4 ms·

No, there should not be a law that forces anyone to give away their property. That's just complete nonsense. You should draw your own conclusion as to what you

No, there should not be a law that forces anyone to give away their property. That's just complete nonsense. You should draw your own conclusion as to what you spend your money on, and possibly you might conclude that "buying" online games that can be taken away from you at any time is a waste of money. But you can't go from there to "we must take away intellectual property from these capitalist swine!".

toyg 4y ago
Is patent expiration "taking away IP from capitalist swines"...? Obviously not. IP itself is not a natural right - it's a legal construct with clear limits. The nonsense is thinking that requiring certain interests to follow rules that benefit society, is "taking away intellectual property". Any such law would obviously not be retroactive, so any publisher could decide whether they want to produce any such online element going forward. If they do, they will know their work will have to be disclosed on a free license at the end - effectively working in the same way as patents.
- the_biot 4y ago
  I think the solution to this terrible behavior by Ubisoft, EA etc is what I said -- people need to stop putting up with it by not buying these games in the first place. You can't throw a law at every shenanigan these companies throw at their customers.
  - toyg 4y ago
    Oh yes, you absolutely can. Commercial law is so vast precisely because people have always misbehaved in pursuit of profit. > people need to stop putting up with it What I'm going to say might sound paternalistic to you, but it's the truth: most people don't really think that hard, generally speaking, and certainly not when it comes to satisfying their entertainment needs. That's why we have laws to protect the general public from predatory behavior in finance, hospitality, etc etc. This is predatory behavior, and it's now enacted at a scale that makes it parasitical - fleecing more and more money from the general consumer. A public response would be absolutely justified, in the same way it's absolutely justified what we're currently seeing going down with Apple's and Google's appstores. Otherwise we will continue to sleepwalk in the cyberpunk dystopia where corporations own our lives in practice, while being 'free to choose' purely in theory.
    - the_biot 4y ago
      What you're saying makes sense, though I'd only add that it's not "now", it's been going on for ages. EA's endless series of franchises tells you everything you need to know about both EA and their customers, for decades. But how can you possibly expect a law that takes away copyright of something they developed? That's insane, it'll never happen.
      - toyg 4y ago
        > But how can you possibly expect a law that takes away copyright of something they developed? Apart from the theoreticals (expropriation exists, or we'd never get roads done), as I said above, it doesn't need to be retroactive. It's like laws for car manufacturers: new restrictions don't make old cars illegal, they just mandate how they should be produced going forward.
      - account42 4y ago
        > But how can you possibly expect a law that takes away copyright of something they developed? That's insane, it'll never happen. That shouldn't really be any harder than retroactively extending copyright, which has happened multiple times. Or is it just the rights of big corporations that can never be restricted again? If a new law makes certain undesirable behaviors illegal for individuals should that only apply to people born after that law? No. Yes, retroactive copyright corrections will be harder to accomplish so, like the sibling comment suggests, we should focus on laws for new content for now. But we should also never froget that copyrighted content is NOT the property of the creator but of everyone. The I in "IP" is not redundant.
josephcsible 4y ago
Right now, the law forces you, the consumer, to give away your property, the copy of Assassin's Creed Liberation that you bought. (Don't believe me? Go ask a lawyer if it's legal to crack your copy's DRM to keep it working after they do this.)
- vageli 4y ago
  > Go ask a lawyer if it's legal to crack your copy's DRM to keep it working after they do this.) Seems legal in the US at least. > Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable gameplay.” https://www.pcgamesn.com/drm-copyright-infringement https://www.pcgamesn.com/drm-copyright-infringement
int_19h 4y ago
> you can't go from there to "we must take away intellectual property from these capitalist swine!". As a society, we certainly can. So IP owners should carefully consider the possibilities here before robbing people blind. That some shiny 50-year-old copyrights you've got there - would be such a shame if they were all to suddenly expire, no? Congress has that power, and more.
account42 4y ago
It's not their property - they have only been granted exclusive control over it FOR A LIMTITED TIME in order to incentivize them to create more so that in the end there is more for everyone to enjoy. If they are using that control over the "IP" to take the content away then why the rest of us honour our end of the deal.

toyg 4y ago

Is patent expiration "taking away IP from capitalist swines"...? Obviously not. IP itself is not a natural right - it's a legal construct with clear limits. The nonsense is thinking that requiring certain interests to follow rules that benefit society, is "taking away intellectual property". Any such law would obviously not be retroactive, so any publisher could decide whether they want to produce any such online element going forward. If they do, they will know their work will have to be disclosed on a free license at the end - effectively working in the same way as patents.

the_biot 4y ago
I think the solution to this terrible behavior by Ubisoft, EA etc is what I said -- people need to stop putting up with it by not buying these games in the first place. You can't throw a law at every shenanigan these companies throw at their customers.
- toyg 4y ago
  Oh yes, you absolutely can. Commercial law is so vast precisely because people have always misbehaved in pursuit of profit. > people need to stop putting up with it What I'm going to say might sound paternalistic to you, but it's the truth: most people don't really think that hard, generally speaking, and certainly not when it comes to satisfying their entertainment needs. That's why we have laws to protect the general public from predatory behavior in finance, hospitality, etc etc. This is predatory behavior, and it's now enacted at a scale that makes it parasitical - fleecing more and more money from the general consumer. A public response would be absolutely justified, in the same way it's absolutely justified what we're currently seeing going down with Apple's and Google's appstores. Otherwise we will continue to sleepwalk in the cyberpunk dystopia where corporations own our lives in practice, while being 'free to choose' purely in theory.
  - the_biot 4y ago
    What you're saying makes sense, though I'd only add that it's not "now", it's been going on for ages. EA's endless series of franchises tells you everything you need to know about both EA and their customers, for decades. But how can you possibly expect a law that takes away copyright of something they developed? That's insane, it'll never happen.
    - toyg 4y ago
      > But how can you possibly expect a law that takes away copyright of something they developed? Apart from the theoreticals (expropriation exists, or we'd never get roads done), as I said above, it doesn't need to be retroactive. It's like laws for car manufacturers: new restrictions don't make old cars illegal, they just mandate how they should be produced going forward.
    - account42 4y ago
      > But how can you possibly expect a law that takes away copyright of something they developed? That's insane, it'll never happen. That shouldn't really be any harder than retroactively extending copyright, which has happened multiple times. Or is it just the rights of big corporations that can never be restricted again? If a new law makes certain undesirable behaviors illegal for individuals should that only apply to people born after that law? No. Yes, retroactive copyright corrections will be harder to accomplish so, like the sibling comment suggests, we should focus on laws for new content for now. But we should also never froget that copyrighted content is NOT the property of the creator but of everyone. The I in "IP" is not redundant.

josephcsible 4y ago

Right now, the law forces you, the consumer, to give away your property, the copy of Assassin's Creed Liberation that you bought. (Don't believe me? Go ask a lawyer if it's legal to crack your copy's DRM to keep it working after they do this.)

vageli 4y ago
> Go ask a lawyer if it's legal to crack your copy's DRM to keep it working after they do this.) Seems legal in the US at least. > Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable gameplay.” https://www.pcgamesn.com/drm-copyright-infringement https://www.pcgamesn.com/drm-copyright-infringement

int_19h 4y ago

> you can't go from there to "we must take away intellectual property from these capitalist swine!". As a society, we certainly can. So IP owners should carefully consider the possibilities here before robbing people blind. That some shiny 50-year-old copyrights you've got there - would be such a shame if they were all to suddenly expire, no? Congress has that power, and more.

account42 4y ago

It's not their property - they have only been granted exclusive control over it FOR A LIMTITED TIME in order to incentivize them to create more so that in the end there is more for everyone to enjoy. If they are using that control over the "IP" to take the content away then why the rest of us honour our end of the deal.