Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning
Posted Sep 1, 2005 12:32 UTC (Thu) by biehl
In reply to: Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning
Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers
... 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.
to post comments)