It's the "uniqueness" of an idea that makes it an investable item, though I think for patents it's more the "uniqueness" of the implementation. If Pfizer got a patent on "a drug that increases sexuality" there would be no room for all the copycat stuff that is out there. Pfizer has the rights to the specific chemical compound, not the concept. The same thing should happen for software, companies should be able to protect their implementation, but not the general concept. Just my 2c
I think your example is more a reflection of how supply and demand works. You have a fixed demand of 30 meals a day, if only 21 is provided you will have social issues (hoarding, stealing, etc), at 45 there is excessive supply, and therefore waste. What will eventually happen is 30 meals a day would be supplied to meet the 30 meal a day demand. Less than 30 and you have people complaining, more than 30 you have waste. To use your social thought experiment look at the following scenarios: - Only food for 1 person is put out: Anarchy. We have limited needs, when those needs are not met, instinct kicks in and you will have all out fighting for basic survival. - 1 meal per person per day: Balance. Everybody gets exactly what they need, though everybody wants more. Most likely a social structure will form for mutual protection. People would not steal from each other because of social arrangements where the other 8 people would beat you for messing with the balance, and in turn you have the protection of 8 other people if anybody tries to take your food. - 21 meals per day: Most likely an economic system would form since people's needs are met, but not their wants. A social contract between the participants may result in such agreements as, everybody gets 2 meals and split the leftover meal (socialism); or the person who does the most chores gets the extra meal as a reward(capitalism) - 45 meals a day: Everybody's needs and wants are met. Food becomes a non-issue (much like air and sunlight) Resources are scarce because we percieve that they are, not because they are Most of the things in the world are scarce (scarce meaning less than our wants). Economies don't create scarcity, scarcity creates economies, thats why socialism and capitalism exist. Why do you pay a mechanic to fix your car? Because there aren't an unlimited number of mechanics in the world. Why do we pay for electricity? Because there isn't an unlimited supply. Even with solar power (unlimited for the next couple billion years) the scarcity comes in the distribution system. We can't distribute unlimited amounts of power to everybody, hence we would still have to pay.
Technically the games would not be being "rebroadcast" since the data used would be silly be facts describing the action as compiled by a person/computer on the scene It does fall under the NFL's Rights to accounts & descriptions for live broadcast. There could be a deal done, they already have live broadcast of the game on yahoo (just the info, no recreations). As others have mentioned the NFL's blackout policy is counterproductive. The NFL would make more money in markets such as here in Phoenix where nobody wants to go to a crappy college stadium in 110F weather to watch a horrible team play. Though many people would watch the team on TV, just because they are the local team. For other more popular markets, I doubt broadcasting the game would significantly decrease ticket sales, just because the "experience" just can't be reproduced on TV. Whether or not the game is being broadcast has little bearing on whether people actually go to games.
Millions of people use windows, I'd suspect maybe a dozen or so people use your toilet.
Re:Some of the changes (possible spoilers)
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1
What irks me even more is the dialogue changes. I spent my entire childhood memorizing every line of those stupid movies, then suddenly they change the dialogue and it just sounds wrong. The worst part is the changes don't even add anything! Half of them seemed to be changed just because they could be.
And once the majority of the people are not coerced to wage slavery or unemployment (as under capitalism) and have most of their time off to do what they want to do in addition to what little is needed to produce the basic essentials of life So did you grow your own computer out in the fields to type this up? And what do you consider "basic essentials," Chemical plants to create chemicals that increase crop yields are essential to sustaining the current population, or would mass starvation be part of the plan? How about drug companies, are they essential or do we get to enjoy mass deaths due to plague, smallpox, polio, etc? Sorry, I don't mind being a "wage slave" with a house, computer, car, a fridge full of food, and no worries about surviving the next winter. Most people would also not mind "wage slavery" if the alternative is starvation, disease, and death.
The reason economies exist is because there are unlimited wants and limited resources. All an economy does is come up with a means to distribute the limited resources. Capitalism = value resources and distribute more to those who contribute more. Socialism = distribute resources as evenly as possible I had similar thoughts as you. Then I asked questions under the assumption 99.999% people are good
How do you handle what goods are produced? Steel (a limited resource) can go to make wingnuts or a bridge who decides? The answer will become a centralized body/goverment decides. How do you handle your workforce? If everybody did what they want we'd have hundreds of thousands of "pro athletes" and a couple hundred janitors. Who decides who becomes an athlete and who a janitor? The answer would become a centralized body/goverment decides. How do you handle scarcity? If you can only make 1 million TVs a year, who decides who gets them? The answer would become a centralized body/goverment How would you ensure there is no corruption and EVERYBODY is working like they are supposed to? (Remember.001% of bad people = 600,000 bad people) You'd Create a giant police state run by a centralized body/goverment. Unfortunately such a system starts taking away personal freedoms. Maybe I don't want to go into work today, maybe I want to retire young, maybe I want to leave work and go back to school, I want to spend more time with my kids. In a money society I can make those choices, I can choose to have a lower standard of living for whatever reason. All those personal choices would be eliminated in the version of a moneyless society you present.
I don't need to play through Hoth or the Death Star battle again! Blasphemy! I want a game with JUST Hoth battles and Death Star trench runs. Seriously, there is something about those two scenarios that have a sense of personality. They have a sense of uniqueness, not the typical "patrol-n-kill" missions you see in most space sims/shooters. There were some ship capturing missions in the original X-wing, and capital ship destruction missions in Wing Commander series, that made for interesting and compelling gameplay. Too often the plot merely links uninteresting missions together, rather than the missions themselves being extensions of the plot. How many times have we had to play through the nearly identical "Filler" mission: Fleet entered a new sector and need you to patrol. Nav 1 = empty, Nav 2 = 2 enemies, Nav 3 = 6 enemies, radio transmission, new objective nav 4 = 8 enemies
I want a good space sim, not another Rebel Assault clone. Maybe one in the post-OT time period, or heck I can live with an X-wing v Tie Fighter remake:)
Moons orbit planets, asteroids orbit the sun. There does need to be some cutoff at where something is considered a moon and where its just a rock going around a planet, otherwise all the stuff in Saturn's ring could be considered moons... hmm maybe I could name one "Servognome" and request a goverment grant of $50,000 to study the rock^H^H^H^H moon. I think all this classification stuff probably has to do with how scientists can get more grant money. Kinda how there are 6 great lakes
like many of the things I was taught in grade school, when it came to this, at least at the school I went to, the information they taught me was quite false You mean the sky isn't blue because the earth has blue oceans. Now that I look back, most of the half-truth explanations we got in grade school was because the teacher didn't really know.
I agree, the depth of the Rifts universe was awesome. The universe well beautifully detailed in the books, but like you said, the combat mechanics were slow. Unlike D&D where you could get somewhere in a couple hours, Rifts always bogged down in combat that would get stretched over a few days.
I quit, the level grind to get my "center line" char up to 50 so I could be a complete line and not just a dotted one took too long. And the nasty lag made it too difficult for me to play the twitch based paddle. I'm also tired of all the 1337 players making a "ball" character just to take advantage of the bottom of screen warp bug. When are the devs going to wake up and realize there is an issue when 75% of players are playing "Ball" chars. Please fix the bug or nerf them!
Dude, they're completely different games. Gather resources, create buildings, pump out troops, zerg rush, win. Its the essentially the same game, just different graphics and "plot"
I was illustrating how easy it is to create an "original" game, just like you said because the mechanics can be the same just with different window dressing. The original poster was using the tinfoil hat argument that we are seeing remakes because of copyright infringment. My counter to the argument was that you can create an "original" game by just changing some graphics and gave some examples where the play style is similar to an existing game, with only some minor gameplay and graphical differences. Copyright isn't something that comes into play when creating new games, unless the developer is stupid and does something blatantly obvious.
I think part of the problem is the current copyright craziness. It is easy and low risk to buy solid rights to an old movie That's a big stretch. The reason you go with a well known title or franchise is because of name recognition. You say "Scarface" and people are excited just because of familiarity with the movie. Just stamping Matrix on "Enter the Matrix" probably got it 1million+ copies sold. It's difficult to show copyright infringement in entertainment. Is Halo really that different from Doom? Is Age of Empires really that different from Command & Conquer? Galaga different from Space Invaders? Basically just change the graphics a little and tweak some of the rules. The risk isn't getting sued because of copyright infringement, the risk is that it is much harder to develop a brand name from scratch. Its easier to make a movie or games with an existing brand (with associated characters and setting), than to try and develop new brand, and new characters and settings that people will buy into. Beyond good & evil and System Shock were well regarded games but failed with regards to sales, while Driv3r and crappy Star Wars games sell much better just on name alone If you are a publishing company would you rather publish a Star Trek, Star Wars, Terminator, or Matrix title that guarantees you 1million+ copies sold, or pray that an brand new game title becomes popular?
Sec. 1343. - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both Since the entire deal was in virutal currency (owned by eve online) it is governed by their EULA (see relavent portion below). No property or money was defrauded since ownership remained entirely in control of the software maker. B. Rights to Certain Content
You have no interest in the value of your time spent playing the Game, for example, by the building up of the experience level of your character and the items your character accumulates during your time playing the Game. Your Account, and all attributes of your Account, including all corporations, actions, groups, titles and characters, and all objects, currency and items acquired, developed or delivered by or to characters as a result of play through your Accounts, are the sole and exclusive property of CCP, including any and all copyrights and intellectual property rights in or to any and all of the same, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Probably had to change his name, since now everybody knows he's the one with all the ill-gotten money. Poor guy, happy as heck noob with 300M, suddenly getting death threats and confused as hell why
The only reason real currency has value is because we trust that the goverment maintains it as a limited resource. In MMOs we trust the developers have made the in game currency a limited resource so we attach value to it. The fact that in game currency can be exchanged for real currency which in turn can be exchanged for real products means there is value. The biggest difference is as you mentioned, for legal reasons, the publishing company owns all rights to the in game "property," therefore individual players can't sue about scams like this since "property" has never really changed owners (always owned by the game company)
Trademark isn't like patents just being first isn't enough. IANAL but if multiple companies have been using the term gmail for an extended period of time, with nobody claiming and defending ownership, then it has become generic. So it is possible that nobody gets the trademark.
My post was in reply to the grandparent which stated that rather than crash testing and improving safety we should have better infrastructure. There is a middle ground between the 6000lb crush all vehicle and 500lb speeding balsa model. No, weight alone doesn't make you safer, but adding safety features adds weight. You are more likely to survive running into a wall in a camry than you are a motorcycle, weight differential isn't why, its because you have a "cage" around the driver that makes the force destroy car rather than person. Even if the two vehicles are the same size (no weight differential) the safety features of two heavier cars (crumple zones, airbags, etc)would make the crash more survivable than 2 cars stripped down to minimal weight forgoing safety.
IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE!
That still doesn't eliminate the safety concerns. You still have big problems when you have 2 1000lb solar vehicles going 60 miles an hour crashing into each other. Maybe instead of killing one driver, you end up killing both. Or a solar vehicle crashing into a tree, you still have the inherent risk of speed and no protection.
Road density isn't a good comparison, there are huge areas of the US that aren't populated, thus there is no need for roads there. You would probably find the road density is proportional to population density. The better comparison is automobiles per captita where Germany is 1st, US second, followed by france and canada. Although vehicle miles travelled is higher in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the "uniqueness" of an idea that makes it an investable item, though
I think for patents it's more the "uniqueness" of the implementation. If Pfizer got a patent on "a drug that increases sexuality" there would be no room for all the copycat stuff that is out there. Pfizer has the rights to the specific chemical compound, not the concept. The same thing should happen for software, companies should be able to protect their implementation, but not the general concept.
Just my 2c
Land Shark
Why are they going back and giving Jaws a motive?
At least they didn't go so far as to make Roy Scheider shoot first
I think your example is more a reflection of how supply and demand works. You have a fixed demand of 30 meals a day, if only 21 is provided you will have social issues (hoarding, stealing, etc), at 45 there is excessive supply, and therefore waste. What will eventually happen is 30 meals a day would be supplied to meet the 30 meal a day demand. Less than 30 and you have people complaining, more than 30 you have waste.
To use your social thought experiment look at the following scenarios:
- Only food for 1 person is put out: Anarchy. We have limited needs, when those needs are not met, instinct kicks in and you will have all out fighting for basic survival.
- 1 meal per person per day: Balance. Everybody gets exactly what they need, though everybody wants more. Most likely a social structure will form for mutual protection. People would not steal from each other because of social arrangements where the other 8 people would beat you for messing with the balance, and in turn you have the protection of 8 other people if anybody tries to take your food.
- 21 meals per day: Most likely an economic system would form since people's needs are met, but not their wants. A social contract between the participants may result in such agreements as, everybody gets 2 meals and split the leftover meal (socialism); or the person who does the most chores gets the extra meal as a reward(capitalism)
- 45 meals a day: Everybody's needs and wants are met. Food becomes a non-issue (much like air and sunlight)
Resources are scarce because we percieve that they are, not because they are
Most of the things in the world are scarce (scarce meaning less than our wants). Economies don't create scarcity, scarcity creates economies, thats why socialism and capitalism exist. Why do you pay a mechanic to fix your car? Because there aren't an unlimited number of mechanics in the world. Why do we pay for electricity? Because there isn't an unlimited supply. Even with solar power (unlimited for the next couple billion years) the scarcity comes in the distribution system. We can't distribute unlimited amounts of power to everybody, hence we would still have to pay.
Technically the games would not be being "rebroadcast" since the data used would be silly be facts describing the action as compiled by a person/computer on the scene
It does fall under the NFL's Rights to accounts & descriptions for live broadcast.
There could be a deal done, they already have live broadcast of the game on yahoo (just the info, no recreations).
As others have mentioned the NFL's blackout policy is counterproductive. The NFL would make more money in markets such as here in Phoenix where nobody wants to go to a crappy college stadium in 110F weather to watch a horrible team play. Though many people would watch the team on TV, just because they are the local team. For other more popular markets, I doubt broadcasting the game would significantly decrease ticket sales, just because the "experience" just can't be reproduced on TV. Whether or not the game is being broadcast has little bearing on whether people actually go to games.
Millions of people use windows, I'd suspect maybe a dozen or so people use your toilet.
What irks me even more is the dialogue changes. I spent my entire childhood memorizing every line of those stupid movies, then suddenly they change the dialogue and it just sounds wrong.
The worst part is the changes don't even add anything! Half of them seemed to be changed just because they could be.
And once the majority of the people are not coerced to wage slavery or unemployment (as under capitalism) and have most of their time off to do what they want to do in addition to what little is needed to produce the basic essentials of life
So did you grow your own computer out in the fields to type this up? And what do you consider "basic essentials," Chemical plants to create chemicals that increase crop yields are essential to sustaining the current population, or would mass starvation be part of the plan? How about drug companies, are they essential or do we get to enjoy mass deaths due to plague, smallpox, polio, etc?
Sorry, I don't mind being a "wage slave" with a house, computer, car, a fridge full of food, and no worries about surviving the next winter. Most people would also not mind "wage slavery" if the alternative is starvation, disease, and death.
The reason economies exist is because there are unlimited wants and limited resources. All an economy does is come up with a means to distribute the limited resources.
.001% of bad people = 600,000 bad people) You'd Create a giant police state run by a centralized body/goverment.
Capitalism = value resources and distribute more to those who contribute more.
Socialism = distribute resources as evenly as possible
I had similar thoughts as you. Then I asked questions under the assumption 99.999% people are good
How do you handle what goods are produced? Steel (a limited resource) can go to make wingnuts or a bridge who decides? The answer will become a centralized body/goverment decides.
How do you handle your workforce? If everybody did what they want we'd have hundreds of thousands of "pro athletes" and a couple hundred janitors. Who decides who becomes an athlete and who a janitor? The answer would become a centralized body/goverment decides.
How do you handle scarcity? If you can only make 1 million TVs a year, who decides who gets them? The answer would become a centralized body/goverment
How would you ensure there is no corruption and EVERYBODY is working like they are supposed to? (Remember
Unfortunately such a system starts taking away personal freedoms. Maybe I don't want to go into work today, maybe I want to retire young, maybe I want to leave work and go back to school, I want to spend more time with my kids. In a money society I can make those choices, I can choose to have a lower standard of living for whatever reason. All those personal choices would be eliminated in the version of a moneyless society you present.
I don't need to play through Hoth or the Death Star battle again!
:)
Blasphemy! I want a game with JUST Hoth battles and Death Star trench runs.
Seriously, there is something about those two scenarios that have a sense of personality. They have a sense of uniqueness, not the typical "patrol-n-kill" missions you see in most space sims/shooters. There were some ship capturing missions in the original X-wing, and capital ship destruction missions in Wing Commander series, that made for interesting and compelling gameplay. Too often the plot merely links uninteresting missions together, rather than the missions themselves being extensions of the plot.
How many times have we had to play through the nearly identical "Filler" mission: Fleet entered a new sector and need you to patrol. Nav 1 = empty, Nav 2 = 2 enemies, Nav 3 = 6 enemies, radio transmission, new objective nav 4 = 8 enemies
I want a good space sim, not another Rebel Assault clone. Maybe one in the post-OT time period, or heck I can live with an X-wing v Tie Fighter remake
Moons orbit planets, asteroids orbit the sun.
There does need to be some cutoff at where something is considered a moon and where its just a rock going around a planet, otherwise all the stuff in Saturn's ring could be considered moons... hmm maybe I could name one "Servognome" and request a goverment grant of $50,000 to study the rock^H^H^H^H moon.
I think all this classification stuff probably has to do with how scientists can get more grant money. Kinda how there are 6 great lakes
Now to rekindle your childhood nightmares, the Nintendo Cereal commercial
like many of the things I was taught in grade school, when it came to this, at least at the school I went to, the information they taught me was quite false
You mean the sky isn't blue because the earth has blue oceans. Now that I look back, most of the half-truth explanations we got in grade school was because the teacher didn't really know.
I agree, the depth of the Rifts universe was awesome. The universe well beautifully detailed in the books, but like you said, the combat mechanics were slow. Unlike D&D where you could get somewhere in a couple hours, Rifts always bogged down in combat that would get stretched over a few days.
I quit, the level grind to get my "center line" char up to 50 so I could be a complete line and not just a dotted one took too long. And the nasty lag made it too difficult for me to play the twitch based paddle. I'm also tired of all the 1337 players making a "ball" character just to take advantage of the bottom of screen warp bug. When are the devs going to wake up and realize there is an issue when 75% of players are playing "Ball" chars. Please fix the bug or nerf them!
Dude, they're completely different games.
Gather resources, create buildings, pump out troops, zerg rush, win. Its the essentially the same game, just different graphics and "plot"
I was illustrating how easy it is to create an "original" game, just like you said because the mechanics can be the same just with different window dressing.
The original poster was using the tinfoil hat argument that we are seeing remakes because of copyright infringment. My counter to the argument was that you can create an "original" game by just changing some graphics and gave some examples where the play style is similar to an existing game, with only some minor gameplay and graphical differences.
Copyright isn't something that comes into play when creating new games, unless the developer is stupid and does something blatantly obvious.
I think part of the problem is the current copyright craziness. It is easy and low risk to buy solid rights to an old movie
That's a big stretch. The reason you go with a well known title or franchise is because of name recognition. You say "Scarface" and people are excited just because of familiarity with the movie. Just stamping Matrix on "Enter the Matrix" probably got it 1million+ copies sold.
It's difficult to show copyright infringement in entertainment. Is Halo really that different from Doom? Is Age of Empires really that different from Command & Conquer? Galaga different from Space Invaders? Basically just change the graphics a little and tweak some of the rules.
The risk isn't getting sued because of copyright infringement, the risk is that it is much harder to develop a brand name from scratch. Its easier to make a movie or games with an existing brand (with associated characters and setting), than to try and develop new brand, and new characters and settings that people will buy into.
Beyond good & evil and System Shock were well regarded games but failed with regards to sales, while Driv3r and crappy Star Wars games sell much better just on name alone
If you are a publishing company would you rather publish a Star Trek, Star Wars, Terminator, or Matrix title that guarantees you 1million+ copies sold, or pray that an brand new game title becomes popular?
Sec. 1343. - Fraud by wire, radio, or television Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both
Since the entire deal was in virutal currency (owned by eve online) it is governed by their EULA (see relavent portion below). No property or money was defrauded since ownership remained entirely in control of the software maker.
B. Rights to Certain Content
You have no interest in the value of your time spent playing the Game, for example, by the building up of the experience level of your character and the items your character accumulates during your time playing the Game. Your Account, and all attributes of your Account, including all corporations, actions, groups, titles and characters, and all objects, currency and items acquired, developed or delivered by or to characters as a result of play through your Accounts, are the sole and exclusive property of CCP, including any and all copyrights and intellectual property rights in or to any and all of the same, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Probably had to change his name, since now everybody knows he's the one with all the ill-gotten money.
Poor guy, happy as heck noob with 300M, suddenly getting death threats and confused as hell why
The only reason real currency has value is because we trust that the goverment maintains it as a limited resource. In MMOs we trust the developers have made the in game currency a limited resource so we attach value to it. The fact that in game currency can be exchanged for real currency which in turn can be exchanged for real products means there is value.
The biggest difference is as you mentioned, for legal reasons, the publishing company owns all rights to the in game "property," therefore individual players can't sue about scams like this since "property" has never really changed owners (always owned by the game company)
Trademark isn't like patents just being first isn't enough.
IANAL but if multiple companies have been using the term gmail for an extended period of time, with nobody claiming and defending ownership, then it has become generic. So it is possible that nobody gets the trademark.
My post was in reply to the grandparent which stated that rather than crash testing and improving safety we should have better infrastructure.
There is a middle ground between the 6000lb crush all vehicle and 500lb speeding balsa model. No, weight alone doesn't make you safer, but adding safety features adds weight. You are more likely to survive running into a wall in a camry than you are a motorcycle, weight differential isn't why, its because you have a "cage" around the driver that makes the force destroy car rather than person.
Even if the two vehicles are the same size (no weight differential) the safety features of two heavier cars (crumple zones, airbags, etc)would make the crash more survivable than 2 cars stripped down to minimal weight forgoing safety.
IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE!
That still doesn't eliminate the safety concerns. You still have big problems when you have 2 1000lb solar vehicles going 60 miles an hour crashing into each other. Maybe instead of killing one driver, you end up killing both. Or a solar vehicle crashing into a tree, you still have the inherent risk of speed and no protection.
When it's Bus vs. Bicycle, the bus ALWAYS wins.
We have also learned that "Solar Powered Car" vs "Chrysler Minivan" the minivan wins.
Road density isn't a good comparison, there are huge areas of the US that aren't populated, thus there is no need for roads there. You would probably find the road density is proportional to population density.
The better comparison is automobiles per captita where Germany is 1st, US second, followed by france and canada. Although vehicle miles travelled is higher in the US.