It's all good.
I'd say the person who destroyed the database is responsible. But I know what you mean - breakages happen. Generally I'd think that if you run a game server like that they keep redundant backup systems.
Anyway, the whole point of this post is not that I think EULAs will change, although they'll have to, but that I think eventually the laws will be put in place to govern virtual property. They'll have to eventually if these things are worth real money, but I don't think this will happen for several years, when people who understand games take office.
From the linked article:
"The victim worked many hours to "earn" the object. The victim used it daily and depended on it. He derived happiness and satisfaction from it. So why shouldn't depriving him of it be punishable by law? If you say, "but it's just something he used in a game," I'll say that golf is also just a game. Want to see what happens to me when I steal a new set of golf clubs?
If you say, "but the Bonebiter doesn't even exist," I'll say it exists in exactly the same way that the songs and software I download off Bittorrent exist. And yet stealing them is a crime. The only difference is that when I steal a song, nobody else is deprived of the song. When that guy stole John's Bonebiter, he was left unarmed and forced to go find a replacement. That theft actually hurts more, not less."
Under current laws, yes it is the property of Blizzard, but the whole point of the article is that eventually these laws will change to reflect the fact that these things share all of the qualities of possesions except location and form. 90% of the money in our economy is just data in servers.
In this particular postition, where it's a part of the game, I don't think it should be, but what about, for example, a guy who lends his sword to a friend who then sells it for about $150? Shouldn't he be entitled to at least some of that money?
Who cares if the actual sword itself is just a piece of data on some server? So is 90% of the money in the US economy.
Reminds me of an article posted about how MMORPG's will eventually take over the world.
If the object has real world value and takes time and work to obtain, shouldn't it be a crime to steal it?
Let's see... 1 million Dvd's sold in a day at an average of $40 per set..
5 million sold since it has been released.
So, Fox has made somewhere around $200 million off that series so far..
Most companies consider $200 million a fairly decent amount to make off a series that has had a multiyear run.. For a show that was cancelled before it even got a run is pretty far removed from the norm.
You really need to do that math, but that would require a bit more processing than you seem to be able to manage.
Not to flame, but it's pretty obvious that you don't understand sarcasm. Just to give you a little hint, it's when someone says something that they don't really mean. Usually they depend on some sort of obvious fact that would make what they said idiotic to indicate that they are employing it. Hope you find this helpful...
This means the PATRIOT act did not pass due to GWB. The PATRIOT act passed because a majority in the House and Senate thought it was a good idea, and the President agreed.
Your explanation is altogether oversimplified. First of all, the President is certainly able to put pressure on the Senate and the House to get certain bills through, something I'm sure was done with regards to the Patriot Act. Next, there's the tendency of politicians to "go with the flow," for which your party has constantly criticized those on the opposite side of the aisle. Politicians want to stay in office, and "flip flop" to try and stay with the public sentiment. This also certainly happened in this case. Consider the timing of the bill. Who in the aftermath of 9/11 would vote against a bill that purports to combat terrorism? Seriously, it was called the Patriot act. What do you suppose they called people who voted against it?
How did we go from philanthropy to trolling about various social issues? I half expect the next post here to say something like "the nazis are cool!" Honestly if you have political fights to pick this probably isn't the best place or way to start them. There's always someone who believes the exact opposite of you...
Maybe this is slightly illegal, but let's get some vigilante justice going and hack the spammers / spywarelords. Especially with spyware, you could probably modify the program to do something crazy to them...
It was an analogy for asking something to do the impossible. Dismissing it because it doesn't work on one obscure piece of technology misses the larger picture of what it does promise to do.
That's faulty logic. First of all it doesn't say "no performance hit" it says "VIRTUALLY no performance hit." Not only that, but it's concerned with the software translation aspect, and some sort of idiotic storage system really isn't the fault of that software now is it? That's like saying their claim isn't true because it won't work on a computer with no RAM.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when has posting on /. been productive?
It's all good. I'd say the person who destroyed the database is responsible. But I know what you mean - breakages happen. Generally I'd think that if you run a game server like that they keep redundant backup systems. Anyway, the whole point of this post is not that I think EULAs will change, although they'll have to, but that I think eventually the laws will be put in place to govern virtual property. They'll have to eventually if these things are worth real money, but I don't think this will happen for several years, when people who understand games take office.
From the linked article: "The victim worked many hours to "earn" the object. The victim used it daily and depended on it. He derived happiness and satisfaction from it. So why shouldn't depriving him of it be punishable by law? If you say, "but it's just something he used in a game," I'll say that golf is also just a game. Want to see what happens to me when I steal a new set of golf clubs? If you say, "but the Bonebiter doesn't even exist," I'll say it exists in exactly the same way that the songs and software I download off Bittorrent exist. And yet stealing them is a crime. The only difference is that when I steal a song, nobody else is deprived of the song. When that guy stole John's Bonebiter, he was left unarmed and forced to go find a replacement. That theft actually hurts more, not less." Under current laws, yes it is the property of Blizzard, but the whole point of the article is that eventually these laws will change to reflect the fact that these things share all of the qualities of possesions except location and form. 90% of the money in our economy is just data in servers.
In this particular postition, where it's a part of the game, I don't think it should be, but what about, for example, a guy who lends his sword to a friend who then sells it for about $150? Shouldn't he be entitled to at least some of that money? Who cares if the actual sword itself is just a piece of data on some server? So is 90% of the money in the US economy.
Reminds me of an article posted about how MMORPG's will eventually take over the world. If the object has real world value and takes time and work to obtain, shouldn't it be a crime to steal it?
This is the same as what has been argued made the Grateful Dead so popular - bootleg live concert tapes passed from fan to fan.
Harry Potter and the Kafkaeque Prison of Self?
Try Dispatch.
Your explanation is altogether oversimplified. First of all, the President is certainly able to put pressure on the Senate and the House to get certain bills through, something I'm sure was done with regards to the Patriot Act. Next, there's the tendency of politicians to "go with the flow," for which your party has constantly criticized those on the opposite side of the aisle. Politicians want to stay in office, and "flip flop" to try and stay with the public sentiment. This also certainly happened in this case. Consider the timing of the bill. Who in the aftermath of 9/11 would vote against a bill that purports to combat terrorism? Seriously, it was called the Patriot act. What do you suppose they called people who voted against it?
How did we go from philanthropy to trolling about various social issues? I half expect the next post here to say something like "the nazis are cool!" Honestly if you have political fights to pick this probably isn't the best place or way to start them. There's always someone who believes the exact opposite of you...
Maybe this is slightly illegal, but let's get some vigilante justice going and hack the spammers / spywarelords. Especially with spyware, you could probably modify the program to do something crazy to them...
It was an analogy for asking something to do the impossible. Dismissing it because it doesn't work on one obscure piece of technology misses the larger picture of what it does promise to do.
That's faulty logic. First of all it doesn't say "no performance hit" it says "VIRTUALLY no performance hit." Not only that, but it's concerned with the software translation aspect, and some sort of idiotic storage system really isn't the fault of that software now is it? That's like saying their claim isn't true because it won't work on a computer with no RAM.