And you can see that's entirely his point of view, i don't think he understands what innovation is, his problem is that the PC is more powerful than consoles and his company's games are basically the last iteration but with more polygons and better shaders. That is not innovation. Innovation is the Wii, innovation is Kinect, innovation is - as you said - world of goo and portal.
How can you propose change to a law when you don't have a resultant state?
I already linked to one. Perhaps a bit unreasonable at this time, but still.
Thats a change in the basis of society, not a change in current society's law. Changing the law of society and changing the basis of society are 2 very different things, you propose the latter but compare to the former, which is a flawed comparison.
Exactly, they changed the laws. They didn't just change the laws, they changed society, too.
Not the basis of society, which is what you are targetting which is why the comparison is stupid. The degree of change is massively different.
They actually stole something that I originally had. Again, why should this 'right' even exist when it clearly doesn't make sense? It's precisely one of the things I'm fighting against.
Stole something of artificial value, just as 'exclusivity of distribution' has artificial value in our society, just like money. How are research companies going to work in our society if you take that away? I know your response is going to be 'abolish monetary society', but im talking about the context of our current society, just as you would not be accepting of someone stealing your money.
Change is change. A society changing drastically is still change. A society changing its laws is again, still change. They are similar.
Except one is far more achievable than the other so comparing in terms of feasibility - as you have done - is idiotic.
I'm saying that I disagree with the law and I would like it changed.
How can you propose change to a law when you don't have a resultant state?
You're obviously just trolling because you choose to be a part of what you say is a 'broken system' even though you don't have to be.
Unless I no longer want to partake in any society, I kind of do have to put up with the current one and attempt to change it if need be. It's certainly better than starting over.
But you've been saying the problem is rooted in our society, in which case the only solution would be to start over.
But you choose to live in a society that supports it while offering no alternative. Your argument is baseless because you don't action it, therefore you don't really believe it.
What am I suppose to do, go live in the wood somewhere? I'm taking action by voicing my disapproval, as unimportant as that may sound. This does not mean that I "don't really believe it." I guess African Americans should have just left the country because it didn't suit them, rather than trying to change it, huh?
Live in a non-monetary society like you have been saying is the answer. And with regard to African-Americans the answer is no, they changed the laws, whereas you said the problem is because of our capitalist society. You are making and apples and oranges comparison.
It's not a problem with pirates or copying, because again, nothing was actually taken. If they stole the work and deprived them of it completely, then yes, I would agree that harm was done. But they didn't.
No it's that 'exclusivity of distribution' has value in our society just money has value in our society. In our society would you be accepting if someone deprived you of all of your money just because it only has value in our society? I doubt it.
Again, I'm going to bring up the issue of the civil rights movement.
Which is again idiotic as it is an apples and oranges comparison since that change happened within the context of our current society - it simply changed laws - and it was possible because there was a proposed resultant state. You are talking about changing the basis of our society.
If slavery were legal, they would not make it right.
Im not arguing right or wrong in general, im talking about the context of our society. If you're going to argue that our society is broken you're just trolling because you choose to be a part of that apparently 'broken system'.
I believe that criminalizing people who have logically done no harm is wrong, sorry. Citing the law isn't going to make you more 'correct'.
In the context of our society and our laws - which you live in and take advantage of - they have done harm. In the context of another society that may be different but not in ours. You're obviously just trolling because you choose to be a part of what you say is a 'broken system' even though you don't have to be.
I know about copyright law, but I disagree with it.
But you choose to live in a society that supports it while offering no alternative. Your argument is baseless because you don't action it, therefore you don't really believe it.
So how about you explain to me how a research firm is going to make money if what they develop can be taken by anyone and just given away for free?
This is a problem with the current system, not pirates or copying. The fact that a research firm who may benefit all of humanity needs money in the first place is a disgrace.
'who may benefit all of humanity', no don't add your own bullshit to try and justify it just because you can't answer the question, that was NOT a qualifier.
This failed? For some reason, I didn't think that was tried before.
And that's a 100% perfect system is it??
The fact that you keep citing the law as evidence demonstrates that you yourself are ignorant. That is not evidence, nor does it change my point that nothing is being taken.
No im aware of the rules and laws of the society i choose to live in and choose to abide by them. If you don't like it then don't be a part of it.
GP may be talking about the nazi faction in COD:BlackOps, where you regularly see a swastika appear (at least in multiplayer, and not just a swastika, but red-white-black Nazi flag) every time they use a killstreak reward.
Not to mention it just feeds the trolls. The best thing to do is just ignore it, if they are indeed trolling then this reaction gives them exactly what they are after, if it is just ignored then eventually society will be desensitized to it and it will have no power as a symbol of evil.
So when (not if) someone in the US commits a suicide bombing in a crowded public place like an airport or train station or sporting event or political rally, the authorities will start screening people just as invasively to get into those as well.
Because it's not losing belief in something, it's losing a legal right - according to copyright law.
Yes, and I fail to see how that hurts them. Why should they have this 'right', exactly? How does it hurt them if they don't have it?
If stripping away this 'right' that you say they have will stop the injustices done to pirates, then I believe that it's worth it. People have had plenty of questionable rights in and past, and they have were weeded out.
You seem to not understand the meaning of the words you are using. You say there is an 'injustice being done to pirates', well according to the laws of the society you live in that is false. You only fail to see it because you are ignorant, you don't know anything about copyright law which is a part of our society.
So how about you explain to me how a research firm is going to make money if what they develop can be taken by anyone and just given away for free?
Well how do you improve it then, what exactly are you suggesting needs to be improved?
Get rid of artificial currency, artificial scarcity, copyright law, and planned obsolescence for starters.
That FAILED, or are you not familiar with history either, that was abolished for most of the world in favor of the monetary system. There are tribes that still use such a system, you have the option to go and live in that society so go. But you won't because you know you're talking shit and that system DOES NOT WORK.
But again, my point isn't to argue about what system should be used next but to make people realize that the current one is broken and that pirates logically aren't hurting anyone.
You keep saying that but it's patently false, according to our legal system they are hurting copyright holders - if you fail to see that then you are not educated on the legal system or copyright law. Like i said, you have to option to go live in a non-monetary tribal society, but you won't because you know what you're suggesting is bullshit.
That's not what you said above. You said that any society that does not utilize artificial currency and has people that work because they love their profession couldn't work. I asked you what you base that off of. I fail to see how I misinterpreted you there.
Like I said, I base that on the fact that there is no such society successfully implemented, in fact we moved away from such systems to the monetary system hundreds and hundreds of years ago because it didn't work.
What are you talking about? You haven't lost the ability to think. Think all you like.
You said (not in that post):
Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.
I fail to see how losing the ability to believe in something (believe that they have the exclusive right to control the distribution of their digital media) can harm you. Can you explain that?
Because it's not losing belief in something, it's losing a legal right - according to copyright law.
Improved? But you said it was fundamentally broken, you said it was a problem of our capitalist society. A society you choose to be a part of because there is no superior alternative available.
Yes, improved. I said nothing about a perfect solution. Yes, broken. Broken as in highly flawed (alright, wrong wording there).
Yes, there's currently no place in the world which has a superior system in place. Or at least, there's currently no supported solutions that are superior.
Well how do you improve it then, what exactly are you suggesting needs to be improved? Because this whole thread you've said the problem lies fundamentally in our capitalist society, you identified that as the problem, if that's the case then you can't improve it without changing the basis of our society.
You can think that as much as you like, you haven't lost that ability at all.
Sorry, but I still really don't understand how losing the ability to think something harms someone. Can you explain that to me?
What are you talking about? You haven't lost the ability to think. Think all you like.
The "don't fix it if it isn't completely broken" mentality ensures that nothing will get done. If there is a chance that something could be improved, it should be taken, or at least tried.
Improved? But you said it was fundamentally broken, you said it was a problem of our capitalist society. A society you choose to be a part of because there is no superior alternative available.
Fact is such a society does not work hence the reason we have the current system, it's the best available.
You base this off of what, exactly? Has a legitimate resource-based society actually been implemented before? Or are you just speculated based on things such as "incentive"? I gave a very, very simple answer. There are a number of different ways such a system could work (not that all of them would work), so merely claiming that a very wide range of ideas doesn't work is a bit hasty.
Are you blind or just stupid? I said it's the best available. Show me the available superior alternative.
Such a thing is not granted to you by the law so of course you haven't lost anything.
I've lost my ability to think that I can control all of the money in the world. Whether that was at any point granted to me by the law is irrelevant, because we are apparently talking about ideas instead of actual tangible harm now.
You can think that as much as you like, you haven't lost that ability at all.
No but it might be that it is the best possible solution.
Against an almost infinite number of possible solutions, I really doubt that.
Doubt all you want, you certainly haven't contributed anything to disprove it.
The fact is your belief that the system is 'broken' is merely your point of view, something you likely don't feel very strongly about since i take it you are a part of the society you say you feel is 'broken'? You don't have to be, you choose to be, probably because it is the best available. You can whine about how it's not perfect but nothing is perfect.
No, read what i wrote. Exclusivity of distribution.
If I said that I should be able to control all of the money in the world and I was unable to, then I've lost something of significant value?
Such a thing is not granted to you by the law so of course you haven't lost anything. However in the case of copyright law - which is what we are discussing here - such a thing IS granted to the copyright holder.
I don't need to have a viable alternative in order for my criticisms of the current system to be valid.
No but it might be that it is the best possible solution.
In a society that doesn't utilize artificial currency, their incentive would come from the love of their profession, not from paper that is ultimately worthless. Gone would be the people who only work for money (perhaps they could do something that actually interests them). The people who work because they make money but still love their profession, however, would not be gone.
Yeah and in fairy land i can defy the laws of physics. Fact is such a society does not work hence the reason we have the current system, it's the best available.
According to your logic this would be ok since they haven't deprived Apple of anything, so you suggest we blame 'the system' so what's the definition of 'the system' that should be blamed?
You're right, they haven't been deprived of anything. Not just according to my logic, but logic itself. They must have had the money in the first place in order to be deprived of it.
But they have been deprived of something, which is the ability to profit from their research and development efforts, this is fundamental to innovation. What would be the incentive to innovate if you cannot profit from it?
Yes, but how does merely copying something hurt them?
Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.
Taking the above into consideration, pirates really aren't doing harm to them. It is a flaw in this illogical capitalistic society. Think about it.
Well they are, they are removing exclusivity of distribution, something provided by law.
If artists have to extort/sue people who do no harm to them and create artificial scarcity so that they may make a profit so that they can continue producing media, then that system is inherently flawed. Blaming the pirates instead of fixing the system is both irresponsible and illogical.
Firstly they only have to sue people who don't abide by the law, just like anyone who breaks the law. The system is not illogical, just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it has no value.
Secondly you speak of 'fixing the system' but you propose no such fix, nor specifically identify the flaw.
No, I wouldn't be. I do not support illogical arguments for personal gain. Stop blaming people who are not depriving anyone of anything and start blaming the system that practically forces artists to hurt innocents if they wish to continue doing what they love.
So say Apple spend billions of dollars on R&D developing the spec for their new device, they give that to foxconn to build the device. Now Apple need to sell that device at a price to recoup the R&D costs and also the cost to build the device. By your logic foxconn could copy that specification that cost Apple billions of dollars to create, they could then build the device but they would only have to sell it at a price that covers the cost to build it. According to your logic this would be ok since they haven't deprived Apple of anything, so you suggest we blame 'the system' so what's the definition of 'the system' that should be blamed?
They created that artificial right, yes. But not abiding by the law, as I pointed out above, deprives no one of anything.
What's an 'artificial right'?
In any case what you've taken from them is the exclusivity to distribute something they created, so - by your logic - it's ok to take what they have created and re-sell it wherever they have it for sale at a lower price. So what you've taken is their exclusivity and because of that you have taken effectively all their sales too, i mean why would anyone buy from them if they can legally get it from you at a lower price?
On the PC market, people won't generally finish a game, but complain when they don't get 100+ hours of gameplay, even when the game is sold at a competitive price (let's say 30 US$ or less).
Where exactly are you seeing this very specific situation occur?
If anything, Java is going to be slower than most native languages
Care to name some examples? Please spare me.NET and C#. These two never existed in the late 90s.
Firstly.Net is not a language and C# is not a native language. Secondly why does it matter that they didn't exist in the late 90s? And if you are stuck in the late 90s then you'd know back then native languages - C++, Smalltalk, etc... - were significantly faster than Java in almost all cases, the gap is not as broad anymore.
But im interested to know what it is about Java specifically that you think makes it superior for your purposes?
Slashdot Mirror
Crysis 2 is innovative? Oh please.
And you can see that's entirely his point of view, i don't think he understands what innovation is, his problem is that the PC is more powerful than consoles and his company's games are basically the last iteration but with more polygons and better shaders. That is not innovation. Innovation is the Wii, innovation is Kinect, innovation is - as you said - world of goo and portal.
Laws are not repealed by going out and breaking more laws.
Of course they are.
Quite effectively, too.
Civil disobedience works for criminal cases, not civil ones.
How can you propose change to a law when you don't have a resultant state?
I already linked to one. Perhaps a bit unreasonable at this time, but still.
Thats a change in the basis of society, not a change in current society's law. Changing the law of society and changing the basis of society are 2 very different things, you propose the latter but compare to the former, which is a flawed comparison.
Exactly, they changed the laws. They didn't just change the laws, they changed society, too.
Not the basis of society, which is what you are targetting which is why the comparison is stupid. The degree of change is massively different.
They actually stole something that I originally had. Again, why should this 'right' even exist when it clearly doesn't make sense? It's precisely one of the things I'm fighting against.
Stole something of artificial value, just as 'exclusivity of distribution' has artificial value in our society, just like money. How are research companies going to work in our society if you take that away? I know your response is going to be 'abolish monetary society', but im talking about the context of our current society, just as you would not be accepting of someone stealing your money.
Change is change. A society changing drastically is still change. A society changing its laws is again, still change. They are similar.
Except one is far more achievable than the other so comparing in terms of feasibility - as you have done - is idiotic.
I'm saying that I disagree with the law and I would like it changed.
How can you propose change to a law when you don't have a resultant state?
You're obviously just trolling because you choose to be a part of what you say is a 'broken system' even though you don't have to be.
Unless I no longer want to partake in any society, I kind of do have to put up with the current one and attempt to change it if need be. It's certainly better than starting over.
But you've been saying the problem is rooted in our society, in which case the only solution would be to start over.
But you choose to live in a society that supports it while offering no alternative. Your argument is baseless because you don't action it, therefore you don't really believe it.
What am I suppose to do, go live in the wood somewhere? I'm taking action by voicing my disapproval, as unimportant as that may sound. This does not mean that I "don't really believe it." I guess African Americans should have just left the country because it didn't suit them, rather than trying to change it, huh?
Live in a non-monetary society like you have been saying is the answer. And with regard to African-Americans the answer is no, they changed the laws, whereas you said the problem is because of our capitalist society. You are making and apples and oranges comparison.
It's not a problem with pirates or copying, because again, nothing was actually taken. If they stole the work and deprived them of it completely, then yes, I would agree that harm was done. But they didn't.
No it's that 'exclusivity of distribution' has value in our society just money has value in our society. In our society would you be accepting if someone deprived you of all of your money just because it only has value in our society? I doubt it.
I don't know because it's never been tried before, but it doesn't need to be perfect.
Substitute one flawed solution for another then.
Again, I'm going to bring up the issue of the civil rights movement.
Which is again idiotic as it is an apples and oranges comparison since that change happened within the context of our current society - it simply changed laws - and it was possible because there was a proposed resultant state. You are talking about changing the basis of our society.
If slavery were legal, they would not make it right.
Im not arguing right or wrong in general, im talking about the context of our society. If you're going to argue that our society is broken you're just trolling because you choose to be a part of that apparently 'broken system'.
I believe that criminalizing people who have logically done no harm is wrong, sorry. Citing the law isn't going to make you more 'correct'.
In the context of our society and our laws - which you live in and take advantage of - they have done harm. In the context of another society that may be different but not in ours. You're obviously just trolling because you choose to be a part of what you say is a 'broken system' even though you don't have to be.
I know about copyright law, but I disagree with it.
But you choose to live in a society that supports it while offering no alternative. Your argument is baseless because you don't action it, therefore you don't really believe it.
So how about you explain to me how a research firm is going to make money if what they develop can be taken by anyone and just given away for free?
This is a problem with the current system, not pirates or copying. The fact that a research firm who may benefit all of humanity needs money in the first place is a disgrace.
'who may benefit all of humanity', no don't add your own bullshit to try and justify it just because you can't answer the question, that was NOT a qualifier.
This failed? For some reason, I didn't think that was tried before.
And that's a 100% perfect system is it??
The fact that you keep citing the law as evidence demonstrates that you yourself are ignorant. That is not evidence, nor does it change my point that nothing is being taken.
No im aware of the rules and laws of the society i choose to live in and choose to abide by them. If you don't like it then don't be a part of it.
GP may be talking about the nazi faction in COD:BlackOps, where you regularly see a swastika appear (at least in multiplayer, and not just a swastika, but red-white-black Nazi flag) every time they use a killstreak reward.
That case - context - is explained in TFA.
Getting offended changes nothing.
Not to mention it just feeds the trolls. The best thing to do is just ignore it, if they are indeed trolling then this reaction gives them exactly what they are after, if it is just ignored then eventually society will be desensitized to it and it will have no power as a symbol of evil.
So when (not if) someone in the US commits a suicide bombing in a crowded public place like an airport or train station or sporting event or political rally, the authorities will start screening people just as invasively to get into those as well.
So, basically, terrorism works.
Because it's not losing belief in something, it's losing a legal right - according to copyright law.
Yes, and I fail to see how that hurts them. Why should they have this 'right', exactly? How does it hurt them if they don't have it?
If stripping away this 'right' that you say they have will stop the injustices done to pirates, then I believe that it's worth it. People have had plenty of questionable rights in and past, and they have were weeded out.
You seem to not understand the meaning of the words you are using. You say there is an 'injustice being done to pirates', well according to the laws of the society you live in that is false. You only fail to see it because you are ignorant, you don't know anything about copyright law which is a part of our society.
So how about you explain to me how a research firm is going to make money if what they develop can be taken by anyone and just given away for free?
Well how do you improve it then, what exactly are you suggesting needs to be improved?
Get rid of artificial currency, artificial scarcity, copyright law, and planned obsolescence for starters.
That FAILED, or are you not familiar with history either, that was abolished for most of the world in favor of the monetary system. There are tribes that still use such a system, you have the option to go and live in that society so go. But you won't because you know you're talking shit and that system DOES NOT WORK.
But again, my point isn't to argue about what system should be used next but to make people realize that the current one is broken and that pirates logically aren't hurting anyone.
You keep saying that but it's patently false, according to our legal system they are hurting copyright holders - if you fail to see that then you are not educated on the legal system or copyright law. Like i said, you have to option to go live in a non-monetary tribal society, but you won't because you know what you're suggesting is bullshit.
Are you blind or just stupid?
That's not what you said above. You said that any society that does not utilize artificial currency and has people that work because they love their profession couldn't work. I asked you what you base that off of. I fail to see how I misinterpreted you there.
Like I said, I base that on the fact that there is no such society successfully implemented, in fact we moved away from such systems to the monetary system hundreds and hundreds of years ago because it didn't work.
What are you talking about? You haven't lost the ability to think. Think all you like.
You said (not in that post):
Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.
I fail to see how losing the ability to believe in something (believe that they have the exclusive right to control the distribution of their digital media) can harm you. Can you explain that?
Because it's not losing belief in something, it's losing a legal right - according to copyright law.
Improved? But you said it was fundamentally broken, you said it was a problem of our capitalist society. A society you choose to be a part of because there is no superior alternative available.
Yes, improved. I said nothing about a perfect solution. Yes, broken. Broken as in highly flawed (alright, wrong wording there).
Yes, there's currently no place in the world which has a superior system in place. Or at least, there's currently no supported solutions that are superior.
Well how do you improve it then, what exactly are you suggesting needs to be improved? Because this whole thread you've said the problem lies fundamentally in our capitalist society, you identified that as the problem, if that's the case then you can't improve it without changing the basis of our society.
You can think that as much as you like, you haven't lost that ability at all.
Sorry, but I still really don't understand how losing the ability to think something harms someone. Can you explain that to me?
What are you talking about? You haven't lost the ability to think. Think all you like.
The "don't fix it if it isn't completely broken" mentality ensures that nothing will get done. If there is a chance that something could be improved, it should be taken, or at least tried.
Improved? But you said it was fundamentally broken, you said it was a problem of our capitalist society. A society you choose to be a part of because there is no superior alternative available.
Fact is such a society does not work hence the reason we have the current system, it's the best available.
You base this off of what, exactly? Has a legitimate resource-based society actually been implemented before? Or are you just speculated based on things such as "incentive"? I gave a very, very simple answer. There are a number of different ways such a system could work (not that all of them would work), so merely claiming that a very wide range of ideas doesn't work is a bit hasty.
Are you blind or just stupid? I said it's the best available. Show me the available superior alternative.
Such a thing is not granted to you by the law so of course you haven't lost anything.
I've lost my ability to think that I can control all of the money in the world. Whether that was at any point granted to me by the law is irrelevant, because we are apparently talking about ideas instead of actual tangible harm now.
You can think that as much as you like, you haven't lost that ability at all.
No but it might be that it is the best possible solution.
Against an almost infinite number of possible solutions, I really doubt that.
Doubt all you want, you certainly haven't contributed anything to disprove it.
The fact is your belief that the system is 'broken' is merely your point of view, something you likely don't feel very strongly about since i take it you are a part of the society you say you feel is 'broken'? You don't have to be, you choose to be, probably because it is the best available. You can whine about how it's not perfect but nothing is perfect.
Uh, their ego has significant value?
No, read what i wrote. Exclusivity of distribution.
If I said that I should be able to control all of the money in the world and I was unable to, then I've lost something of significant value?
Such a thing is not granted to you by the law so of course you haven't lost anything. However in the case of copyright law - which is what we are discussing here - such a thing IS granted to the copyright holder.
I don't need to have a viable alternative in order for my criticisms of the current system to be valid.
No but it might be that it is the best possible solution.
In a society that doesn't utilize artificial currency, their incentive would come from the love of their profession, not from paper that is ultimately worthless. Gone would be the people who only work for money (perhaps they could do something that actually interests them). The people who work because they make money but still love their profession, however, would not be gone.
Yeah and in fairy land i can defy the laws of physics. Fact is such a society does not work hence the reason we have the current system, it's the best available.
According to your logic this would be ok since they haven't deprived Apple of anything, so you suggest we blame 'the system' so what's the definition of 'the system' that should be blamed?
You're right, they haven't been deprived of anything. Not just according to my logic, but logic itself. They must have had the money in the first place in order to be deprived of it.
But they have been deprived of something, which is the ability to profit from their research and development efforts, this is fundamental to innovation. What would be the incentive to innovate if you cannot profit from it?
Yes, but how does merely copying something hurt them?
Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.
Taking the above into consideration, pirates really aren't doing harm to them. It is a flaw in this illogical capitalistic society. Think about it.
Well they are, they are removing exclusivity of distribution, something provided by law.
If artists have to extort/sue people who do no harm to them and create artificial scarcity so that they may make a profit so that they can continue producing media, then that system is inherently flawed. Blaming the pirates instead of fixing the system is both irresponsible and illogical.
Firstly they only have to sue people who don't abide by the law, just like anyone who breaks the law. The system is not illogical, just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it has no value.
Secondly you speak of 'fixing the system' but you propose no such fix, nor specifically identify the flaw.
Post-911, an attempting hijacker wouldn't live a minute if the rest of us were carrying pointy things.
Might not anyway, unless the TSA starts confiscating pencils and umbrellas. Almost anything will serve as a weapon in a pinch.
At least ex-guantanamo employees can get a job with the TSA pulling fingernails from the travelling public.
No, I wouldn't be. I do not support illogical arguments for personal gain. Stop blaming people who are not depriving anyone of anything and start blaming the system that practically forces artists to hurt innocents if they wish to continue doing what they love.
So say Apple spend billions of dollars on R&D developing the spec for their new device, they give that to foxconn to build the device. Now Apple need to sell that device at a price to recoup the R&D costs and also the cost to build the device. By your logic foxconn could copy that specification that cost Apple billions of dollars to create, they could then build the device but they would only have to sell it at a price that covers the cost to build it. According to your logic this would be ok since they haven't deprived Apple of anything, so you suggest we blame 'the system' so what's the definition of 'the system' that should be blamed?
They created that artificial right, yes. But not abiding by the law, as I pointed out above, deprives no one of anything.
What's an 'artificial right'?
In any case what you've taken from them is the exclusivity to distribute something they created, so - by your logic - it's ok to take what they have created and re-sell it wherever they have it for sale at a lower price. So what you've taken is their exclusivity and because of that you have taken effectively all their sales too, i mean why would anyone buy from them if they can legally get it from you at a lower price?
On the PC market, people won't generally finish a game, but complain when they don't get 100+ hours of gameplay, even when the game is sold at a competitive price (let's say 30 US$ or less).
Where exactly are you seeing this very specific situation occur?
By 'name' I mean 'identify', in the documents the title/rank/position remain.
If anything, Java is going to be slower than most native languages
Care to name some examples? Please spare me .NET and C#. These two never existed in the late 90s.
Firstly .Net is not a language and C# is not a native language. Secondly why does it matter that they didn't exist in the late 90s? And if you are stuck in the late 90s then you'd know back then native languages - C++, Smalltalk, etc... - were significantly faster than Java in almost all cases, the gap is not as broad anymore.
But im interested to know what it is about Java specifically that you think makes it superior for your purposes?
They should really focus their efforts on the whole Microsoft-Novell buyout.
What buyout? MS bought some IP; and we don't even know what that IP is. What's is the specific issue you're concerned with?