Exclusive titles are not the same as fraud which is what your last post is saying. I'm not interested in arguing any paranoid grand conspiracy arguments. They are small minded, foolish and serve no purpose other than making simpletons feel smarter than they really are.
Getting back to your original point
One thing is a company choosing only one platform because it attracts their target audience, the hardware fits the needs, or simply the likely profits from the others aren't expected to be worthwhile.
Completely another is the platform owners coercing, bribing and otherwise discouraging the developers from developing for any other platform than theirs.
What you are stating in this (and what I'm challenging you to prove) is that publishers can choose to be exclusive for reasons that suit your idea of what is right but if it's for money then they may not choose that.
You haven't shown why that is the case. I don't have the right to demand Uncharted on my 360 anymore than I do to demand to watch Weeds on my HBO subscription. You are making some kind of consumer protection claim that is simply unfounded. The customer has the right to choose what they want to buy, they have the right to limited protection from defect and they have the right to truthful advertising.
None of that pertains to exclusive content, that is between the publisher and distributor. The customer will choose to buy it or not but they have no sway on where it's sold and why.
That is not fair use and arguably isn't the matter at hand. Yes there are provisions for creating backups of software but that doesn't extend to the modification of hardware. It also never states outright that anyone has the "right" to backup but rather says "under certain conditions" you may do so. Given that copyright cases are decided on a case by case basis and put the burden of proof on the defense, suggesting that this is a "right" is more exaggeration than fact.
While I do accept the abstract archival argument I have little patience for it. It's a statistically insignificant portion of the population. In truth the vast majority of modders are pirates and as a person that makes a living creating content I have no sympathy for their rights to archive games bought by other people. The idea that businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people have no right to protect themselves from a claim for a group that is quite possibly apocryphal defies all logic. It always seems the pro copy/modding "archivers" end up not actually having a system, for them the argument is academic. Well there are a great number of us for which the argument is very real.
I don't deny the gaming industry has some serious structural issues. But to be fair the industry is still in it's infancy. No matter though, because the idea of fighting unfair prices with theft has no foundation in reason for a luxury entertainment service
Good luck with that Ph.D. Assuming you are from the US your country does need all the scientist it can get.
Your reply shows how little you know about "fair use". Fair use is not to allow wanton duplication of media but to allow limited reproduction of copyrighted material, for use in a different manner than originally intended.
So fair use doesn't allow you to copy your game, but it does allow reviewers to create screen captures or show gameplay videos in their reviews. Almost never does it allow you to copy an entire piece of work.
To paraphrase your post, The fact that you don't know this shows just how good a job the various piracy advocate groups have done in brainwashing us to think that all piracy is justifiable.
See, me saying it doesn't make it true, same goes for you. But your Ad hominim characterization of me says more about your biases than my 'brain washing'. I don't care what 'various corporations' think any more than what anonymous internet posters do. What I care about is knowing the actual meaning of terms like 'fair use' so when its used as a bullshit excuse to copy a product that people worked hard to create, I can call bullshit.
I don't care if you sit in your little room copying your games and modding your console. If that's the best you can do with your time so be it. But don't claim you have some legal right to do it and if you do at least read the Wikipedia page for the right you are citing in your defense.
Your analogy is flawed. The game maker is the egg farmer not the customer and he has two choices.
1. Sell his eggs in every store for wider customer base.
2. take advantage of his superior product and sell to a store that is willing to pay him more for fewer sales.
After looking at his sales at all locations the egg farmer decides if he wants more sales for less or fewer sales for more.
He has every right to make that decision for what ever reason he wants. Maybe Store 2 is guaranteeing a certain number of sales, maybe he doesn't wan the hassle of porting his eggs to the the other store or maybe the owner of store one is a douche bag and he doesn't want to deal with him any more. But that's his choice.
Monopolies are bad because they remove choice. but exclusive deals are not monopolistic by definition, they are a way of making your service more desirable than your competitor. And if you have a competitor then there is no monopoly.
When it comes to modding your console there can only be one warning, after you've done it warnings are useless. I for one would despise a service that constantly sent me warning messages telling me to not do what I understand is wrong in the first place.
That's the thing the haters are missing. For every person bitching about being banned there are 100 people that are glad they are gone. all this talk of backing up games is a strawman. 99% of consoles are being modded so people can pirate or cheat. As a content maker and user i have no concern for any of these people, in fact I'm glad they are gone. As someone pointed out here the laws are upheld by the people and the people support MS in this decision.
And for those of you that are just backing up your games, take better care of your disks. Among the thousands that my friends and I have, none have suffered any unreasonable damage. Don't use accident or poor care to justify an insecure service.
I am unaware of anyone's right to make a backup copy of a game. Yes game disks break and wear out with use but that does not endow anyone with the right to duplicate the media at will.
Lots of products break and wear out with use, beyond basic warranties no one has the right to demand replacements.
One thing to support freedom of choice, completely another thing to only support it when it suits your rules.
Game makers choose platforms based on how much money they can make.
Slashdot Mirror
Exclusive titles are not the same as fraud which is what your last post is saying. I'm not interested in arguing any paranoid grand conspiracy arguments. They are small minded, foolish and serve no purpose other than making simpletons feel smarter than they really are.
Getting back to your original point
One thing is a company choosing only one platform because it attracts their target audience, the hardware fits the needs, or simply the likely profits from the others aren't expected to be worthwhile.
Completely another is the platform owners coercing, bribing and otherwise discouraging the developers from developing for any other platform than theirs.
What you are stating in this (and what I'm challenging you to prove) is that publishers can choose to be exclusive for reasons that suit your idea of what is right but if it's for money then they may not choose that.
You haven't shown why that is the case. I don't have the right to demand Uncharted on my 360 anymore than I do to demand to watch Weeds on my HBO subscription. You are making some kind of consumer protection claim that is simply unfounded. The customer has the right to choose what they want to buy, they have the right to limited protection from defect and they have the right to truthful advertising.
None of that pertains to exclusive content, that is between the publisher and distributor. The customer will choose to buy it or not but they have no sway on where it's sold and why.
That is not fair use and arguably isn't the matter at hand. Yes there are provisions for creating backups of software but that doesn't extend to the modification of hardware. It also never states outright that anyone has the "right" to backup but rather says "under certain conditions" you may do so. Given that copyright cases are decided on a case by case basis and put the burden of proof on the defense, suggesting that this is a "right" is more exaggeration than fact.
While I do accept the abstract archival argument I have little patience for it. It's a statistically insignificant portion of the population. In truth the vast majority of modders are pirates and as a person that makes a living creating content I have no sympathy for their rights to archive games bought by other people. The idea that businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people have no right to protect themselves from a claim for a group that is quite possibly apocryphal defies all logic. It always seems the pro copy/modding "archivers" end up not actually having a system, for them the argument is academic. Well there are a great number of us for which the argument is very real.
I don't deny the gaming industry has some serious structural issues. But to be fair the industry is still in it's infancy. No matter though, because the idea of fighting unfair prices with theft has no foundation in reason for a luxury entertainment service
Good luck with that Ph.D. Assuming you are from the US your country does need all the scientist it can get.
Your reply shows how little you know about "fair use". Fair use is not to allow wanton duplication of media but to allow limited reproduction of copyrighted material, for use in a different manner than originally intended.
So fair use doesn't allow you to copy your game, but it does allow reviewers to create screen captures or show gameplay videos in their reviews. Almost never does it allow you to copy an entire piece of work.
To paraphrase your post, The fact that you don't know this shows just how good a job the various piracy advocate groups have done in brainwashing us to think that all piracy is justifiable.
See, me saying it doesn't make it true, same goes for you. But your Ad hominim characterization of me says more about your biases than my 'brain washing'. I don't care what 'various corporations' think any more than what anonymous internet posters do. What I care about is knowing the actual meaning of terms like 'fair use' so when its used as a bullshit excuse to copy a product that people worked hard to create, I can call bullshit.
I don't care if you sit in your little room copying your games and modding your console. If that's the best you can do with your time so be it. But don't claim you have some legal right to do it and if you do at least read the Wikipedia page for the right you are citing in your defense.
Your analogy is flawed. The game maker is the egg farmer not the customer and he has two choices. 1. Sell his eggs in every store for wider customer base. 2. take advantage of his superior product and sell to a store that is willing to pay him more for fewer sales. After looking at his sales at all locations the egg farmer decides if he wants more sales for less or fewer sales for more. He has every right to make that decision for what ever reason he wants. Maybe Store 2 is guaranteeing a certain number of sales, maybe he doesn't wan the hassle of porting his eggs to the the other store or maybe the owner of store one is a douche bag and he doesn't want to deal with him any more. But that's his choice. Monopolies are bad because they remove choice. but exclusive deals are not monopolistic by definition, they are a way of making your service more desirable than your competitor. And if you have a competitor then there is no monopoly.
When it comes to modding your console there can only be one warning, after you've done it warnings are useless. I for one would despise a service that constantly sent me warning messages telling me to not do what I understand is wrong in the first place. That's the thing the haters are missing. For every person bitching about being banned there are 100 people that are glad they are gone. all this talk of backing up games is a strawman. 99% of consoles are being modded so people can pirate or cheat. As a content maker and user i have no concern for any of these people, in fact I'm glad they are gone. As someone pointed out here the laws are upheld by the people and the people support MS in this decision. And for those of you that are just backing up your games, take better care of your disks. Among the thousands that my friends and I have, none have suffered any unreasonable damage. Don't use accident or poor care to justify an insecure service.
I am unaware of anyone's right to make a backup copy of a game. Yes game disks break and wear out with use but that does not endow anyone with the right to duplicate the media at will. Lots of products break and wear out with use, beyond basic warranties no one has the right to demand replacements.
One thing to support freedom of choice, completely another thing to only support it when it suits your rules. Game makers choose platforms based on how much money they can make.