I really don't think either senerio matter. An emulator inevidably leads to wider piracy and that will hurt 100X more than any lost X-box sales every would.
Well, they're allowed to whine. We're equally allowed to say they are whiny little babies that are upset they got caught doing wrong, or conversely that they have a point and that the law is unjust.
>What if a paedophile decided that he didnt believe in the illegality of having sex with kids? Does that mean its his duty to screw them all as his protest? I think not.
He could certainly try, and we could certainly toss him in jail and throw away the key. That doesn't change the point.
>We all have to deal with laws we dont like, laws we hate......but for our society to have integrity, we HAVE to adhere to laws that are crappy...so that the body of law/justice in total can be enforceable.
No we don't. We don't HAVE to do anything. You run the risk of being punished, but you are not actually forced to do it/not do it. Our society has integrity because people as a whole believe in the laws that are made and believe they are just, not the other way around. Just because a law is passed is not a good excuse to blindly obey it. As well, simply because people decide not to obey a law forbidding J-walking does not automatically mean they'll stand idly by and let a murderer run rampant.
Unless you erroneously think that sales will suddenly drop to zero (in which case why are GBAs still selling so bloody fast), the speed at which they cut production really doesn't matter. There is still a throughput, and the cost at the start is now less making overall profit increase.
>No, they're not. They lose more money without selling an XBox that has already been produced.
Yes, but they save that money on the Xbox they don't produce. You can't escape this. If Xbox production were to suddenly stop, right now, then you'd be right, but it isn't. All this would do is slow it down, and thus cut MS's cost, and thus raise overall revenue (if game sales didn't decrease).
>And since it's manifestly impossible for XBox sales to be negative, the statement doesn't make any sense.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. Xbox Sales include the cost of manufacturer, distribution, etc, etc. Fact is, without selling a single Xbox, MS is better off since they sell at a loss.
However, what people forget is that with emulation inevidably comes increased piracy, and with increased piracy comes a decrease in game sales.
Okay, just a little thing: Rule/Laws != Morals. They sometimes coincide, but one does not determine the other. There have been a lot of reprehensible laws made throughout man kind's history. Moral obligations come from what is right and wrong. Legal obligations come from the law. It's up to the individual to judge whether a law equates with what they fell is right and act appropriately.
>Anyway - in the uk...there is no "fair use"
Not true. Even UK has a fair use policy. It may not be called that, or be the exactly the same, but it's there. It's kind of a necessity to have such things as News, critics, research, etc.
>Emulating the Xbox consists of basically nothing other than defeating DRM. The machine itself is already just a standard, albeit crippled, PC.
I would certainly hope they did not get that broad with the interpretation. You could reasonably then charge any vendor that did not implement your protection, no matters how faulty or pathetic, with a violation. I'm sure many a Linux user/contributor would be very happy to find out that they have to implement inherently faulty security protection schemes in the OS simply because it could be seen as a method of getting around the protection.
>But is it really illegal? As others have touched on, is Intel required to fund Go just because Microsoft officials tell them not to in order to avoid a monopoly lawsuit?
I don't know about the states, but in Canada it is. In fact, you're a in big trouble in Canada if you try pretty much anything with the intent to put a competitor out of business. Exclusive dealing (as this would be) is one such tactic that is considered a nono here.
It interesting you mention MMORPGs, but miss one important fact. Xbox doesn't even have one of these to date, and doesn't have many tabled for the future either. So, really, whether MMORPGs need it or not is not a big deal to the Xbox market.
Another thing that others haven't already mentioned is a pure marketing matter.
When I bought my PS2, I had PS. PS2 could do both's functions so it was more convenient to have it hooked up all the time. I then gave away my PS. Well, to me, this isn't all that important, but from a business standpoint that is another system in another customer's hands who will want games for it where the real money is to be made.
I'm sorry, but there is one crucial thing you are forgetting. Land is a real thing, but names are assigned. A domain name is nothing more than an entry on a server that says name-X points to IP-Y. These two are not equivalent by any stretch of the imagination.
In your example, this would be more a matter of the estate coming up and saying you cannot call that hill JRRTokkien hill without their permission, which frankly they are not willing to give. Since, to match our Internet example, the original namer of the hill also did not get permission to use the name, and the name is actually based on JRRTokkien and not some 17th century explorer who happened to have the same name, this is indeed a illegal use of someone else's name to sell your product/service and, whether you got the name by getting by some minimum wage county assessor or not doesn't matter, you still are using it illegally. You therefore should have to change the name of that hill.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't think either senerio matter. An emulator inevidably leads to wider piracy and that will hurt 100X more than any lost X-box sales every would.
Well, they're allowed to whine. We're equally allowed to say they are whiny little babies that are upset they got caught doing wrong, or conversely that they have a point and that the law is unjust.
He could certainly try, and we could certainly toss him in jail and throw away the key. That doesn't change the point.
>We all have to deal with laws we dont like, laws we hate......but for our society to have integrity, we HAVE to adhere to laws that are crappy...so that the body of law/justice in total can be enforceable.
No we don't. We don't HAVE to do anything. You run the risk of being punished, but you are not actually forced to do it/not do it. Our society has integrity because people as a whole believe in the laws that are made and believe they are just, not the other way around. Just because a law is passed is not a good excuse to blindly obey it. As well, simply because people decide not to obey a law forbidding J-walking does not automatically mean they'll stand idly by and let a murderer run rampant.
Unless you erroneously think that sales will suddenly drop to zero (in which case why are GBAs still selling so bloody fast), the speed at which they cut production really doesn't matter. There is still a throughput, and the cost at the start is now less making overall profit increase.
Yes, but they save that money on the Xbox they don't produce. You can't escape this. If Xbox production were to suddenly stop, right now, then you'd be right, but it isn't. All this would do is slow it down, and thus cut MS's cost, and thus raise overall revenue (if game sales didn't decrease).
Actually, it makes perfect sense. Xbox Sales include the cost of manufacturer, distribution, etc, etc. Fact is, without selling a single Xbox, MS is better off since they sell at a loss.
However, what people forget is that with emulation inevidably comes increased piracy, and with increased piracy comes a decrease in game sales.
Okay, just a little thing: Rule/Laws != Morals. They sometimes coincide, but one does not determine the other. There have been a lot of reprehensible laws made throughout man kind's history. Moral obligations come from what is right and wrong. Legal obligations come from the law. It's up to the individual to judge whether a law equates with what they fell is right and act appropriately.
>Anyway - in the uk...there is no "fair use"
Not true. Even UK has a fair use policy. It may not be called that, or be the exactly the same, but it's there. It's kind of a necessity to have such things as News, critics, research, etc.
I would certainly hope they did not get that broad with the interpretation. You could reasonably then charge any vendor that did not implement your protection, no matters how faulty or pathetic, with a violation. I'm sure many a Linux user/contributor would be very happy to find out that they have to implement inherently faulty security protection schemes in the OS simply because it could be seen as a method of getting around the protection.
>But is it really illegal? As others have touched on, is Intel required to fund Go just because Microsoft officials tell them not to in order to avoid a monopoly lawsuit? I don't know about the states, but in Canada it is. In fact, you're a in big trouble in Canada if you try pretty much anything with the intent to put a competitor out of business. Exclusive dealing (as this would be) is one such tactic that is considered a nono here.
It interesting you mention MMORPGs, but miss one important fact. Xbox doesn't even have one of these to date, and doesn't have many tabled for the future either. So, really, whether MMORPGs need it or not is not a big deal to the Xbox market.
Actually, it would be more like saying, Hookers encourage all forms of sexual activity, including that between husband and wife.
Another thing that others haven't already mentioned is a pure marketing matter. When I bought my PS2, I had PS. PS2 could do both's functions so it was more convenient to have it hooked up all the time. I then gave away my PS. Well, to me, this isn't all that important, but from a business standpoint that is another system in another customer's hands who will want games for it where the real money is to be made.
I'm sorry, but there is one crucial thing you are forgetting. Land is a real thing, but names are assigned. A domain name is nothing more than an entry on a server that says name-X points to IP-Y. These two are not equivalent by any stretch of the imagination. In your example, this would be more a matter of the estate coming up and saying you cannot call that hill JRRTokkien hill without their permission, which frankly they are not willing to give. Since, to match our Internet example, the original namer of the hill also did not get permission to use the name, and the name is actually based on JRRTokkien and not some 17th century explorer who happened to have the same name, this is indeed a illegal use of someone else's name to sell your product/service and, whether you got the name by getting by some minimum wage county assessor or not doesn't matter, you still are using it illegally. You therefore should have to change the name of that hill.