| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoningInteroperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoningPosted Aug 24, 2005 19:55 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048)In reply to: Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning by khim Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers
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).
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|
||||||||||||