Ah always online is really proving to be annoying

#31clowningPosted 5/2/2013 12:30:59 PM
rowgue34 posted...
xoxide124 posted...

I AM VERY MUCH about ownership over data and information. This takes away all your individual rights.


Copyright law was never intended to create monopolies it was designed to prevent them. The entire purpose of copyright law was to place limits on the amount of time you could have exclusive rights to something. What we have now is not copyright law, it's monopoly creation law.


First of all to xoxide: no it does not. You have rights, just not rights of ownership over the original work.

To rowgue: copyright law has nothing to do with monopolies. I don't think you know what a monopoly is. Copyright law exists to ensure that the creator of said work reaps the rewards for his production. It protects the creator of the work.

A monopoly is when one one entity controls or owns an entire industry, supply line, etc. Copyright law protects ownership rights of a creator, whereas monopolies are about means of production in an industry.

You might be confusing patent with copyright. Patents are limited term protections that provide a set amount of time for an owner/creator to control the sole production and sale of whatever it created. Theoretically, this allows the creator to recoup losses spent on developing said product.

Patents create temporary monopolies, whereas copyrights provide ownership rights protection.

What we are seeing today with the licensing business, is the ad hoc creation of rules by which owners and customers should abide. There is a conflict about these rules because the technology of digital transmission of information is quite new, and it will take a while for everything to get worked out.
---
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. ...one begins to twist facts to suit theories.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
#32xoxide124Posted 5/2/2013 12:42:09 PM
clowning posted...
rowgue34 posted...
xoxide124 posted...

I AM VERY MUCH about ownership over data and information. This takes away all your individual rights.


Copyright law was never intended to create monopolies it was designed to prevent them. The entire purpose of copyright law was to place limits on the amount of time you could have exclusive rights to something. What we have now is not copyright law, it's monopoly creation law.


First of all to xoxide: no it does not. You have rights, just not rights of ownership over the original work.

To rowgue: copyright law has nothing to do with monopolies. I don't think you know what a monopoly is. Copyright law exists to ensure that the creator of said work reaps the rewards for his production. It protects the creator of the work.

A monopoly is when one one entity controls or owns an entire industry, supply line, etc. Copyright law protects ownership rights of a creator, whereas monopolies are about means of production in an industry.

You might be confusing patent with copyright. Patents are limited term protections that provide a set amount of time for an owner/creator to control the sole production and sale of whatever it created. Theoretically, this allows the creator to recoup losses spent on developing said product.

Patents create temporary monopolies, whereas copyrights provide ownership rights protection.

What we are seeing today with the licensing business, is the ad hoc creation of rules by which owners and customers should abide. There is a conflict about these rules because the technology of digital transmission of information is quite new, and it will take a while for everything to get worked out.


ANY Data created by any medium no matter what form is not owned by the equipment / application / vendor but the user of said equipment under the acceptable fair use laws PERIOD..

site Record industry vs the people with copying music via cassette to cd and or to hard drive

site ISPs vs the people .. data is not owned by the ISP but owned by the person using it despite its location unless explicitly given not implied

if you use photoshop to create work you own the work not photoshop and and adobe.. acceptable fair use

anything you create in any application is your property not the applications

game and game play would fall under the same laws of acceptable use

a program that allows you to create anything from a game creating a city to a document is still just a tool.. you may not own the program or rights to the program but you own the acceptable use of that program and application to create any aid data at which time that data is yours not the firm that produced said product

just because its on someone else's cloud aka ea / maxis.. the game data despite how twisted it may seem and comes off in its current for is not owned by them by proxy.. its the users and the user has the right period by fair use laws to have a copy of that data despite its form.

companies ignore laws but that doesn't mean there are not laws in place for them even if not tried in said form

btw.. good topic.. I do understand everyone's perspective.. but there are many laws in place the specifically say that DRM's are more of a violation if you do not have the right to save your data since they have created a process in which you can't backup your own creative works.. which would mean they are actually preventing you from being able to exercise your acceptable fair use laws

kind of interesting .. evil in some ways.. but I think not even intentional just by nature of design happens to do it that way and as a result has other impact as a result that has never been tested or tried in this way
#33rowgue34Posted 5/2/2013 1:25:19 PM
clowning posted...
rowgue34 posted...
xoxide124 posted...

I AM VERY MUCH about ownership over data and information. This takes away all your individual rights.


Copyright law was never intended to create monopolies it was designed to prevent them. The entire purpose of copyright law was to place limits on the amount of time you could have exclusive rights to something. What we have now is not copyright law, it's monopoly creation law.


First of all to xoxide: no it does not. You have rights, just not rights of ownership over the original work.

To rowgue: copyright law has nothing to do with monopolies. I don't think you know what a monopoly is. Copyright law exists to ensure that the creator of said work reaps the rewards for his production. It protects the creator of the work.

A monopoly is when one one entity controls or owns an entire industry, supply line, etc. Copyright law protects ownership rights of a creator, whereas monopolies are about means of production in an industry.

You might be confusing patent with copyright. Patents are limited term protections that provide a set amount of time for an owner/creator to control the sole production and sale of whatever it created. Theoretically, this allows the creator to recoup losses spent on developing said product.

Patents create temporary monopolies, whereas copyrights provide ownership rights protection.

What we are seeing today with the licensing business, is the ad hoc creation of rules by which owners and customers should abide. There is a conflict about these rules because the technology of digital transmission of information is quite new, and it will take a while for everything to get worked out.


You're talking about what copyright law does NOW. I'm talking about what it was originally intended to do. Originally it was intended to do precisely the same thing as patent law except for publications rather than tangible goods. But people with copyrights about to expire kept hiring lobyists to cozy up to members of congress to get it extended again and again until we ended up with the ridiculous perversion of it's original intent that we have now.

It was never the intent of the people that first created copyright law to provide a creator with sole rights to that idea for all eternity or even for their entire lifetime for that matter. They were explicit in stating that it was a temporary advantage given to a creator. It was also never intended to protect the very idea itself to the point where using a character name from a work or making something that is "too similar" constitues copyright violation. It was only intended to provide a limited period in which people were prohibted from producing literal copies of a work. Precisely the same thing patent law does.

And I'm fully aware of what a monopoly is and current copyright law DOES create monopolies. It grants one individual or a small group representing that individual exlusive rights to something. It doesn't have to cover an entire industry to be a monopoly.

You're also a bit confused on patents. Patents don't provide exlusive production rights for an inventor. Anybody is free to produce an identical product at any time. They just aren't allowed to copy the original creators formulas/designs in order to do so. That's all that's protected under patent law, and the second it expires it all becomes public domain and anyone can produce a literal identical copy of the original using the creators own formulas/designs.
#34holden4everPosted 5/2/2013 3:37:52 PM
From: xoxide124
not sure all your points are 100% true based on what I know about the game now.. but you may not care about trade working and other aspecs..

your pro's should have been cons and cons pro's.. but I get your point

the option for offline play should be in the game.. I don't think anyone is saying differently.. BUT.. if the thread is to survive .. then the debate has to be on new points not just the old one of "I don't want online" that isn't going to even matter .. its not enough to use as any as an argument at this point



My positives/negatives were simply a counter to your points. Being able to play with others is only a positive if that's what you want. I don't. In fact, most games I buy are for the single player part only with Battlefield being one of the few games that I play multiplayer in. I understand that online connectivity is not going anywhere but I'm opposed to being forced into it. I was planning on buying the new Xbox over the Playstation but if the rumours are true about it having to be always online then they have lost a sale.
---
http://thebulldogs.com.au/media/logo_2010.png - 2013 NRL Season - W/L: 1/4 - Last Game: Sea Eagles def Bulldogs 20-6 - Next Game: Roosters
#35clowningPosted 5/3/2013 9:43:43 PM
ANY Data created by any medium no matter what form is not owned by the equipment / application / vendor but the user of said equipment under the acceptable fair use laws PERIOD..

This is just not true. If it was true, then whole industries would be sued by eager lawyers in a ton of class action lawsuits. Since this is clearly not happening, you must obviously be wrong.

Patents don't provide exlusive production rights for an inventor. Anybody is free to produce an identical product at any time. They just aren't allowed to copy the original creators formulas/designs in order to do so.

You just contradicted yourself. If you cannot copy the original formula/product, then it's not identical. Therefore your prior sentence is false. So what I said is correct, and you just agreed with me.

You can make something similar, but not identical. This is why inventors don't invent one thing and have one patent. An inventor's one invention will be broken down into its separate parts, and each part will be patented. They will also patent various production methods as well, if applicable.

An excellent every day example of patents is medicine. A company creates and brings to market a new medicine, and there will be no generics for it for several years until the patent runs out.

It was also never intended to protect the very idea itself to the point where using a character name from a work or making something that is "too similar" constitues copyright violation.

You can use the same name, you just can't use the same character, as it were. This sometime happens with book titles. There are plenty of books with the same titles, but the stories are not the same, so there is no problem.

It doesn't have to cover an entire industry to be a monopoly.

I never said that. You can, as I said, have a supply line monopoly. There are different types of monopolies, but they all involve supply or production means, not the products they are supplying. You cannot have a monopoly over a story in a book, but you could have a monopoly over the printing and distribution of books in general. Monopolies are not about the products themselves, but the production and distribution of a class of products, or the supply of these products, etc.

So if you write a book, only you can sell, hand out, etc. copies of it. But that is not a monopoly, because you only control your book, not all books, or the supply of paper for all books, or the entire distribution chain for all books.

You are trying to say that a person has a one book monopoly...which is absurd. And if I were to give you that, I would say..."so?" There is no threat to the marketplace, so who cares? But since there is still competition--there are still multiple creators, producers, distributors, etc., not just one--I can't consider a copyright to be a monopoly. It just makes no sense.

Regarding the intent of the original creators of copyright law...we cannot know what their intent was. Perhaps some intended a lifelong copyright but did not have enough political support to pass that. I don't know, and neither do you. All we do know is that the first copyright law in the US was temporary. That has changed. If you were an author, or creator, you'd be happy about that.
---
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. ...one begins to twist facts to suit theories.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
#36rowgue34Posted 5/3/2013 11:00:48 PM
clowning posted...

You just contradicted yourself. If you cannot copy the original formula/product, then it's not identical. Therefore your prior sentence is false. So what I said is correct, and you just agreed with me.


No I didn't contradict myself. If you can't comprehend what I said then don't bother replying to it.

The rest wasn't even worth commenting on because you're not even actually responding to anything I said. You're just quoting a tiny snippet of something I said and then pretending to respond to it as you ramble on off on some tangent.