3 ms·
I'd like to live in a world where companies are free to offer the products they choose to offer under the terms they choose to offer them under. Companies shoul
by trotsky 16y ago
I'd like to live in a world where companies are free to offer the products they choose to offer under the terms they choose to offer them under. Companies should not have to incur a technological arms race simply to ship a "no bots allowed" game". I also feel like that's a point that startup entrepreneurs should sympathize with.
I disagree, I think this is something entrepreneurs should be willing to understand is for the good of innovation. With all the attempts to weaken first sale doctrine it's likely if we followed these rules libraries wouldn't exist anymore, to say nothing of gamefly, netflix and used record stores. The existence of cydia gives developers and users an alternative, drives innovation and keeps pressure on apple. What if vmware had been prevented from running windows as a linux guest or linux as a windows guest years ago because microsoft didn't approve? Would we have ever seen server virtualization take off? The cloud? Game modifications, often unapproved, have gone on to launch plenty of new studios.
There's no way to know if great advances in real world AI applications won't end up emerging from some scrappy game bot company.
I think it's clear that restrictive license terms if left unchecked can stifle innovation and are bad for entrepreneurs and startups.
- tptacek 16y agoWhy should my product be your AI laboratory? Why can't I just sell a game to people who won't use it to build bots? That seems like a reasonable thing to want.
- trotsky 16y agoI think I gave some clear examples of behavior against the wishes of the product company being for the public good. Security research would be another. If you want to pick and choose which to support would you choose only yourself as the final arbiter? Public interest includes: * Common carrier status * Desegregation * Product Safety * Privacy etc.
- tptacek 16y agoThe DMCA specifically exempts product safety research, so this seems like a red herring. Let's get back to the subject at hand. In a free market, why shouldn't I be allowed to sell a game with an enforceable contract against bots?
- trotsky 16y agoWell that was, in fact, the entire point of listing it. It's included because people believe it's for the public good even if the producing company doesn't wish to allow it. If you agree that some things fit this criteria, then all we're arguing about is to what extent companies should NOT be able to restrict how you use their product.
- jellicle 16y ago> Why can't I just sell a game to people who won't use it to build bots? That seems like a reasonable thing to want. Why can't I only sell books to white people and not to libraries or people whose skin color I dislike? That seems like a reasonable thing to want. Some "contracts" aren't and shouldn't be enforceable. Blizzard may be better off if they and Congress create laws that prevent individuals from using internet services in any way the internet service doesn't like, but society is worse off.
- tptacek 16y agoYes, because restricting bots from games is exactly like race discrimination. You win.