| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning
Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:20 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
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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 (guest, #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.