This is exactly why I don't write books or create "mass production" software packages. I write custom applications for customers and consult for them on the configuration and customization of other software products. I write web based applications where the bits are not available to the unwashed masses. I write technical documentation *for specific client's needs*. Welcome to the new era: people's perceived value of digitally reproducible products is near zero. You can fight it (DRM, copy protected software) or you can make your living doing something that people do value. I choose the later.
I'm not saying that I agree with the zero value propositions: quite the contrary, I wish I could do some projects that I can't because of the climate (and my resources) make them infeasible. However, I am not putting myself in the buggy-whip industry protection business: I don't have the resources to fight on another front. Likewise, if it turns out that writing e-books becomes a losing proposition, may I suggest *not writing them*? If it turns out that society actually valued what you had to say (and the format you choose to say it in), I'm pretty sure a method of compensation will appear. If society doesn't value what you have to say (and how you say it), then why bother?
Personally, I refuse to buy "copy locked" software where possible (having been burned by "out of business" software houses unable to reactivate my software when I upgrade my machine) and I would refuse to buy DRM e-books on the same grounds. I value paper books and will pay a premium for them. I want to reach up, grab the book and not worry about malfunctioning DRM drivers, out of business "authentication server" companies and the like.
However, I have no problem paying a small annual fee for access to libraries of books (like Safari). The reason is that for the small monthly fee I get access to a wide range of books. Note the terms of this access: small monthly fee, wide range of books... that's how little I value the individual works in the library. If I valued a book more than that, why I go out and buy a paper copy so I don't have to worry about Safari changing the rules on me. I don't look forward to the day when I don't have that latter option.
You nailed it... the reason the GameBoy is and has been the hand-held king is fairly modest cost, functional but not processor expensive graphics and enough oomph for serviceable but not killer AI. Combine that with impressive battery life and you have a winner.
If you look at the failed challengers to the GameBoy reign you quickly notice how much better most of the units were *on the superficial* aspects that everyone thinks are important. Turns out portable gaming is more about portability (imagine!) and a weak battery life is a killer.
Money, whether pieces of paper, bars of gold, or shells on a string, has value only because people have agreed to value it.
I'm not sure you understand that there are two parts to the value of these things. Each has an intrinsic value as something that can be utilized. In the case of paper and shells on a string, probably not much. In the case of gold, I assure you I can find was to convert a bar of gold into "value" even without government backing. (That will be true as long as people value "oooh, shiney").
Real money explicitly is a representation of real resources, and is taxed by real governments in the real world.
Nope. Real money is a representation of accumulated *value*. It used to represent real resources (gold) but we are not backed by anything but government promises today. In the US, such promises are considered very strong. In 1980's Mexico, not so much (how those "new pesos" holding up down there... aw, that's sad).
A virtual economy is not the real world. I can't eat the fish that I catch with the virtual fishing rod that I bought with virtual money.
But note in my other post: I may be able to buy the *real* pizza I bought with my virtual gold, or drive my real car I traded for virtual property. Not quite seeing where you are disconnected from the concept of value as value, regardless of how it is stored (keeping in mind the relative risk of "real gold" being near zero and the relative risk of virtual propety being mind bogglingly high: almost as high as the currency of some Latin American states).
The idea of a government saying you can't have a virtual economy in a game unless you cut the government in on some of that virtual cash is ludicrous.
Where are you getting your straw man arguments? This wasn't in what I said, or any of the articles linked so far. I said quite clearly that a virtual property value is more closely resembling non-taxable until withdrawal, high risk instruments. How the heck you got from there to the above nonsense I have NO idea. Or are you saying that tax exempt instruments aren't "real money" by your standards? (If so, my retirement is pretty darn virtual).
What I *did* say was that when people cash in for taxable forms of money, it is going to be taxable whether your "made" your money in a virtual environment or not. Your casino example is a good parallel, although in detail actually wrong: if you win over a certain amount, you will be issued forms that also go to the IRS. Interestingly, even if you drop the entire amount you won, that form is sent and you have to offset that gain with an appropriately documented loss form. Gamblers usually have huge gains and huge losses that offset for tax purposes to a final "net gain or loss".
As an interesting aside, are you aware of the "exchanges" that were popular in the 1980's and 1990's? (They may still exist and probably go back earlier, but nobody has bothered me about them in a decade, so hopefully they died off). The idea behind the exchange was that companies could barter for goods and services instead of paying cash. For example, I have a computer software company that I'm part owner of, a consulting company I own and I have interests in other businesses. If I want something for one of these companies, in the exchange model I simply barter a service (for example, software construction or computer consulting) in exchange for the good or service I want.
Now why the heck would I do that instead of just paying for services and billing for my own? Well, the exchange of services means that no money changes hands. This means I don't have to post a gain for invoiced work and an expense for received services. (In a company you can write of expenses, but only to a point: in an exchange it might be possible to not have the gain and expense in the first place.)
It actually sounds interesting. However, barter is a poor method of value exchange in the modern world. To make this work, the exchanges issued "exchange dollars" which were used internally.
Well, as you can imagine, the government didn't like the idea of an unregulated currency being issued, and I watched a people who got themselves involved in the exchanges got hammered on tax evasion.
Now here is where it gets interesting... lets assume that virtual economies could be the "exchange" the the current generation. Sony currently has servers where you can officially auction goods. Sony also has a feature where you can order a pizza from the game. Hmmm, with a little wiring between the features, you could auto auction off your platinum to the pizza company which gets paid via the auction.
As far as I know, nobody has implemented that connection yet, but if people are able to spend over twenty thousand dollars on virtual property, it would appear you could move pretty large amounts of money that way. Heck, with the virtual property discussed in Project Entropia, it would appear I could be paid for services rendered via Entropia goods and trade it for other services. Interesting, I may have argued myself into your straw man argument as an actually interesting proposition. I suspect if such virtual goods became a grey currency like exchange dollars, that the government *would* be interested in what was goin on. So, although I never *proposed* your straw man argument, it actually has more merit than I originally thought (assuming such seamless exchanges are created, which is doubious in the near future).
You have bought the fiction that pieces of paper have power. Perhaps it is because without that fiction modern society fails. Thus the fiction has become invisible to our minds as the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. I find interesting is that you can believe that paper is "real money" (even though most of the worlds "money" is stored as bits today), and yet refuse to believe that in the future possessions in a virtual environment will be ruled to have value.
Yes, the game companies will go to extreme lengths to protect themselves from being liable for anything. Companies that take thousands of dollars in consideration for virtual property (which is occurring *now*, not in some hazy future) are creating that liability today, and in the near future I expect someone will screw up and the law will contemplate this issue.
The fact that you only are taxed on gains when you convert to "real money" seems an awful lot like some investment instruments to me. Likewise, some of my retirement investments could tank in value, and (excepting a suit alleging fraud, but lets assume they just collapsed due to economic forces) I'm without recourse to my lost "real money".
To take this to an extreme, but practiced today example, imagine that I'm running a "farm", extracting virtual property from the game and auctioning it off for "real money". There are several articles about the boom of Chinese and Indian based operations of this nature. Are you arguing I don't have to pay taxes on the gains I make this way? If no, then good luck with that tax audit. If yes, then where does the money come from? How is it that I'm able to extract "real money" from "virtual property" unless that property has value. Economic value is simply the price someone will pay to acquire a piece of property. There is absolutely nothing in economic theory that excludes virtual property from having value, and quite clearly markets have developed that do value that property.
So I'm not sure what you are arguing in your last post. Yes, banks are more likely to honor obligations than game companies: is that the big revelation here? I say "more likely" because as pointed out earlier they don't always do so. One of my old companies worked with Mexico quite extensively, and I must say that your reliance of regulations and obligations would have been considered quite quaint in 1980's Mexico.
As far as "rule of law", all that represents is the structures that those in power have decreed acceptable. When the winds change, the rules change. Pieces of paper, bits that represent "obligations" and everything else that is a representational version of value become suspect. Yes, in a Mad Max world someone can take my property by force, but I would say that is simply demonstrating that such things as land, homes, vehicles have *intrinsic* value, beyond any value they have as a representation of wealth. Nobody is going to steal my stack of cash, my stock certificates, etc, in that scenario because they have no intrinsic value.
But you keep believing in the intrinsic value of *obligations* based on *rule of law*. I'm sure it will help you sleep at night. Meanwhile a multi million dollar trade in *imaginary money* will continue. Try to ignore it and it probably won't keep you up at night either. I personally will consider economic value to be economic value, no matter what odd places it crops up. Remembering, of course, that some forms of economic value are more risky than others.
We are so close to agreement that I am amused by the missing last five feet. You admit that a dollar in the bank if virtual because it is nothing more that bits that reflect an obligation. That's all that a purchase of virtual property is: recording the ownership of an obligation. The fact that it can be lost in many more ways than your bank account doesn't change the nature of both types of "property": a bunch of bits that have value because someone says they do.
Meanwhile, you think that people would laugh at a proposal to tax transactions in the virtual world, and yet there is a tax proposal on the table to tax the transfer of adult materials:
How is that different from proposing a tax on online gaming revenue? (Probably based on "funding anti-violent gaming enforcement or some nonsense). If that revenue comes from selling $26,500 in virtual property, what does that matter? I'm taxed for talking on my digital cell phone, and all that represents is timely delivery of bits. I'm taxed on my capital gains, and it only represents the movement of peoples opinions of the stocks I own.
The difference is in the degree to which one obligation is protected *at the moment*. We think money is "magic" somehow, but look at any crashed currency to see how "pretend" money really is. In fifty years, I imagine that people will "own" all kinds of virtual property that is convertible to monetary value easily and is protected by law. Today that mostly describes copyrighted items, but that's just an artifact of the immaturity of the online property markets.
To sum up: there is "real property"... my cars, my homes, my business equipment, my jewellery. It is the stuff that even if the world goes Mad Max on us we probably can still derive value from. Everything else is "imaginary/virtual". The idea of "virtual" perhaps is confusing because we associate it bits, but money has been a virtualization of wealth (per the definition virtual(a): being such in essence or effect though not in actual fact) since the days that we stopped direct bartering. If the world goes Mad Max, your stock certificates, savings account, credit cards and cash in your wallet are useless relics.
First off, if you don't think your bank account isn't virtual money, then what the heck is it? Try demanding the value in gold bars from your bank. Not going to happen. If you have enough money in your account: try asking for it in paper money and see how far you get. It would be impossible to get my bank account rendered in cold hard cash (and an attempt to do so would probably trigger an investigation in a heartbeat). To me that means my money is virtual. Sure, it is *regulated* virtual money, but anyone who lived through the savings and loan scandal is quite aware that "virtual acid crept into the vault" is a perfectly plausible situation... and the liability for giving you back your entire account isn't there: you only get back the portion that the FDIC insures.
I think that the point is that we are starting to see the development of virtual environments that have a total trade value that exceeds the gross domestic product of the poorer nations on our planet. From one article recently, the GDP of virtual worlds is near that of Jamaica. (That was a year ago, an article in a more recent magazine pegged the online trade in "virtual goods" at about three times what it was when this article was posted).
So you are certainly right that at the moment the games are unregulated and loss of "virtual property" is not going to see the same level of accountability as a bank (which as discussed above, isn't as much as I think you believe it is). However, the original poster was claiming that virtual theft through an exploit wasn't a crime. Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't on the books, but to suggest that these virtual economies won't become regulated and have legal ramifications is hiding your head in the sand: virtual property already exceeds the GDP of entire nations, surely that won't be ignored for long. The movement of companies like Sony to permit buying and sale of goods and previously companies that run "free to play but you buy virtual goods for real-as-it-gets money" games like Project Entropia mean that companies *are* going to be held liable for loss of goods sooner at later. It's going to be hard to argue from a judge that "well, we took his $26,500 and then promptly allowed the goods he bought to be lost to an exploit. Sorry!".
The reality is that more and more of the space that the public inhabits is becoming privatized. While I'm in agreement that private property owners have rights, including the right to remove anyone for any reason, it would seem that some sort of balance is needed when spaces that are used by the general public have become private as the norm, and true "public spaces" are exceedingly rare. Here where I live the entire downtown is private property: including the roads and sidewalks, thanks to an overzealous "urban renewal" program. Because of that program I could be arrested for trespassing simply by being there (in fact, that was part of the plan: the privatized streets and sidewalks mean that the homeless are no longer simply loitering, they are trespassers on private property).
You could argue the merits of such actions (if the urban renewal plan goes well, I'm sure not many will complain that you can't reach the courthouse without potentially trespassing on private property), but as a trend it indicates to me that true public spaces will become a thing of the past.
Back to the topic of photography. I notice that photography of the Eiffel tower at night is illegal. Likewise, some buildings are trademarked so strictly speaking, photographing your family in front of such a building and posting it on the web might draw legal fire.
Likewise, I notice you have a picture of people at a beach. Do you have a signed model release from the subjects? (Particularly, the man in a red cap with man-breasts in the picture of the lifeguard... I would look for judicial relief if I was on the web looking like that.)
My point is that our society has become so "private property" happy that just about anything you do is a potential litigation point. It is awfully unlikely that people will come after you for your photographs, but if someone was in a particularly foul mood they could construe your site as a commercial exploitation of the photography because it includes a resume. (I can't find *that* link right now, but that was the legal argument used against a computer programmer's personal website who had *something* that *someone* was unhappy about: even though no advertisements were used, the posting of a resume turned the site "commercial" in the eyes of the prosecution.)
The question to you: do you believe that all "private rights" are reasonable when pushed to such limits? You said that it was "blatantly hypocritical to expel a patron..." and yet "blatantly hypocritical" wouldn't be a legal defense to trespassing (since the actual charge wasn't actually regarding the shirt, simply the right of a private property owner to expel anyone for any reason). I'm glad they dropped the charges, but what would your opinion be if they had not? In my view, the charges are independent of the *reason* they didn't want him in the store, meaning the man could theoretically have served jail time for "blatantly hypocritical actions". Likewise, I think that quite a bit of the photography laws seem fairly absurd when stretched to where the legal system will allow them to go. I'm sure every citizen of the US if a copyright or trademark infringer in regards to those laws. Do you think that such stretching of the laws in simply hypocritical (which doesn't buy much for the infringer since that's a meaningless idea in the courts) or perhaps unfair.
Yes, the fact that I work from home 250 miles from my corporate offices virtually just goes to show that this whole virtual thing has gone too far. I mean, they pay me, and I don't even physically show up except once a month!
Likewise, I bought my new house and didn't even have to bring wheelbarrows of real money... I just used a virtual transfer of money! What are people thinking with all this reliance on virtual stuff.
Meanwhile, Sony has set up servers that allow legal buying and selling of virtual stuff. IT'S MADNESS I'M TELLING YOU.
Or perhaps it is a symptom of a more and more of peoples time and energy going into online pursuits. Yeah, it's "just a game"... but there are people who make their rent payments this way. Which is not to say that I necessary believe that theft of virtual game property should be a crime, but boy would I be made if my virtual money in the bank got stolen. As the games get more sophisticated, and the amount of actual money flowing though them increases this becomes a problem.
"Objects inside of a virtual world have value," Professor Castronova began. It's hard to believe the economic phenomenon sparked by eBay and other similar online trading spaces that have taken hold of the gaming community. The statistics alone are staggering, as Professor Castronova explained. His research has uncovered that, in the US alone, the sale of virtual property has reached a staggering 30 million dollars a year. Extrapolating from this data, Professor Castronova postulated that the business would roughly be in the area of 75 million dollars annually on a global scale. How does a market like this grow so vastly in the short amount of time the MMO genre has been around? A mere five years of life has seen a astronomical spike in activity for the online gaming community. Professor Castronova attributes it to a simple supply vs. demand model..."People with lots of money and no time" working with "people with lots of time and no money." The virtual economy created by a seemingly classic necessity is a fascinating proposition to consider. There is no doubt that economic development is a powerful force.
I'm not sure how any economic realm where millions of dollars are transacted is going to *avoid* becomes an issue with real world law enforcement implications. Frankly, I would prefer if the whole game item = $$$ thing would go away, but do you really think it will?
Wow. So your all keen for the idea that private property should control fashion choices? Malls are private property and yet I somehow doubt that too many are going to banning customers from entering because they happen to be wearing a "non authorized" logos.
Arrested for wearing clothing purchased *purchased within the mall itself* mind you, which takes the whole thing to a new level of lunacy. That would be akin to selling Coke at the games and then arresting those who bought it.
Of course, this is a political decision by the mall, akin to the removal of our politcal process from public venues to private property where the audiences can be hand picked for loyalty. Surely commercial enforcement of logos in the mall is a great idea too. "Sorry sir, we don't sell product X here, you have to leave."
Poor unsuspecting sap: "So, we have this cool toy that burns hydrogen..."
Chiral: "You know, anything that involves hydrogen is actually a government boondoggle that causes excessive use of power which in turn pollutes the planet more than just burning wood or natural..."
Poor unsuspecting sap to neighbor: "... lets sneak away quietly before he hurts someone with his vitriol..."
Yes, I can keep the PS2, but when I got the PS2 I gave the PS1 to relatives. I already have four consoles under this roof and making it so I can't just swap it out means I probably will just wait that much longer to buy, since I already have a library of games that I play. A lot of the games have unlockable content and when you are on the next to last mission of Ring of Red you don't want to start over. It isn't the new memory architecture, it is the inability to migrate to the new memory architecture while at the very same time you can use the games. If I have to wait until I finish all my old games before I buy, I won't buy soon.
Maybe this doesn't matter to the "look shiny" crowd who doesn't play 100+ hour strategy games and rarely finishes anything, but it is an inconvience for me. the article questions whether a DEX drive might migrate the files... here is hoping it will, because I will be right there.
OK, so there I am on the prior story saying how much I look forward to the PS3 because of the backwards compatibility and here comes an article telling me that my save files are junk. Good grief, they couldn't put a *single* reader slot for the old cards? I wouldn't care if they made me copy the data over prior to use, except for those few games with "protected" save files that you can't move are still in trouble. I wouldn't even care if it was on the back or something silly, since I would only copy the files once.
Please tell me that they aren't this stupid? I have games from the PS1 that I haven't finished (turn based strategy games may look bad, but still play great) and a lot of games on the PS2 in progress.
Re:Somewhat OT, but what is better about Psychonau
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
I'm only basing that on the reviews (the game looks great on the X-Box, but personally the funky style would seem easy to port to *my* eyes), but apparently it was developed on the X-Box and ported to PS2... because of that it is a hair slower and has slighly lower quality textures. Nothing that would prevent enjoying the game and surely not a reason to get an X-Box unless you get a great deal.
I'm not so sure how many will dump their X-Boxes anyway, with the 360 not having 100% backwards compatibility. I'm not throwing my Steel Batallion games away just because the 360 won't support them or the controller... nor will I be getting a 360 at launch for that matter.
Yeah... because I keep a high end setup in my dressing room. I have a large Sony Wega... and that's it back there.
However, I have a nice setup in the living area... and the X-Box didn't really do that much for me. The "after launch title" PS2 games use DD and 480p as well.. so it really comes down the the better texture memory for most games. Ooooh, I'm impressed. Not.
It's time to start gearing up for an expensive Christmas.
Um, no, I don't think so. I own all three consoles from the current generation. In fact, I have two PS2s... one for the living room and one for dressing room. I didn't originally mean for it to be that way: we kept the Game Cube in the living room because when people come over: it is the best for party games. We kept the PS2 out there so my son could continue playing the games he had become accustom to. I bought the X-Box when the price dropped and put it the dressing room so at night I could play without disturbing others. The Steel Battalions reissue didn't hurt.
In the end I *had* to get another PS2 so I could actually play games I wanted. I felt like when I was a kid and we picked up an Odyssey instead of the Atari. There weren't enough games that *I* wanted to play. I still have my X-Box but I find myself working really hard to find games that have that slight edge on the X-Box to make buying them for it worthwhile. (Psychonauts is a recent example, one of a small number).
Combine that with the fact that Live is overrun with punk kids (and now the 360 offers the new "see me flip you off" feature... OH BOY!), the lack of full backwards compatibility and the high price games they are going for... I think I will wait like I did with the X-Box for the price drop and the bargain bins of games. Maybe... if the PS3 doesn't take all my money when it comes out.
My experience was that I had to LEAVE the XBox community, as every Halo 2 game ROOM was filled with foul language, griefers and an "un-fun" environment. Yes, *most* of the people I encountered were jerks... it appears that mommy paying $200/$50 doesn't really stop them from calling people names and using inappropriate language.
How does one gain a buddy list of decent players when the community has the manners of drunken frat boys at a whore house?
I don't care about dying frequently... I expect that in a new game (every PC game I played was like that). But I had to just remove my headset when I played on LIVE. Boy don't I just look forward to full video in the 360 where they can flip me off and expose themselves (and you know they will).
Nah, I will stay in the PC realm where voice chat is something you do on purpose and the controls are stronger regarding who you will encounter. If anything, some of the PC game communities go the other way (I ended up banned as a griefer in America's Army because I spawned *inside* terrain and couldn't move.) Meanwhile, how likely do you think I am to let my 11 year old loose in Live when this kind of problem is pandemic? Unlike most parents I bother to check the virtual neighborhood I am sending my boy into...and LIVE is inappropriate beyond belief. So far, except for specifically designed online communities for kids, they *all* are.
Some would even suggest that relational databases are NOT a good or optimal solution.
Actually, the point behind Tutorial D, Rel, etc is that the current *implementation* of relational databases are broken... from a mathematical view point. The relational concepts have been deviated from and that is the downfall of SQL as an implementation of relational databases.
Of course, SQL survives (although broken and inconsistent) because it works today and it puts bread on the table... as opposed to a theoretical set of "pure relational" languages which are not yet mature enough to deliver. Additionally, the base article makes the point that HTML worked when SGML didn't because it mixed concerns and operated at a level that "rank and file" people could operate on. I have played with the "pure relational" languages and I have to say that SQL may be ugly, but I have taught non programmers to devise simple queries. These new languages are less "intuitive" to those not trained in the arts (although pretty to my eye as a programmer), and perhaps reflect a dichotomy similar to HTML vs SGML.
Yes, please... make the primary function the ability to be verbally abused while playing games and the primary upgrade the fact they will be able to flip me off in video as well.
I liked the original game quite a bit. It was short, clever, fun to play. Even "innovative". However, I find it *scary* that the guy spent that many bytes fretting over so many minor details. In the end he could have said:
"The sequel is better technically but perhaps a bit overproduced (particularly in terms of music) for what it is. Fans of the original will enjoy the cleaner level design and improvements, but it doesn't stray far from the original. People who missed the first game shouln't miss it them time. 8 out of 10"
I really really really wish I had a mod point to give you, but I made the mistake years ago of visiting slashdot from a troll site's link so I have forever had my mod rights revoked. If you don't write for a living, you might want to give it a go... painting mental images like that shouldn't go to waste.
I think that brings me up to speed on the issue. As a last question: this change has been published on a website. Owners of the books who don't frequent the web would seem to be enjoying the original rights (the implied right to actually play the game as published, even if no actual license was included in the book). Since the books are sold at retail, it would appear that "the cat is out of the bag" as far as attempting to append a license to the product.
They can wrap future books in packaging that requires accepting a physical EULA to use the materials (although it would also seem off-putting to future sales to do so), but the existing users --- since the books were published at retail, how would they go about applying the licensing to those who are not part of the debate and are unaware of such changes? (There is nothing in the books such as "see our website for licensing information, you must accept any changed licenses, etc.")
I don't mean that they couldn't just sue a group, but since they have not communicated the changes (at it would be nearly impossible to do so in a meaningful way... anyone could claim not to have see the website) it appears that the first recourse would be a requirement of offer the license. Since they ofter it for $20 per "user" with minimal restrictions, it would seem that such a suit would net... $20 per user? I find it hard to believe that a judge would impose anything more onerous upon a group considering the circumstances of this change (i.e., lack of notification, no other such licenses in the entire industry, license granted indiscriminately to all based on a minimal fee.) It would appear the the "harm" such a group presents is merely an unpaid license fee, not the usual infringement penalties.
BTW, thanks for taking the time to answer my inane questions. I didn't think this issue was quite this deep.
(And on the topic of software rental: no... not used PC software for rental, but it is ubiquitously available for purchase in large bookstore chains I mentioned. Not just games, but applications, graphics suites, etc. I have always avoided it, but mostly because the upgrade path becomes questionable for anything I would want.)
I think we are more in agreement than I initially thought, although my expression of some of the concepts isn't up to par with someone who plies the trade, so to speak.
In regard to EULAs (as someone who has one on the install screens of his own software) I wouldn't want to base my business on the enforcement of one. There have been cases of enforcement, but more because (at least in the cases I have seen) the EULA wasn't the critical aspect of enforcement of rights: copyright law as a whole was the key. In my case, since my software is custom written, the EULA merely reiterates the existing written and signed contract with the client... that I'm willing to base my business on.
I do still see the fact that used and rental software are available as a red flag that EULAs are not the silver bullet that the large software companies want them to be.
There has been a continuum of results here: console game makers have lost every important battle when they try to prevent resale or rental. Ironically, the biggest hurdle they faced in these cases was the copy protection they used was actually effective, which meant that the "people will illegally copy it" argument which *was* successfully used by the personal computer software companies against rentals didn't fly. However even that argument seems to have lost its luster as I see all the major game stores carry used PC games alongside the used console games, and two of the local used book stores (one a huge chain that exists state wide... not operating under the radar) also sells used application software. All that renting and resale are typically prohibited by the EULA, but the big companies somehow seem to be unable to enforce those clauses.
Turning this back to White Wolf's "license" (which they really seem to be proposing as some "after the fact, retrofitted to books you already own EULA" on their own website, which is just odd), as you pointed out my level of paranoia about trademark use isn't necessary (although considering how sue happy companies have become over pretty imaginary infringement, I'm not all that sure it isn't prudent). That really does leave them with copyright law as the leg they are trying to stand on. White Wolf tried to sue Sony regarding the movie Underworld (which in all honesty couldn't have been *more* of a thematic ripoff) and they lost. It turns out that the theme wasn't protected by copyright. Most of what White Wolf provides is two things: rule sets and theme. Yes, there are characters described and places and events, but in most games these things are the creations of the group. Each player creates a character, the game master creates the scenarios, the world at large, etc. Reading directly from the book would be considered poor form, to say the least and I doubt it happens.
Note that this would be untrue of many of the modules produced by Wizards of the Coast for the Dungeons and Dragons line. That product line is played at a table and often a poorer quality game master *will* read verbatim passages. Since there are multiple players present (as many as 8 or 9) I guess it could be considered a "performance" of the work, but here is where another anomaly appears... it is the entire *point* behind producing the modules that this performance be done. Yes, nowhere have I ever seen permission granted to do so. Curious as what you think of this, as your comments have been very thought provoking for me.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly why I don't write books or create "mass production" software packages. I write custom applications for customers and consult for them on the configuration and customization of other software products. I write web based applications where the bits are not available to the unwashed masses. I write technical documentation *for specific client's needs*. Welcome to the new era: people's perceived value of digitally reproducible products is near zero. You can fight it (DRM, copy protected software) or you can make your living doing something that people do value. I choose the later.
I'm not saying that I agree with the zero value propositions: quite the contrary, I wish I could do some projects that I can't because of the climate (and my resources) make them infeasible. However, I am not putting myself in the buggy-whip industry protection business: I don't have the resources to fight on another front. Likewise, if it turns out that writing e-books becomes a losing proposition, may I suggest *not writing them*? If it turns out that society actually valued what you had to say (and the format you choose to say it in), I'm pretty sure a method of compensation will appear. If society doesn't value what you have to say (and how you say it), then why bother?
Personally, I refuse to buy "copy locked" software where possible (having been burned by "out of business" software houses unable to reactivate my software when I upgrade my machine) and I would refuse to buy DRM e-books on the same grounds. I value paper books and will pay a premium for them. I want to reach up, grab the book and not worry about malfunctioning DRM drivers, out of business "authentication server" companies and the like.
However, I have no problem paying a small annual fee for access to libraries of books (like Safari). The reason is that for the small monthly fee I get access to a wide range of books. Note the terms of this access: small monthly fee, wide range of books... that's how little I value the individual works in the library. If I valued a book more than that, why I go out and buy a paper copy so I don't have to worry about Safari changing the rules on me. I don't look forward to the day when I don't have that latter option.
You nailed it... the reason the GameBoy is and has been the hand-held king is fairly modest cost, functional but not processor expensive graphics and enough oomph for serviceable but not killer AI. Combine that with impressive battery life and you have a winner.
If you look at the failed challengers to the GameBoy reign you quickly notice how much better most of the units were *on the superficial* aspects that everyone thinks are important. Turns out portable gaming is more about portability (imagine!) and a weak battery life is a killer.
I'm not sure you understand that there are two parts to the value of these things. Each has an intrinsic value as something that can be utilized. In the case of paper and shells on a string, probably not much. In the case of gold, I assure you I can find was to convert a bar of gold into "value" even without government backing. (That will be true as long as people value "oooh, shiney").
Nope. Real money is a representation of accumulated *value*. It used to represent real resources (gold) but we are not backed by anything but government promises today. In the US, such promises are considered very strong. In 1980's Mexico, not so much (how those "new pesos" holding up down there... aw, that's sad).
But note in my other post: I may be able to buy the *real* pizza I bought with my virtual gold, or drive my real car I traded for virtual property. Not quite seeing where you are disconnected from the concept of value as value, regardless of how it is stored (keeping in mind the relative risk of "real gold" being near zero and the relative risk of virtual propety being mind bogglingly high: almost as high as the currency of some Latin American states).
Where are you getting your straw man arguments? This wasn't in what I said, or any of the articles linked so far. I said quite clearly that a virtual property value is more closely resembling non-taxable until withdrawal, high risk instruments. How the heck you got from there to the above nonsense I have NO idea. Or are you saying that tax exempt instruments aren't "real money" by your standards? (If so, my retirement is pretty darn virtual).
What I *did* say was that when people cash in for taxable forms of money, it is going to be taxable whether your "made" your money in a virtual environment or not. Your casino example is a good parallel, although in detail actually wrong: if you win over a certain amount, you will be issued forms that also go to the IRS. Interestingly, even if you drop the entire amount you won, that form is sent and you have to offset that gain with an appropriately documented loss form. Gamblers usually have huge gains and huge losses that offset for tax purposes to a final "net gain or loss".
As an interesting aside, are you aware of the "exchanges" that were popular in the 1980's and 1990's? (They may still exist and probably go back earlier, but nobody has bothered me about them in a decade, so hopefully they died off). The idea behind the exchange was that companies could barter for goods and services instead of paying cash. For example, I have a computer software company that I'm part owner of, a consulting company I own and I have interests in other businesses. If I want something for one of these companies, in the exchange model I simply barter a service (for example, software construction or computer consulting) in exchange for the good or service I want.
Now why the heck would I do that instead of just paying for services and billing for my own? Well, the exchange of services means that no money changes hands. This means I don't have to post a gain for invoiced work and an expense for received services. (In a company you can write of expenses, but only to a point: in an exchange it might be possible to not have the gain and expense in the first place.)
It actually sounds interesting. However, barter is a poor method of value exchange in the modern world. To make this work, the exchanges issued "exchange dollars" which were used internally.
Well, as you can imagine, the government didn't like the idea of an unregulated currency being issued, and I watched a people who got themselves involved in the exchanges got hammered on tax evasion.
Now here is where it gets interesting... lets assume that virtual economies could be the "exchange" the the current generation. Sony currently has servers where you can officially auction goods. Sony also has a feature where you can order a pizza from the game. Hmmm, with a little wiring between the features, you could auto auction off your platinum to the pizza company which gets paid via the auction.
As far as I know, nobody has implemented that connection yet, but if people are able to spend over twenty thousand dollars on virtual property, it would appear you could move pretty large amounts of money that way. Heck, with the virtual property discussed in Project Entropia, it would appear I could be paid for services rendered via Entropia goods and trade it for other services. Interesting, I may have argued myself into your straw man argument as an actually interesting proposition. I suspect if such virtual goods became a grey currency like exchange dollars, that the government *would* be interested in what was goin on. So, although I never *proposed* your straw man argument, it actually has more merit than I originally thought (assuming such seamless exchanges are created, which is doubious in the near future).
Oh, for the mod points to give you "+5 unveiling slimeballs" for that one.
You have bought the fiction that pieces of paper have power. Perhaps it is because without that fiction modern society fails. Thus the fiction has become invisible to our minds as the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. I find interesting is that you can believe that paper is "real money" (even though most of the worlds "money" is stored as bits today), and yet refuse to believe that in the future possessions in a virtual environment will be ruled to have value.
Yes, the game companies will go to extreme lengths to protect themselves from being liable for anything. Companies that take thousands of dollars in consideration for virtual property (which is occurring *now*, not in some hazy future) are creating that liability today, and in the near future I expect someone will screw up and the law will contemplate this issue.
The fact that you only are taxed on gains when you convert to "real money" seems an awful lot like some investment instruments to me. Likewise, some of my retirement investments could tank in value, and (excepting a suit alleging fraud, but lets assume they just collapsed due to economic forces) I'm without recourse to my lost "real money".
To take this to an extreme, but practiced today example, imagine that I'm running a "farm", extracting virtual property from the game and auctioning it off for "real money". There are several articles about the boom of Chinese and Indian based operations of this nature. Are you arguing I don't have to pay taxes on the gains I make this way? If no, then good luck with that tax audit. If yes, then where does the money come from? How is it that I'm able to extract "real money" from "virtual property" unless that property has value. Economic value is simply the price someone will pay to acquire a piece of property. There is absolutely nothing in economic theory that excludes virtual property from having value, and quite clearly markets have developed that do value that property.
So I'm not sure what you are arguing in your last post. Yes, banks are more likely to honor obligations than game companies: is that the big revelation here? I say "more likely" because as pointed out earlier they don't always do so. One of my old companies worked with Mexico quite extensively, and I must say that your reliance of regulations and obligations would have been considered quite quaint in 1980's Mexico.
As far as "rule of law", all that represents is the structures that those in power have decreed acceptable. When the winds change, the rules change. Pieces of paper, bits that represent "obligations" and everything else that is a representational version of value become suspect. Yes, in a Mad Max world someone can take my property by force, but I would say that is simply demonstrating that such things as land, homes, vehicles have *intrinsic* value, beyond any value they have as a representation of wealth. Nobody is going to steal my stack of cash, my stock certificates, etc, in that scenario because they have no intrinsic value.
But you keep believing in the intrinsic value of *obligations* based on *rule of law*. I'm sure it will help you sleep at night. Meanwhile a multi million dollar trade in *imaginary money* will continue. Try to ignore it and it probably won't keep you up at night either. I personally will consider economic value to be economic value, no matter what odd places it crops up. Remembering, of course, that some forms of economic value are more risky than others.
Mad Max, this one is for you.
We are so close to agreement that I am amused by the missing last five feet. You admit that a dollar in the bank if virtual because it is nothing more that bits that reflect an obligation. That's all that a purchase of virtual property is: recording the ownership of an obligation. The fact that it can be lost in many more ways than your bank account doesn't change the nature of both types of "property": a bunch of bits that have value because someone says they do.
v =MXEFcglk
Meanwhile, you think that people would laugh at a proposal to tax transactions in the virtual world, and yet there is a tax proposal on the table to tax the transfer of adult materials:
http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3653007&na
How is that different from proposing a tax on online gaming revenue? (Probably based on "funding anti-violent gaming enforcement or some nonsense). If that revenue comes from selling $26,500 in virtual property, what does that matter? I'm taxed for talking on my digital cell phone, and all that represents is timely delivery of bits. I'm taxed on my capital gains, and it only represents the movement of peoples opinions of the stocks I own.
The difference is in the degree to which one obligation is protected *at the moment*. We think money is "magic" somehow, but look at any crashed currency to see how "pretend" money really is. In fifty years, I imagine that people will "own" all kinds of virtual property that is convertible to monetary value easily and is protected by law. Today that mostly describes copyrighted items, but that's just an artifact of the immaturity of the online property markets.
To sum up: there is "real property"... my cars, my homes, my business equipment, my jewellery. It is the stuff that even if the world goes Mad Max on us we probably can still derive value from. Everything else is "imaginary/virtual". The idea of "virtual" perhaps is confusing because we associate it bits, but money has been a virtualization of wealth (per the definition virtual(a): being such in essence or effect though not in actual fact) since the days that we stopped direct bartering. If the world goes Mad Max, your stock certificates, savings account, credit cards and cash in your wallet are useless relics.
First off, if you don't think your bank account isn't virtual money, then what the heck is it? Try demanding the value in gold bars from your bank. Not going to happen. If you have enough money in your account: try asking for it in paper money and see how far you get. It would be impossible to get my bank account rendered in cold hard cash (and an attempt to do so would probably trigger an investigation in a heartbeat). To me that means my money is virtual. Sure, it is *regulated* virtual money, but anyone who lived through the savings and loan scandal is quite aware that "virtual acid crept into the vault" is a perfectly plausible situation... and the liability for giving you back your entire account isn't there: you only get back the portion that the FDIC insures.
w s_6118160.html
I think that the point is that we are starting to see the development of virtual environments that have a total trade value that exceeds the gross domestic product of the poorer nations on our planet. From one article recently, the GDP of virtual worlds is near that of Jamaica. (That was a year ago, an article in a more recent magazine pegged the online trade in "virtual goods" at about three times what it was when this article was posted).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3570224.stm
So you are certainly right that at the moment the games are unregulated and loss of "virtual property" is not going to see the same level of accountability as a bank (which as discussed above, isn't as much as I think you believe it is). However, the original poster was claiming that virtual theft through an exploit wasn't a crime. Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't on the books, but to suggest that these virtual economies won't become regulated and have legal ramifications is hiding your head in the sand: virtual property already exceeds the GDP of entire nations, surely that won't be ignored for long. The movement of companies like Sony to permit buying and sale of goods and previously companies that run "free to play but you buy virtual goods for real-as-it-gets money" games like Project Entropia mean that companies *are* going to be held liable for loss of goods sooner at later. It's going to be hard to argue from a judge that "well, we took his $26,500 and then promptly allowed the goods he bought to be lost to an exploit. Sorry!".
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/projectentropia/ne
And no, I'm not suggesting that all this is a good thing... but I don't think this trend is going to reverse itself either.
I find it interesting that you are interested in photography. Perhaps you will find this of interest as well (beware where you point your camera):
i ng-of-public-space.html
6 03b.htm
http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyright
The reality is that more and more of the space that the public inhabits is becoming privatized. While I'm in agreement that private property owners have rights, including the right to remove anyone for any reason, it would seem that some sort of balance is needed when spaces that are used by the general public have become private as the norm, and true "public spaces" are exceedingly rare. Here where I live the entire downtown is private property: including the roads and sidewalks, thanks to an overzealous "urban renewal" program. Because of that program I could be arrested for trespassing simply by being there (in fact, that was part of the plan: the privatized streets and sidewalks mean that the homeless are no longer simply loitering, they are trespassers on private property).
You could argue the merits of such actions (if the urban renewal plan goes well, I'm sure not many will complain that you can't reach the courthouse without potentially trespassing on private property), but as a trend it indicates to me that true public spaces will become a thing of the past.
Back to the topic of photography. I notice that photography of the Eiffel tower at night is illegal. Likewise, some buildings are trademarked so strictly speaking, photographing your family in front of such a building and posting it on the web might draw legal fire.
Some info on these issues: http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa100
Likewise, I notice you have a picture of people at a beach. Do you have a signed model release from the subjects? (Particularly, the man in a red cap with man-breasts in the picture of the lifeguard... I would look for judicial relief if I was on the web looking like that.)
My point is that our society has become so "private property" happy that just about anything you do is a potential litigation point. It is awfully unlikely that people will come after you for your photographs, but if someone was in a particularly foul mood they could construe your site as a commercial exploitation of the photography because it includes a resume. (I can't find *that* link right now, but that was the legal argument used against a computer programmer's personal website who had *something* that *someone* was unhappy about: even though no advertisements were used, the posting of a resume turned the site "commercial" in the eyes of the prosecution.)
The question to you: do you believe that all "private rights" are reasonable when pushed to such limits? You said that it was "blatantly hypocritical to expel a patron..." and yet "blatantly hypocritical" wouldn't be a legal defense to trespassing (since the actual charge wasn't actually regarding the shirt, simply the right of a private property owner to expel anyone for any reason). I'm glad they dropped the charges, but what would your opinion be if they had not? In my view, the charges are independent of the *reason* they didn't want him in the store, meaning the man could theoretically have served jail time for "blatantly hypocritical actions". Likewise, I think that quite a bit of the photography laws seem fairly absurd when stretched to where the legal system will allow them to go. I'm sure every citizen of the US if a copyright or trademark infringer in regards to those laws. Do you think that such stretching of the laws in simply hypocritical (which doesn't buy much for the infringer since that's a meaningless idea in the courts) or perhaps unfair.
Likewise, I bought my new house and didn't even have to bring wheelbarrows of real money... I just used a virtual transfer of money! What are people thinking with all this reliance on virtual stuff.
Meanwhile, Sony has set up servers that allow legal buying and selling of virtual stuff. IT'S MADNESS I'M TELLING YOU.
Or perhaps it is a symptom of a more and more of peoples time and energy going into online pursuits. Yeah, it's "just a game"... but there are people who make their rent payments this way. Which is not to say that I necessary believe that theft of virtual game property should be a crime, but boy would I be made if my virtual money in the bank got stolen. As the games get more sophisticated, and the amount of actual money flowing though them increases this becomes a problem.
From: http://www.warcry.com/scripts/columns/view_sectio
I'm not sure how any economic realm where millions of dollars are transacted is going to *avoid* becomes an issue with real world law enforcement implications. Frankly, I would prefer if the whole game item = $$$ thing would go away, but do you really think it will?
Wow. So your all keen for the idea that private property should control fashion choices? Malls are private property and yet I somehow doubt that too many are going to banning customers from entering because they happen to be wearing a "non authorized" logos.
s a.shirt.reut/
Oh wait, they already did:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/iraq.u
Arrested for wearing clothing purchased *purchased within the mall itself* mind you, which takes the whole thing to a new level of lunacy. That would be akin to selling Coke at the games and then arresting those who bought it.
Of course, this is a political decision by the mall, akin to the removal of our politcal process from public venues to private property where the audiences can be hand picked for loyalty. Surely commercial enforcement of logos in the mall is a great idea too. "Sorry sir, we don't sell product X here, you have to leave."
Wow, you must be fun at parties:
Poor unsuspecting sap: "So, we have this cool toy that burns hydrogen..."
Chiral: "You know, anything that involves hydrogen is actually a government boondoggle that causes excessive use of power which in turn pollutes the planet more than just burning wood or natural..."
Poor unsuspecting sap to neighbor: "... lets sneak away quietly before he hurts someone with his vitriol..."
It is a room adjoining a bedroom which contains dressers, closets and such.
Yes, I can keep the PS2, but when I got the PS2 I gave the PS1 to relatives. I already have four consoles under this roof and making it so I can't just swap it out means I probably will just wait that much longer to buy, since I already have a library of games that I play. A lot of the games have unlockable content and when you are on the next to last mission of Ring of Red you don't want to start over. It isn't the new memory architecture, it is the inability to migrate to the new memory architecture while at the very same time you can use the games. If I have to wait until I finish all my old games before I buy, I won't buy soon.
Maybe this doesn't matter to the "look shiny" crowd who doesn't play 100+ hour strategy games and rarely finishes anything, but it is an inconvience for me. the article questions whether a DEX drive might migrate the files... here is hoping it will, because I will be right there.
OK, so there I am on the prior story saying how much I look forward to the PS3 because of the backwards compatibility and here comes an article telling me that my save files are junk. Good grief, they couldn't put a *single* reader slot for the old cards? I wouldn't care if they made me copy the data over prior to use, except for those few games with "protected" save files that you can't move are still in trouble. I wouldn't even care if it was on the back or something silly, since I would only copy the files once.
Please tell me that they aren't this stupid? I have games from the PS1 that I haven't finished (turn based strategy games may look bad, but still play great) and a lot of games on the PS2 in progress.
I'm only basing that on the reviews (the game looks great on the X-Box, but personally the funky style would seem easy to port to *my* eyes), but apparently it was developed on the X-Box and ported to PS2... because of that it is a hair slower and has slighly lower quality textures. Nothing that would prevent enjoying the game and surely not a reason to get an X-Box unless you get a great deal.
I'm not so sure how many will dump their X-Boxes anyway, with the 360 not having 100% backwards compatibility. I'm not throwing my Steel Batallion games away just because the 360 won't support them or the controller... nor will I be getting a 360 at launch for that matter.
Yeah... because I keep a high end setup in my dressing room. I have a large Sony Wega... and that's it back there.
However, I have a nice setup in the living area... and the X-Box didn't really do that much for me. The "after launch title" PS2 games use DD and 480p as well.. so it really comes down the the better texture memory for most games. Ooooh, I'm impressed. Not.
Period.
It's time to start gearing up for an expensive Christmas.
Um, no, I don't think so. I own all three consoles from the current generation. In fact, I have two PS2s... one for the living room and one for dressing room. I didn't originally mean for it to be that way: we kept the Game Cube in the living room because when people come over: it is the best for party games. We kept the PS2 out there so my son could continue playing the games he had become accustom to. I bought the X-Box when the price dropped and put it the dressing room so at night I could play without disturbing others. The Steel Battalions reissue didn't hurt.
In the end I *had* to get another PS2 so I could actually play games I wanted. I felt like when I was a kid and we picked up an Odyssey instead of the Atari. There weren't enough games that *I* wanted to play. I still have my X-Box but I find myself working really hard to find games that have that slight edge on the X-Box to make buying them for it worthwhile. (Psychonauts is a recent example, one of a small number).
Combine that with the fact that Live is overrun with punk kids (and now the 360 offers the new "see me flip you off" feature... OH BOY!), the lack of full backwards compatibility and the high price games they are going for... I think I will wait like I did with the X-Box for the price drop and the bargain bins of games. Maybe... if the PS3 doesn't take all my money when it comes out.
My experience was that I had to LEAVE the XBox community, as every Halo 2 game ROOM was filled with foul language, griefers and an "un-fun" environment. Yes, *most* of the people I encountered were jerks... it appears that mommy paying $200/$50 doesn't really stop them from calling people names and using inappropriate language.
How does one gain a buddy list of decent players when the community has the manners of drunken frat boys at a whore house?
I don't care about dying frequently... I expect that in a new game (every PC game I played was like that). But I had to just remove my headset when I played on LIVE. Boy don't I just look forward to full video in the 360 where they can flip me off and expose themselves (and you know they will).
Nah, I will stay in the PC realm where voice chat is something you do on purpose and the controls are stronger regarding who you will encounter. If anything, some of the PC game communities go the other way (I ended up banned as a griefer in America's Army because I spawned *inside* terrain and couldn't move.) Meanwhile, how likely do you think I am to let my 11 year old loose in Live when this kind of problem is pandemic? Unlike most parents I bother to check the virtual neighborhood I am sending my boy into...and LIVE is inappropriate beyond belief. So far, except for specifically designed online communities for kids, they *all* are.
Some would even suggest that relational databases are NOT a good or optimal solution.
... from a mathematical view point. The relational concepts have been deviated from and that is the downfall of SQL as an implementation of relational databases.
Actually, the point behind Tutorial D, Rel, etc is that the current *implementation* of relational databases are broken
Of course, SQL survives (although broken and inconsistent) because it works today and it puts bread on the table... as opposed to a theoretical set of "pure relational" languages which are not yet mature enough to deliver. Additionally, the base article makes the point that HTML worked when SGML didn't because it mixed concerns and operated at a level that "rank and file" people could operate on. I have played with the "pure relational" languages and I have to say that SQL may be ugly, but I have taught non programmers to devise simple queries. These new languages are less "intuitive" to those not trained in the arts (although pretty to my eye as a programmer), and perhaps reflect a dichotomy similar to HTML vs SGML.
Yes, please... make the primary function the ability to be verbally abused while playing games and the primary upgrade the fact they will be able to flip me off in video as well.
Wow: Sign. Me. Up.
... and want to know what drugs this guy takes.
I liked the original game quite a bit. It was short, clever, fun to play. Even "innovative". However, I find it *scary* that the guy spent that many bytes fretting over so many minor details. In the end he could have said:
"The sequel is better technically but perhaps a bit overproduced (particularly in terms of music) for what it is. Fans of the original will enjoy the cleaner level design and improvements, but it doesn't stray far from the original. People who missed the first game shouln't miss it them time. 8 out of 10"
I really really really wish I had a mod point to give you, but I made the mistake years ago of visiting slashdot from a troll site's link so I have forever had my mod rights revoked. If you don't write for a living, you might want to give it a go... painting mental images like that shouldn't go to waste.
I think that brings me up to speed on the issue. As a last question: this change has been published on a website. Owners of the books who don't frequent the web would seem to be enjoying the original rights (the implied right to actually play the game as published, even if no actual license was included in the book). Since the books are sold at retail, it would appear that "the cat is out of the bag" as far as attempting to append a license to the product.
They can wrap future books in packaging that requires accepting a physical EULA to use the materials (although it would also seem off-putting to future sales to do so), but the existing users --- since the books were published at retail, how would they go about applying the licensing to those who are not part of the debate and are unaware of such changes? (There is nothing in the books such as "see our website for licensing information, you must accept any changed licenses, etc.")
I don't mean that they couldn't just sue a group, but since they have not communicated the changes (at it would be nearly impossible to do so in a meaningful way... anyone could claim not to have see the website) it appears that the first recourse would be a requirement of offer the license. Since they ofter it for $20 per "user" with minimal restrictions, it would seem that such a suit would net... $20 per user? I find it hard to believe that a judge would impose anything more onerous upon a group considering the circumstances of this change (i.e., lack of notification, no other such licenses in the entire industry, license granted indiscriminately to all based on a minimal fee.) It would appear the the "harm" such a group presents is merely an unpaid license fee, not the usual infringement penalties.
BTW, thanks for taking the time to answer my inane questions. I didn't think this issue was quite this deep.
(And on the topic of software rental: no... not used PC software for rental, but it is ubiquitously available for purchase in large bookstore chains I mentioned. Not just games, but applications, graphics suites, etc. I have always avoided it, but mostly because the upgrade path becomes questionable for anything I would want.)
I think we are more in agreement than I initially thought, although my expression of some of the concepts isn't up to par with someone who plies the trade, so to speak.
In regard to EULAs (as someone who has one on the install screens of his own software) I wouldn't want to base my business on the enforcement of one. There have been cases of enforcement, but more because (at least in the cases I have seen) the EULA wasn't the critical aspect of enforcement of rights: copyright law as a whole was the key. In my case, since my software is custom written, the EULA merely reiterates the existing written and signed contract with the client... that I'm willing to base my business on.
I do still see the fact that used and rental software are available as a red flag that EULAs are not the silver bullet that the large software companies want them to be.
There has been a continuum of results here: console game makers have lost every important battle when they try to prevent resale or rental. Ironically, the biggest hurdle they faced in these cases was the copy protection they used was actually effective, which meant that the "people will illegally copy it" argument which *was* successfully used by the personal computer software companies against rentals didn't fly. However even that argument seems to have lost its luster as I see all the major game stores carry used PC games alongside the used console games, and two of the local used book stores (one a huge chain that exists state wide... not operating under the radar) also sells used application software. All that renting and resale are typically prohibited by the EULA, but the big companies somehow seem to be unable to enforce those clauses.
Turning this back to White Wolf's "license" (which they really seem to be proposing as some "after the fact, retrofitted to books you already own EULA" on their own website, which is just odd), as you pointed out my level of paranoia about trademark use isn't necessary (although considering how sue happy companies have become over pretty imaginary infringement, I'm not all that sure it isn't prudent). That really does leave them with copyright law as the leg they are trying to stand on. White Wolf tried to sue Sony regarding the movie Underworld (which in all honesty couldn't have been *more* of a thematic ripoff) and they lost. It turns out that the theme wasn't protected by copyright. Most of what White Wolf provides is two things: rule sets and theme. Yes, there are characters described and places and events, but in most games these things are the creations of the group. Each player creates a character, the game master creates the scenarios, the world at large, etc. Reading directly from the book would be considered poor form, to say the least and I doubt it happens.
Note that this would be untrue of many of the modules produced by Wizards of the Coast for the Dungeons and Dragons line. That product line is played at a table and often a poorer quality game master *will* read verbatim passages. Since there are multiple players present (as many as 8 or 9) I guess it could be considered a "performance" of the work, but here is where another anomaly appears... it is the entire *point* behind producing the modules that this performance be done. Yes, nowhere have I ever seen permission granted to do so. Curious as what you think of this, as your comments have been very thought provoking for me.