| |||||||||||||
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoningInteroperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoningPosted Aug 24, 2005 19:14 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)In reply to: Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning by corbet Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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.
|
|||||||||||||