| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoningInteroperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoningPosted Aug 24, 2005 18:57 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048)In reply to: Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning by corbet Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers
Your alleged analogies don't fit.
Have you ever seen any depictions of Justitia, the goddess of justice? Usually she's shown with scales in her hand. You have reasons for one position and reasons for another, and you put the weights on both scale pans and have to weigh them off against each other. That's how basically every judicial decision works except for some extremely simple cases.
I expressly said in my statement that the public interest in interoperability may prevail over those other considerations. The scale pan for interoperability may indeed be the one that goes down because it has more weight. However, that depends upon how legitimate the interest in interoperability is vs. the negative implications of reverse engineering. And that's a question of the application category. Comparing Samba, OpenOffice etc. to a game doesn't take into account how disparate entertainment software is from productivity software.
(Log in to post comments)
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:04 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] So you are saying that the "legitimacy" of interoperability is dependent on the opinion of some third party. Who? Could you possibly codify that "legitimacy" test into law? I believe your claim is that the right to create interoperable software is subject to the whim of the original vendor, which, to me, is the same as saying that this right does not exist at all.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:14 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] I don't blame you for probably having had fewer conceptual debates on statutory law and case law than I've had over the last 16 months in the European software patent debate. So I'm trying to explain those fundamental concepts.
I never said nor implied that "the whim of the original vendor" is the decisive criterion. The goddess of justice, or less metaphorically speaking, the judicial system has to decide, and the court decided the right way in this case.
Again, it's a matter of weighing one set of considerations against another. You have the interest of the author vs. the interest of the public. Anyone who denies that reasoning of the scales of Iustitia lacks understanding of legal concepts or is a blind fundamentalist (or both). You can't only claim certain consumer's rights without comparing their validity and legitimacy to the author's rights. And that comparison is genre-specific.
As for the "whim", computer games are pieces of art, which is not a quality judgment, just a fact. I'll give you an example: When the two professional soccer clubs in Munich wanted to modernize the Olympic Stadium with its world-famous tent-like design, the architect vetoed some (not all) of their plans for conceptual reasons. It's an inalienable originator's right. They had to build a whole new stadium in the end. That's the way it is.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:48 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] You have the interest of the author vs. the interest of the public. 100% wrong, of course. We have two interests of the public. The public have an interest in its own freedom in using published works; depending on circumstances, public may also have an interest in encouraging creation of such works through some kind of incentive system. Can Blizzard prove that availability of programs like bnetd will make it impossible fior them to create new works ? If not - then public sold its freedom for nothing. Anyone who denies that reasoning of the scales of Iustitia lacks understanding of legal concepts or is a blind fundamentalist (or both). Of course. Anyone who says something I do not like to hear is dirty fundamentalist. Greeeat argument.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 20:15 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] It's obvious that everything in a law is for some reason deemed to be in the public interest. Still there are rights that the public gets (interoperability is a right to everyone who uses some software) and rights that an individual gets (an author's right).
Trying to impose the burden of proof on the creators may be en vogue in some fundamentalist circles. However, it's just not accepted in the world of political realities. Anyone who says that an author has to justify his ownership in his creation (and has to prove that otherwise he'd go out of business) positions himself in a way that is unacceptable for politicians anywhere right of the Greens and the far left. There's no majority support for that approach.
I've talked to many conservative and center-left and (neo)liberal politicians, and like it or not, their approach is that the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict IPRs.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 22:03 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] What you may be missing is that under US law the only legitimate motivation for copyrights and patents is the good of the public, unless and until the Constitution is ammended. This has nothing to do with burden of proof (in fact, that mostly favors the copyright - if registered - or patent holder). Also, the discussion isn't about ownership. Blizzard owns the copyright to their games and to Battle.net. I do not challenge that. I don't think anyone else did. To attack our statements based on that argument is just tearing up straw men. Also, it isn't about "majority support", though now that you mention it, in technical circles, I think your position would be in the minority.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Sep 1, 2005 12:32 UTC (Thu) by biehl (subscriber, #14636) [Link] ... and rights that an individual gets (an author's right).Yes, but it is a fair argument that a society/public giving rights to individuals that are out of line with benefit to that society/public is just a bunch of bad merchants - pay lots - get little back. Anyone who says that an author has to justify his ownership in his creation (and has to prove that otherwise he'd go out of business) positions himself in a way that is unacceptable for politicians anywhere right of the Greens and the far left. There's no majority support for that approach. Maybe - but that "there is not support" is not reason that it is not true! And it is important to stress that nothing is taken from authors the work is theirs always, what is in question is what "rights" they can enforce through a public legal system after they release it - it is all about what OUR tax-money are spent on. Why must our tax-money be spent on a judicial system that gives us, (society in general) a bad deal? Should we also support a system of rules that gives the original makers of Samsung televisions the rights to raid private homes and destroy their television product, at any time they see so fit? Maybe we should have a publicly funded police unit to stand by so Samsung just has to make a call? I've talked to many conservative and center-left and (neo)liberal politicians, and like it or not, their approach is that the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict IPRs. Yes - it is important to remember how the arguments you present makes you look. But saying that something is right because you can find a group of people (conservative and center-left and (neo)liberal or whatever) that think so doesn't make it so. -Anders
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 22:07 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] I don't blame you for probably having had fewer conceptual debates on statutory law and case law than I've had over the last 16 months in the European software patent debate. Then I don't blame you for being a little condescending, but I may not be quite as ignorant as you seem to think.
I'll give you an example: When the two professional soccer clubs in Munich wanted to modernize the Olympic Stadium with its world-famous tent-like design, the architect vetoed some (not all) of their plans for conceptual reasons. It's an inalienable originator's right. They had to build a whole new stadium in the end. That's the way it is. That's the way it is in Germany. But bnetd is a U.S. case, and the U.S. does not give "artists" the same sort of lingering rights over their creations. Your stadium example could not happen here in the absense of explicit, contractual rights given to the architect. It is, thus, not an appropriate precedent for the bnetd case.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 25, 2005 6:42 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] QUOTE: That's the way it is in Germany. But bnetd is a U.S. case, and the U.S. does not give "artists" the same sort of lingering rights over their creations. Your stadium example could not happen here in the absense of explicit, contractual rights given to the architect. It is, thus, not an appropriate precedent for the bnetd case.My point about the stadium was that if such a right exists (on whatever legal grounds), and you can't modify something that someone else owns, then you have to build something to your liking from scratch. If you want a game server with certain features, write your own server with its own protocol (and then a game with that proprietary protocol), or a server for an open protocol, or take an open-source program that you are allowed to modify, but don't disrespect someone else's rights. I can't really see how that logic is specific to whether it's statutory law, case law or an agreement under which that right exists. In any of those scenarios, if the right does exist, then you have to build your own thing instead of infringing upon someone's rights. As for U.S. law and rights of artists over their creations: U.S. law doesn't systematically dinstinguish between the originator's right and copyright like German law does. However, any reasonable interpretation of copyright law takes the interest of an artist in the integrity of his creation into account (unless the rights of the artist are sufficiently well protected anyway, even without that aspect).
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 25, 2005 8:09 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] So, I guess, your argument boils down to the idea that American (US) copyright law is unreasonable and "communistic". Exactly how does that have anything to do with bnetd?
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 25, 2005 8:23 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] U.S. copyright law is not communistic. It's under a constitution of a free market economy. I'm only against any communist interpretations of it, and as you've seen in your case, the courts tend to look at those rights from a perspective in which a profit motive is legitimate (which doesn't say it's the only motive nor the only legitimate aspect).
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 25, 2005 9:46 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] No decision on copyright was made in the case, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, so I don't know why you continue to insist that it somehow was. The case was about: a) circumvention vs. interoperability (not copyright but DMCA) and b) EULAs.
About your rights and ours Posted Aug 25, 2005 11:46 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] If you want a game server with certain features, write your own server with its own protocol [...] but don't disrespect someone else's rights.That is a self-appointed right. Nobody gives you the right to decide how your "creations" are used: not the law, not reason, not common sense. Yes, others have said it before, but as you don't seem to grasp it, let me reiterate. Under international copyright law, you only have the right to control distribution of your work; and the right to control derivative works. Here you are talking about controlling the uses of your work, which is not a right. And, as developers, we are talking about the right to interoperate, which is explicitly recognized under US and EU law. Let's see about reason. As our favorite editor and others have suggested, some software houses might complain that open source programs like Samba destroy their business model; still it does not give them the right to control interoperating works. And if it is not a right for them, it is not for you either. It seems that in the bnetd case judges thought otherwise. I don't know the particulars of the case, but from what I have read it is pretty clear to me who holds the high moral ground. And for common sense, here's a hyperbolic example: an author might like to restrain people from using her book as toilet paper, because it diminishes its value and is a disrespect to the integrity of the work; but she would probably not succeed, and you would probably not like her to succeed.
Inalienable Rights. Posted Aug 24, 2005 22:56 UTC (Wed) by grantingram (subscriber, #18390) [Link] It's an inalienable originator's right. They had to build a whole new stadium in the end. That's the way it is. "Inalienable rights" are important things like not being subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Some concern for the integrity of an artistic work is hardly on the same scale. The debate about "intellectual property" and Copyright would be a lot clearer if we stopped thinking about "intellectual property" as "property" and Copyright as a "right" and thought of them instead as legal mechanisims for encouraging progress in various fields.
Inalienable Rights. Posted Aug 25, 2005 15:42 UTC (Thu) by maderik (subscriber, #28840) [Link] Inalienable only means that the right cannot be surrendered or transferred. It has nothing to do with the importance of the right -- or if these rights have been endowed by some Creator. Some countries/courts have found that artists' "moral rights" to works are in fact inalienable. However, even then moral rights usually have been discussed with respect to alteration, defacement, or destruction of a work and not mere usage.
Inalienable Rights. Posted Sep 1, 2005 20:49 UTC (Thu) by zakaelri (guest, #17928) [Link] How would that bear on the example posed above, then? If I purchase a book, and then proceed to use it as toilet paper... Is that then defacement? What if I purchase, say, a picasso painting and do likewise? Does my purchase of that picasso come with some archaic form of an EULA whereby I can't do what I want with it?
These are but questions... I don't understand how these unalienable ('moral') rights work.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:20 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] As for "codification", even if the written law doesn't say anything, then some very generable standards of reasonableness will be applied if one right (the right to interoperability) stands against another right (the author's right).
If the law says "in the public interest", which I personally believe should be a criterion for interoperability, then it's a somewhat higher standard, but it would really be left to the judges. Many fundamental terms and standards are left to case law because they change over time and are too difficult to codify. German criminal law only says that you get up to X years in jail for "insulting" someone, and it's just case law what an "insult" is and what it isn't.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:54 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] If the law says "in the public interest", which I personally believe should be a criterion for interoperability, then it's a somewhat higher standard. It's the other way around: any and all rights granted to authors must "promote the progress of science and the useful arts". If we can be reasonable sure that availability of programs like bnetd will bancrupt all companies who produce online games - then we probably should stop this nonsense (obviously online games are "usefull arts"). If not... then I fail to see your point.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 20:06 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] QUOTE: It's the other way around: any and all rights granted to authors must "promote the progress of science and the useful arts".I'm slowly but surely getting tired of responding to ever more comments that take a one-sided perspective on things. In every one of my comments, I've talked about why one set of considerations would or would not outweigh another, and I keep getting comments that turn a blind eye to one side of the equation. Today's world - and I'm speaking of free economies, not communist states - undoubtedly views intellectual property rights as a necessity to provide an economic incentive for investment. That's not in contradiction to the idea of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. However, it's not like an author's right needs more justification than a restriction of an author's right needs. There has to be a balance, and that balance is genre-specific. If you can make a case that you save human lives by reverse engineering some software that is used in a hospital, and that it's the only reasonable way of saving those lives, then you'll certainly find the judges to be more sympathetic to your case than if you say you want to interfere with someone else's computer game.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 25, 2005 5:47 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] It's strange that you blame Jon and others for failing to see both sides of the argument. It's pretty clear to me that they see the point you're trying to make, it's just that they strongly disagree with it. Alas, it doesn't appear to me that you've managed to understand their side of the argument. The scales swing both ways you know.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:41 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Comparing Samba, OpenOffice etc. to a game doesn't take into account how disparate entertainment software is from productivity software. Ok, let's compare two cases for my friend in small town. 1. BattelNet vs bnetd. He can use the "buy the game once and never have to pay any fees" model. $100-$150 per year (~1 hour per day: there are only dial-up in town and it's not cheap; Internet Cafe is cheaper but there are no way to install it's own game there) for one user. Or he can install bnetd and play with it's friends - not as fun but $0 for all. If there are 10-20 we are talking about $1000-$3000 here. 2. Windows 2003 server vs samba. He can use Linux with samba ($0) or he can buy Windows 2003 server for ~$1000 for 10 users and for ~$1500 for 20 users. Or he can use ftp to transfer files (no need to reverse-engeener protocol at all). Why we should forbid to do reverse engeenering in first case and permit in second case ? In Russia, for example, unlimited traffic planes are only available in Moscow and St. Petersburg, so for 85-90% or users "a monthly fee" and "buy the game once and never have to pay any fees" models are indistinguishable... So no, I do not think there are any difference between Battle.Net servers, ICQ and samba. In all cases it's pure convinience (you can live without ICQ and samba at all, right? ntalk and ftp are there, you know and if in doubt there are Web-based ICQ as well), in all cases we are modifying data produced by programs and return data back and we never modify program itself.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:55 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] The first example is unrealistic WRT the cost of Internet access of the USA (where the bnetd decision was made), but even if it weren't, it doesn't take into consideration that all Blizzard games provide for LAN play.
The difference between a game and a file system:
The combination of those two factors is why the comparison might have a different outcome in the end.
As for instant messaging like ICQ, I generally would agree that there's no pressing need to access them except if one dominates the market. Interoperability can be mandated for anti-trust reasons (as is just happening to Microsoft in the European Union).
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 24, 2005 21:59 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] The very idea that you consider this "tampering", "interference", and a threat to the "integrity" of the game speaks volumes. I don't see where those concepts are coming from. They certainly aren't in US copyright law.
The interoperability argument comes from a defense to a claim of circumvention. Because copyright carves a chunk out of freedom of speech, and becuase copyright exist for the specific goal of increasing the progress of the arts and sciences, when the exclusive rights interfere with that goal or place an undue burden on freedom of speech they are effectively neutralized. The interests of the public are the ultimate justification for copyright -- not to reward authors or to preserve artistic integrity. Blizzard claims that non of the protections of copyright law (like fair use) come into play with the DMCA. But there is a very specific and clear statement in the DMCA that allows interoperability. Furthermore it says that it isn't intended to mandate implementation of DRM. I do not see how what Blizzard is asking for is not both a restriction of interoperability or a mandate to implement their copy control mechanism in any interoperating work.
Your argument, I guess, is that the defense should not be valid when applied for game client or servers because they are "only" entertainment products. What is special about those which reduces the public's interest? (I see none.) Is entertainment not one of the fastest growing areas of consumer spending? (It is.) Does it not define many aspects of our culture? (Yes, it does.) Are not the vast majority of products protected under the DMCA entertainment products. (They are.)
You seem to think the theoretical "artist's rights" trump the legally real interests of the consumer. And yes, there are other areas of law like anti-trust which intersect, but those would tend to increase the public's right to inter-operate despite the wishes of the copyright holder in order to preserve competition. You see copyight is an inherent grant of monopoly. It makes sense, but you have to give it limits, otherwise the grant can be extended to cover any number of unrelated items... such as independently-created works which interoperate.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Aug 25, 2005 17:45 UTC (Thu) by riel (guest, #3142) [Link] For a game, the interest of the designer in controlling the conceptual integrity and of his piece of art must be rated higher than for a file system. Did you just say that level editors are immoral?
Creating a different server (with slightly different game play, I assume) would be along the same lines as creating new game levels and can help make a game more popular.
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning Posted Sep 1, 2005 9:48 UTC (Thu) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569) [Link] For a game, the interest of the designer in controlling the conceptual integrity and of his piece of art must be rated higher than for a file systemTo use "conceptual integrity" in this case is just playing the system, Blizzard is telling you that client and server are one inseperable product just like Microsoft said that IE was inseperable from Windows. You gave an example about the German stadium before. I'm pretty sure that the changes they wanted to make were pretty obvious that the architect didn't agree with them. I guess that if the problem had been in the quility of the plumbing and they wanted to remove the tubes and replace it with a new better ones the architect wouldn't even have tought about objecting about the conceptual or artistic integrity, don't you think? Well the Blizzard case is the same, they don't want you to believe that, they're trying to make you believe that what they have made is Centre Pompidou and that in this case the plumbing is an integral part of their product while it is not. It's the plumbing or foundation of a building, the wall the painting is hanging on, the plastic that makes the CD that contains the music etc.
|
|
||||||||||||