rights of game companies, it doesn't mean other idiots will respect our rights and not copy it. [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--]
Our rights to what? To a picture drawn by someone else?
Trixter (8952) on 12/1/2006 7:17 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--] [Q3 --start Zovni wrote--]Exactly. So why protect it like a treasure? [/Q3 --end Zovni wrote--]
Just because we respect property rights of game companies, it doesn't mean other idiots will respect our rights and not copy it. [/Q2 --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--]
Our rights to what? To a picture drawn by someone else? [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
MobyGames reserves the right to protect its intellectual property -- in our case, our presentation of the material and the ability to search and use it.
Example 1: The information in the phone book is public knowledge. Anyone can go door to door and make their own phone book and do what they want with it. But you can't make a copy of the Yellow Pages and sell it -- SBC owns that particular presentation.
Example 2: If someone takes a photograph of Michael Jackson, who owns the photograph? The photographer, or the subject?
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 11/25/2006 1:17 PM · Permalink · Report
All right, this is getting ridiculous. I think everything that needs to be said has been said. You (SlimG and Iggy) thought you were uncovering some sort of conspiracy when it turns out that most of us have actually read, understood and agreed to MG's policies, who would have thought?
Other than repeating your fear that MG might turn into some terrible commercialized website (that may earn money with your contributions you never should have expected to pay off for you in any way) you have nothing substantial to say. Several good points have been made why MG's policies are the way they are. I don't want to repeat everything again, just read flipkins posts again.
MG obviously does have the option to make a profit with our contributions, but as has already been said, you should have known that right from the start (if you didn't read the FAQ it's your own fault). But do you seriously expect that MG will go all-out commercial. My impression (and it seems everyone else's as well) is that the people who run MG are mostly concerned with the content and quality of the site. However, it also needs to be financed in some way and keeping all options open is a smart move in my book. Even if MG starts making a profit that exceeds the costs of running the site (and giving away free stuff and attending conferences etc.) I won't have a problem with that, and I certainly won't feel screwed over. As I said, there really isn't any reason to think that MG will turn into some sort of commercialized bastardization of it's current form.
SlimG, to point out the obvious once again, you were pissed because you thought MG was making money with your contributions. Your suggestion? Allow users to contribute content taken from other websites and pay them for it. Do I really have to point out the contradiction here?
And Iggy, you should stop bitching about MG claiming the rights to your contributions. First of all you were told right of the bat (if you have read the FAQ, that is) that they would do so. Second of all, MG goes to great length to meticulously document who contributed what, and even award you points for it. The fact that you overlook this detail is particularly funny, because you seem to get such an ego boost from your contribution rating. You've made your point, if you don't have anything substantial to add, just shut up. Taking comments of others deliberately out of context and obsessing over details that have only a marginal connection to the original topic isn't getting you anywhere and is just downright pathetic.
Indra was here (20755) on 11/25/2006 3:04 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I think we've all whined and dined enough already. Time to play nice again. I see no point of continuing this "debate" any longer. And unless directly provoked, let's keep the forum lines clean again, boys and girls. Later.
Depeche Mike (17455) on 11/25/2006 3:14 PM · Permalink · Report
Wow, look at that fog...
Sicarius (61518) on 11/25/2006 9:49 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Thats all? I read through all the posts and can't even say my opionion because the discussion is over? Damn you! :)
EDITH: Yeah, this post can be considered as spam but it is the thought that went through my head as I reached the last post so I couldn't help it :).
Indra was here (20755) on 11/26/2006 3:15 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Sicarius wrote--]Thats all? I read through all the posts and can't even say my opionion because the discussion is over? Damn you! :)
EDITH: Yeah, this post can be considered as spam but it is the thought that went through my head as I reached the last post so I couldn't help it :). [/Q --end Sicarius wrote--]
Don't worry Sicarius. There's plenty of opportunity to burn someone in the future. Just stay close to Zovni. :)
(Especially when he starts cueing the violins and trumpets)
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/26/2006 12:31 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Xenu wrote--]Other than repeating your fear that MG might turn into some terrible commercialized website (that may earn money with your contributions you never should have expected to pay off for you in any way) you have nothing substantial to say. Several good points have been made why MG's policies are the way they are. I don't want to repeat everything again, just read flipkins posts again.[/Q --end Xenu wrote--]
Do you want to help create the new IGN? Or what do you do if Mobygames becomes part of their network?
[Q --start Xenu wrote--]SlimG, to point out the obvious once again, you were pissed because you thought MG was making money with your contributions. Your suggestion? Allow users to contribute content taken from other websites and pay them for it. Do I really have to point out the contradiction here?[/Q --end Xenu wrote--]
You must, if you think over it a few times, see some kind of contradiction between not claiming rights to content from one source while doing it from the other?
[Q --start Xenu wrote--]And Iggy, you should stop bitching about MG claiming the rights to your contributions. First of all you were told right of the bat (if you have read the FAQ, that is) that they would do so. Second of all, MG goes to great length to meticulously document who contributed what, and even award you points for it. The fact that you overlook this detail is particularly funny, because you seem to get such an ego boost from your contribution rating. You've made your point, if you don't have anything substantial to add, just shut up. Taking comments of others deliberately out of context and obsessing over details that have only a marginal connection to the original topic isn't getting you anywhere and is just downright pathetic. [/Q --end Xenu wrote--]
I don't write for ego boosts, I write for money. If I want an ego boost or just some freedom I'll write for fanzines, but I don't want to feed others with my work while getting nothing, save some very immaterial points, in return. I am entirely in favour of open source projects done for the benefit of mankind, but the problem arises because one entity claims ownership over the work of others. I think my points in this case speak for themselves, proving that I'm not just trying to be annoying or angry because my contributions were rejected. Last night I spent several hours approving alternate titles and games which had been sitting in the queue for too long. I like it, as long as I don't work for free while someone else reaps the financial benefits. It's like charity; you don't give money to big business.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 11/26/2006 7:34 AM · Permalink · Report
[q] I don't write for ego boosts, I write for money. If I want an ego boost or just some freedom I'll write for fanzines, but I don't want to feed others with my work while getting nothing, save some very immaterial points, in return.[/q]
Then leave. No one is forcing you to stay.
Riamus (8480) on 11/26/2006 5:26 PM · Permalink · Report
I'd have to agree. For all contributors... if you don't like how MG handles your contributions, or that they take ownership when you contribute, then leave. You don't HAVE to contribute here. Otherwise, accept that the legal policy regarding submissions is almost guaranteed not to change.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 11/26/2006 7:34 PM · Permalink · Report
You have an interesting paradox in your messages. On the other hand you say the site is located in the USA so things are done like this or that.
But...I thought "Freedom of speech" is a very central issue of the US way of life. Do you tell everyone who criticizes the government that they can move elsewhere if they don't like it ("you don't have to live here if you don't like it")? I think this thread is part of that freedom of speech thingy. Sometimes you have to accept people saying things you don't like but that's the flip side of FoS.
One thing I do wonder is that you often make claims like you are a big authority here, yet someone in some other thread said that you really aren't? Like the "accept that the legal policy.." that sounds like you are the one making the policy. Do I recall incorrectly and you really are an authority who can make such claims?
nullnullnull (1463) on 11/26/2006 8:08 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--]you really are an authority who can make such claims? [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
Policy as such is a pretty colaberative effort. Most policy usually arises from issues our contributors have. I can tell you niether Brian, Jim, Rob or I set out to create MobyGames so we would have a reason to write terms of service and FAQs. Usually questions, problems, concerns arise and we have to adress them. A lot of people have had a hand in crafting the policies of MobyGames. Someone has an issue. It gets debated on the public boards and then on the approver boards. We come to some sort of consenus and then write up the policy. Often the admins are not the ones writing up stuff. For instance I would say 95% of the standards guide did not come from any admin but rather from the 49 or so approvers. Typicaly the people we listen to most are the people who contribute the most. Go figure. As Raimus is a top contributor and an approver his opnion pulls some weight. However utimately the admin's ultimately decide. Occasionally we talk to our lawyer so we know exactly where on the legal spetrum things stand.
Riamus (8480) on 11/26/2006 9:13 PM · Permalink · Report
I never said that discussing it isn't allowed or in any way indicated that there shouldn't be freedom to express opinions. If you read it like that, then it was simply a misunderstanding. My point was that if someone doesn't like how something is handled, they have the choice to leave. They aren't forced to contribute. Obviously, policy can change, but that sort of legal policy is unlikely to change as it is a very common US legal policy regarding internet contributions.
As for your last paragraph, that's how I talk. I don't ever claim to have any more power than anyone else, and if you read through what I write, you won't find where I ever claimed that. As an approver, I consider this site to be very important and so I stand by it 100%. As such, what I write may sound authoritative, but never have I stated something was a fact that was against the site's policies. I'll say it clearly for all to see... I AM NOT AN ADMIN. Period. That does not mean I won't continue to stand by the site as strongly as any admin would.
To say that people should accept the policy isn't in any way suggesting that I wrote it. I pointed out only that you should accept them because, as I wrote, they are not likely to change. I didn't say they won't change. I didn't say I wrote them. I didn't say you can't complain about them.
I'm sorry if you don't like how I write, or if you think I sound to authoritative. That is who I am and it's how I will continue to write. Unless you can show me how I am overstepping my bounds as an approver, you'll have to just accept that I'm not going to change (or just ignore me). The same goes for the one other person who said something about that many months ago. I am direct in my speech and will always be. When I feel strongly about something, I state is strongly. When I know something to be true, I state it as such. I'm not about to start putting disclaimers on everything I say...
Example: "Excessive profanity is not allowed." -- Keep in mind that I am just a lowly approver who apparently knows nothing and whose voice is unimportant, so if you don't like what I wrote, just ignore it and maybe someone else will give you the answer you like instead.
... That is not ever going to happen.
Indra was here (20755) on 11/26/2006 9:37 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--]But...I thought "Freedom of speech" is a very central issue of the US way of life. Do you tell everyone who criticizes the government that they can move elsewhere if they don't like it ("you don't have to live here if you don't like it")? I think this thread is part of that freedom of speech thingy. Sometimes you have to accept people saying things you don't like but that's the flip side of FoS. [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
Dude, you got your politics all wrong. There's a difference between a country "claiming" to be the centre of freedom and all that hoohaa and there's a country that actually IS. For the later, refer to the Netherlands.
Politics is like games. You have the advertising and you have the actual gaming experience. Even the demo's can be misleading.
Zovni (10504) on 11/26/2006 11:22 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--]Politics is like games. You have the advertising and you have the actual gaming experience. Even the demo's can be misleading. [/Q --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--]
That was pretty clever as far as geek analogies go!
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 11/26/2006 12:13 PM · Permalink · Report
Do you want to help create the new IGN? Or what do you do if Mobygames becomes part of their network?
Once again, who says MG will turn into another IGN? Do you have anything to back that claim up, other than the fact that they actually have the option to do that. Of course I wouldn't like that, but even if MG goes commercial, who says it will be the next IGN? There's a lot of middle ground between MG as it is now and IGN. What will I do if it happens? Well, there's nothing I can do, but asking to get paid while MG isn't even making money won't achieve anything.
You must, if you think over it a few times, see some kind of contradiction between not claiming rights to content from one source while doing it from the other?
That doesn't respond to anything I said. SlimG was complaining about MG making money with "his" contributions, and at the same time demanded that they pay him for submitting work of other people.
I don't write for ego boosts, I write for money.
OK, I was thinking of some of the things you said in another thread (I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about), but I guess I'll have to take your word for it, it's not important anyway. So you write for money? You're not doing that here are you? Har har! Seriously, you can demand money all you want, it won't do any good. MG has absolutely no obligation to pay you anything (as you should know from reading their ToS).
I am entirely in favour of open source projects done for the benefit of mankind, but the problem arises because one entity claims ownership over the work of others.
As pointed out by flipkin and Wildkard, owning the content of your site is a necessity, otherwise you'd run into all sorts of practical and legal problems that would make running the site impossible. How would you manage a database whose content is owned by several thousand people all over the globe that have to agree to every change and might take down their content at any time?
Also, why are you getting upset about it now. You were told in the ToS that MG would claim ownership of your contributions. You shouldn't have signed something you didn't read or understand.
I think my points in this case speak for themselves, proving that I'm not just trying to be annoying or angry because my contributions were rejected.
I think you're continuous demands to get paid speak for themselves as well. I'm not sure if that last sentence is aimed at me. I don't get angry if my contributions are rejected, and even if I would, I wouldn't be angry at you because I don't remember you rejecting any of my contributions.
I like it, as long as I don't work for free while someone else reaps the financial benefits.
So you like MG as it is now? Then stop complaining. I could say a few things about the practical, financial and legal problems of paying thousands of people, working at their own pace, based on a somewhat arbitrary contribution rating, but that should be redundant, as I think they are quite obvious.
If you want to know why I'm angry at you, just read all your posts you made in this thread again.
Now, if you cannot add anything useful to what you've already said numerous times, or can give any good reason why you fear that MG will become the next IGN, I won't respond to you anymore, I'm tired of this.
Riamus (8480) on 11/26/2006 5:30 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Xenu wrote--]As pointed out by flipkin and Wildkard, owning the content of your site is a necessity, otherwise you'd run into all sorts of practical and legal problems that would make running the site impossible. How would you manage a database whose content is owned by several thousand people all over the globe that have to agree to every change and might take down their content at any time? [/Q --end Xenu wrote--]
Exactly. It may be done differently in other countries, but MG is US-based and is going to follow the normal method in the US of taking ownership of all contributions and stating clearly that they can choose to use such contributions to make money. You might not like how the US does things, but that's where MG is located, so you can accept that or not. It isn't likely to ever change. MG is not a non-profit organization and never will be. The fact that they don't make a profit right now is immaterial. If they start making a profit someday, great. They deserve it. Making a profit does not mean the site will turn to crap.
Indra was here (20755) on 11/26/2006 9:40 PM · Permalink · Report
Oooh, 100 posts and not even a single reference to tentacle porn...
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/27/2006 9:56 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] MG is not a non-profit organization and never will be.[/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Why?
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 11/26/2006 11:46 PM · Permalink · Report
How would you manage a database whose content is owned by several thousand people all over the globe that have to agree to every change and might take down their content at any time?
That's an interesting intentional overlooking of the relevant open source model proposed as a "third way" in your quote. Even Creative Commons licensing could give us some teeth without a mouth full of fangs -- and we might stand to learn some from flickr's implementation of it. (Don't want your screenshots to be easy to capture? Serve them up as flash objects instead of right-clickable jpegs!)
Depeche Mike (17455) on 11/27/2006 12:52 AM · Permalink · Report
I don't want Iggy to leave...
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 11/27/2006 7:40 AM · Permalink · Report
I'd hate to see this site go Flash. :(
I feel much the same way, but as in flickr only the parts of it that are contributor-designated as rights-restricted need be. (chances are good there could be some more elegant javascript-style workaround 8)
Trixter (8952) on 12/1/2006 7:24 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]I'd hate to see this site go Flash. :( [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
I can't see that happening in the near future, so don't worry about it.
One of the great things about adhering to CSS and standards, which I can personally attest that Brian has put a crazy amount of work into, is that MobyGames is completely accessible to the sight-impaired. Try loading www.mobygames.com into lynx to see what it does. Seriously!
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 11/27/2006 8:33 AM · Permalink · Report
Yep, you only have to look at GPL to see a model that doesn't mean you surrender all rights to someone else for them to do what ever they please with your work. Nevertheless, you can't just one day say that everyone has to stop using your GPL'd software.
Игги Друге (46653) on 11/27/2006 9:55 AM · Permalink · Report
[quote]Do you want to help create the new IGN? Or what do you do if Mobygames becomes part of their network?
Once again, who says MG will turn into another IGN? Do you have anything to back that claim up, other than the fact that they actually have the option to do that. Of course I wouldn't like that, but even if MG goes commercial, who says it will be the next IGN? There's a lot of middle ground between MG as it is now and IGN. What will I do if it happens? Well, there's nothing I can do, but asking to get paid while MG isn't even making money won't achieve anything.[/quote] I cannot divine the future, so I do not use any definitive phrasing like "will", which implies a certain destiny. Such a possibility exists, however, and that is in itself cause for worry.
As you say, asking to be paid while MG isn't even making money is useless, but the way you express it, you make probable that it may eventually make money. Money can be extremely corrupting.
[quote]You must, if you think over it a few times, see some kind of contradiction between not claiming rights to content from one source while doing it from the other?
That doesn't respond to anything I said. SlimG was complaining about MG making money with "his" contributions, and at the same time demanded that they pay him for submitting work of other people.[/quote] I ne'er noticed that in what he wrote. I suppose we all read things in a different light. The notion of asking for payment for works copied from another source is so absurd that it stands to reason that that wasn't what he was intending.
[quote]I don't write for ego boosts, I write for money.
OK, I was thinking of some of the things you said in another thread (I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about), but I guess I'll have to take your word for it, it's not important anyway. [/quote] That thread was written in good humour, as can be seen if you read it straight to the bottom. I apologise for not using any smileys, but I find that such measures will often render humour pointless.
[quote]So you write for money? You're not doing that here are you? Har har! Seriously, you can demand money all you want, it won't do any good. MG has absolutely no obligation to pay you anything (as you should know from reading their ToS).[/quote] To hell with the ToS, the day they start making money they're doing it based on contributions from others. That day will be one when people will have a much harder time regarding it as a community project anymore. No, I am not against MG earning money, since it will guarantee the long-time survival of the database. What I am against is people earning money. No, I am not against the administrators being paid sufficiently to be able to dedicate sufficient time to the site. As long as such means exist, all that is well. But making money shouldn't be a motive, just a means. Let's leave that to Rupert Murdoch. Let MG persist as a community project.
[quote]I am entirely in favour of open source projects done for the benefit of mankind, but the problem arises because one entity claims ownership over the work of others.
As pointed out by flipkin and Wildkard, owning the content of your site is a necessity, otherwise you'd run into all sorts of practical and legal problems that would make running the site impossible. How would you manage a database whose content is owned by several thousand people all over the globe that have to agree to every change and might take down their content at any time?
Also, why are you getting upset about it now. You were told in the ToS that MG would claim ownership of your contributions. You shouldn't have signed something you didn't read or understand.[/quote] Well, that ToS, which is about as interesting as the forty-page document you must read when installing MS Word or iTunes, didn't convince me. Like so many other licence agreements, they can make any claims they want. I still own my material. I just read a nice little book I got from the journalist union, which states simply that material produced by me is owned by me. I can grant Mobygames a right to publish it, but that doesn't grant them ownership. If they owned it, they could sell it on to someone else. They can't. Release info they can, but not a description.
After this, the quoting breaks down. Long live the forum system.
I:I think my points in this case speak for themselves, proving that I'm not just trying to be annoying or angry because my contributions were rejected.
X:I think you're continuous demands to get paid speak for themselves as well.
What continuous demands? I'd rather demand that no-one is paid.
X:I'm not sure if that last sentence is aimed at me. I don't get angry if my contributions are rejected, and even if I would, I wouldn't be angry at you because I don't remember you rejecting any of my contributions.
No, it wasn't directed at you. It was directed at your accusations of the originator of this thread. I was merely pointing out that you can't use the same arguments with me. I'm no 2-point newbie from out of nowhere.
I:I like it, as long as I don't work for free while someone else reaps the financial benefits.
X:So you like MG as it is now? Then stop complaining. I could say a few things about the practical, financial and legal problems of paying thousands of people, working at their own pace, based on a somewhat arbitrary contribution rating, but that should be redundant, as I think they are quite obvious.
I think everyone basically likes MG as it is now. The question is whether it will remain that way, something which has not been made clear by the people who would know. Where will Mobygames go from here? Where will it end? Why is it run like a company when it runs on donations, pecuniar or otherwise?
X:If you want to know why I'm angry at you, just read all your posts you made in this thread again.
I didn't notice that you were angry with me. Are you?
X:]Now, if you cannot add anything useful to what you've already said numerous times, or can give any good reason why you fear that MG will become the next IGN, I won't respond to you anymore, I'm tired of this.
I fear, because the possibility is left wide open, and no effort has been made to deny it.
Riamus (8480) on 11/27/2006 2:07 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I don't think it would be wise for them to give a definitive answer on this. If they decide to go another way 10 years from now, then they are renegging (sp?) on what they said. And even they probably don't know what will happen 10 years from now. Of course, if they do give us a definitive answer, it will finally close this thread, which would be wonderful. :D
Zovni (10504) on 11/27/2006 4:22 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] Of course, if they do give us a definitive answer, it will finally close this thread, which would be wonderful. :D [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
That's what I was aiming for. Any official statement will certainly bring order to the bickering and speculation.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 11/27/2006 4:14 PM · Permalink · Report
Some of the things you say really undermine what you said earlier. Other than that, you're just repeating yourself.
We both don't want MG to go commercial, but unlike you I see little reason to be worried about that. There's no way for any of us to know what will happen eventually, but I wouldn't expect the admins to present their plans on the forum, much less in a mess of a thread like this one.
Oh and nevermind that using smileys is beneath you. I'm capable of understanding humor to a certain extend even without smileys :O ;) :D
SlimG (1) on 11/28/2006 9:50 PM · Permalink · Report
The way MG is run now I have no intention nor right to claim money for my contributions, that would be plain stupidity because I accept the way MG is run now.
But all the evidences collected easily convinces me that MG will go ahead and start earning money on the contributions they received for free, and i believe that's morally wrong.
If this happens MG will probably start rewarding their contributors with something more than these fantastic t-shirts you are so fond of :). I never said I was interested in any money, and I'm not!
If MB has no plans to go ahead and make a profit on the contributions there's no reason to copyright the material, everyone would be better of with a open free license. If anyone tries to make a profit on MB's content MB has every opportunity to sue their ass of and earn buttloads of money for their server maintenance.
About open licensing: There seems to be many of you here who don't understand the basics of open license, Open licenses still operates with an owner, but the owner gives everyone the permission to do whatever they like with hes work as long as they don't try to make a profit on his work or take credit for it.
Example: People steals Windows copies but none steals Linux cos it's already free.
If someone tries to take credit for linux or tries to make a profit they get sued.
I believe that MB would be the most popular gamedatabase on the internet with such a license, and none would try to copy it since there's no need to, there's would already be a MB. But I don't dare get my hopes up, i don't think MB will go free so I won't use it anymore, I'll continue contributing for wikipedia and try to find another free dedicated gamedatabase I can contribute for.
Riamus (8480) on 11/29/2006 2:21 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
A few pieces of information for you...
1) If someone copies your site online, other than a cease and desist, you have little you can do about it unless the site is located in the same country as you are... and even then, it's hard. As soon as someone hosts a site in some country that has no copyright laws, or doesn't enforce them, then this site cannot do anything to prevent that site from doing whatever it wants. We can try, but it really won't amount to anything and will just be a waste of money.
2) I doubt MG will pay contributors if MG starts making a profit. There are way too many contributors for that to be feasible.
3) I think people here DO know what open licensing is.
4) Open source isn't the reason why people don't steal Linux. You said it yourself... Linux (at least many distros) is free. You can't steal something that is free... even if the source wasn't open source.
5) You can sue for a physical product much more easily than a website. And even then, if the person who stole it is in a country that doesn't care about such laws, there really isn't anything you can do about it.
6) MG is one of the most popular gaming databases on the internet. Having been nominated for a Webby proves it.
Shoddyan (15004) on 11/29/2006 3:10 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]4) Open source isn't the reason why people don't steal Linux. You said it yourself... Linux (at least many distros) is free. You can't steal something that is free... even if the source wasn't open source. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Sure you can Riamus, you apply the source code to another project without giving the proper credit or other required conditions in the licensing agreement for that sourcecode (GPL for example). I do however think that if something's open sourced, it's naturally expected to "get around" more, and most people will assume the positive about it's use until a community discovers something awry and calls the offender out on it.
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] 6) MG is one of the most popular gaming databases on the internet. Having been nominated for a Webby proves it. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Hearing positive (and not positive) comments from developers, researchers, game fantatics, HR Departments, Game Review TV Shows, News Blurbs, industry blogs and fellow contributors proves it more. But awards are nice too. Gimme more awards!
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 11/29/2006 12:22 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]3) I think people here DO know what open licensing is.
4) Open source isn't the reason why people don't steal Linux. You said it yourself... Linux (at least many distros) is free. You can't steal something that is free... even if the source wasn't open source.[/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Umh, I think you just proved the first point above invalid with the second..
Riamus (8480) on 11/29/2006 3:21 PM · Permalink · Report
Explain how you steal something that is free? Obviously, if you make money off of something that is open source, then you could call it stealing, but I don't see people doing that with Windows. People steal Windows to use. People can't steal Linux to use because it is free (in many distros).
Riamus (8480) on 11/29/2006 4:34 PM · Permalink · Report
His comparison was used with Windows, however. That is what I am referring to. As I stated... people who steal Windows do so to USE it, not to sell it or develop it into something else. As such, you can't steal a free product such as Linux just to use. I was pointing out how his comparison with Windows was flawed. I did state that you could steal it in other ways, such as if you started selling it. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough that I was pointing out the specific way of stealing that he was referring to.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 11/29/2006 4:45 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]His comparison was used with Windows, however. That is what I am referring to. As I stated... people who steal Windows do so to USE it, not to sell it or develop it into something else. As such, you can't steal a free product such as Linux just to use. I was pointing out how his comparison with Windows was flawed. I did state that you could steal it in other ways, such as if you started selling it. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough that I was pointing out the specific way of stealing that he was referring to.[/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Nope, originally you referred to open licensing, not Windows/Linux. Check back a few messages.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 11/29/2006 6:08 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]Example: People steals Windows copies but none steals Linux cos it's already free.[/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Ah, that was a poor comment by the author. Seems he didn't get it either.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 11/29/2006 4:44 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]Explain how you steal something that is free? Obviously, if you make money off of something that is open source, then you could call it stealing, but I don't see people doing that with Windows. People steal Windows to use. People can't steal Linux to use because it is free (in many distros). [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Trouble is, you don't understand the meaning of free in this context. Even if you get the software for free it doesn't mean you can do whatever you like with it.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with making money with Linux or other GPL'd software. There are just some strings attached that you must obey to.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
(And note that GPL is just one of the OSS licences.)
Trixter (8952) on 12/1/2006 7:35 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start SlimG wrote--] But all the evidences collected easily convinces me that MG will go ahead and start earning money on the contributions they received for free, and i believe that's morally wrong. [/q]
You know, I can't help thinking of The Internet Archive and Wikipedia, two projects that outclass us one thousand times over because of their funding. What if they didn't have funding? Would you get upset if they started including banner ads or charging $1 a year per person to keep their respective sites open? Would you rather have them close up shop, rather than try to make some money to stay open? Would you rather have the information disappear forever than "go corporate"?
I would like to think that the people who continue to contribute to MobyGames do so voluntarily, as a thank-you for designing, implementing, expanding, and supporting the infrastructure involved over a seven-year period. Nobody is forcing you to contribute to MobyGames. If there is a better framework out there that is as diligently administered and policed as us, then by all means, take your efforts there.
We're sorry to see you leave... but, ultimately, whatever is best for you is probably what is best for the rest of us too, right?
Scaryfun (20370) on 11/29/2006 9:44 AM · Permalink · Report
The honorable thing to do would be to set aside a certain portion of any large windfall commercial profit (?20%) and distribute it over the top 1000 contributors as a sign of thanks. There's no legal obligation obviously to do anything but when you do rely on volunteer contributions, it would be the height of greed and capitalism to not acknowledge people's contributions in any way.
By the way, Vista is using a centralized game install section which can automatically have available a database of game information like covers, developer/publisher info for all the games you have. I've read only 1500 games will have info initially available - which seems like a drop in the bucket. It would seem like it would be wanting the use of an existing database....hmmm.
nullnullnull (1463) on 11/29/2006 6:08 PM · Permalink · Report
Jeezus. This thread is still going on. Well SlimG has two points ( as in contributions, not valid arguments) . I cannot imagine how much effort he must of put into those points to be so concerned with someone profiting from them.
When he gets to 1000 points I will send him a free t-shirt. Also anybody who wants free games can get them.
Sorry SlimG you need 500 points to qualify. Also if you are so concerned with ads you can turn em off if you have 125 points.
Bottom line is MobyGames is free and always will be. If you contribute we try to give back the best we can, with what we can afford. If you come a visiting and don't contribute we serve you an ad to pay for the bandwidth and servers and crap we give away. If ya don't like the deal well ya can go to some other site. We would love to have ya, but that's kinda the way things are.
Indra was here (20755) on 12/11/2006 7:53 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start flipkin wrote--]When he gets to 1000 points I will send him a free t-shirt. Also anybody who wants free games can get them.
[/Q --end flipkin wrote--]
Though not trying to sound like an opportunistic kapitalist pig (oink)...but does this mean you owe me 9 t-shirts?
cough oink cough
Or at least a t-shirt that fits 9 other people....hmm now that's an idea for slumber parties...
D Michael (222) on 12/13/2006 11:16 PM · Permalink · Report
I enjoy doing reviews and such. I do it more as an outlet for myself than MG. If they were to benefit 1/10 of 1c over the next 20 years due to my "Wizardry Unlimited Money" tip then more power to them.
Furthermore, I seriously doubt wikipedia has a bigger archive. Just for kicks I clicked 'random game' 3 times and searched for the titles that popped up on wikipedia... they didn't exist.
Scott Monster (986) on 12/14/2006 4:51 AM · Permalink · Report
For the Record I contribute to Mobygames because its one of the coolest projects on the Internet. Why?
- All submitted information is freely shared with the public.
- Its an online database that is really well organized.
- I've used it to decide what games to buy with great results.
- I finally get a place for all that useless info in my head.
Indra was here (20755) on 12/14/2006 10:53 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Santa wrote--]
Martin Smith (81664) on 1/2/2007 1:29 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Santa wrote--]For the Record I contribute to Mobygames because its one of the coolest projects on the Internet. Why?
- All submitted information is freely shared with the public.
- Its an online database that is really well organized.
- I've used it to decide what games to buy with great results.
- I finally get a place for all that useless info in my head.
[/Q --end Santa wrote--]
Couldn't've put it better myself. The harsh realities of commercial life mean that you have to protect your possessions, and that needs a lot more specific effort with intangible things over the internet. Most people understand that if they take my TV, they've committed a crime and the police will want a word, but international law can be vaguer with information. I don't believe anyone does or ever will make money from my efforts on here, but if they do I'm okay with it, within reasonable amounts.
plantluvver (1) on 1/11/2007 6:08 AM · Permalink · Report
If folks at MobyGames make some money, that's great! They are giving me free access to their content. At some point in time, I hope to contribute to the database at Mobygames, simply because I enjoy using it. I don't see any reason to choose between Mobygames and Wikipedia, in fact they serve two very different purposes. I go to Wikipedia to find factual and historical information about a subject, sometimes games. I go to Mobygames to learn other's opinions about games, to see whether I might enjoy them.
Often, if I belong to a club, the club may go out for pizza and discuss business. I don't mind the pizza parlor charging me for using it's space. Mobygames is providing the space for this discussion. (I hope it is intended as a discussion, and not a rhetorical question.)
It sounds as if you are frustrated by having your submissions rejected. But why expect Mobygames to publish something that would risk them shutting down? Your contribution would be just as unavailable to others. I don't know the particulars in your instance, but isn't rejection part of being an author?
Besides, if the content is something you created, you may still own it (but I haven't checked this.) But certainly it would be unfair for you to distribute other authors' content without permission.
By your argument, we shouldn't enjoy Shakespeare, the Mona Lisa, Mozart nor any published reference to them. Nor should they be taught in schools (teachers earn a living by teaching such things!)
Riamus (8480) on 1/11/2007 2:31 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start plantluvver wrote--]I go to Wikipedia to find factual and historical information about a subject, sometimes games. I go to Mobygames to learn other's opinions about games, to see whether I might enjoy them.[/Q --end plantluvver wrote--]
Not to put down Wikipedia (I do like that site for non-game things), but you'll find more factual and historical data about games HERE than on Wikipedia simply because we verify everything submitted rather than letting people just submit whatever they want and leaving a "needs source" note next to the item. :)