| |||||||||||||
Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoningInteroperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoningPosted Aug 25, 2005 6:42 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)In reply to: Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning by corbet Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers 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).
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||