You nailed it. Legally Blizzard would be the only wronged party. This isn't even that theoretical. The company in question is located in the the States and there have been two separate cases that have decided that EULA are legally binding contracts in the States' legal system.
Now if the group installed malware to get the login info that's obviously a completely different story.
Some bits of their ToS
"The activities and games on the Site or on other Services are just for you to play with while on the Site. You can't sell them, give them to anyone, trade them for anything or pretend you made them."
"Unless otherwise specified in writing on the Site, all materials that are part of the Site (including past, present
and future versions), including, without limitation: graphics; layout; text; images; audio and/or video; designs;
advertising copy; logos; domain names; trade names and marks; service marks and trade identities; any and all
copyrightable material (including source and object code); the "look and feel" of the Site; the compilation,
assembly and arrangement of the materials of the Site; and all other materials related to the Site (collectively,
the "Site Materials") are owned, controlled or licensed by Sulake and are protected from unauthorized use, copying
and dissemination by copyright, trademark, patent, publicity and other laws, rules, regulations and international
treaties. Your ability to use the Site Materials is governed by these Terms of Use. The entire contents of the
Services (including the Site Materials) are copyrighted as a collective work under the United States copyright laws
and/or similar laws of other jurisdictions. Sulake owns a copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement and
enhancement of such content, as well as in the content original to Sulake. Third-party content providers own the
copyright in content that is original to them. Habbo(r), Habbo Hotel(tm) and Sulake(tm) are trademarks and service
marks of Sulake or its parent or its or their affiliates. All rights are reserved. All other trademarks and service
marks appearing on the Services are the property of their respective owners, including, in some instances, Sulake.
All rights are reserved. Use of any of our trademarks, service marks or names as "metatags" on other web sites is
prohibited. You may not display our Services or content in frames or "in-line links" without express written
permission from Sulake"
"You agree not to encumber, license, modify, publish, copy, sell, transfer, transmit or in any way exploit, any of
the content of the Services (including the Site Materials other than your own User Content (defined below)), nor
will you attempt to do so. You agree not to copy, redistribute, publish or otherwise exploit material which you
download from the Services"
What does the EULA/TOS say? Most have a clause stating that you own none of items/characters/anything in the game. You are merely paying for access to the game.
2) I still don't understand. In your first post it seems you're saying that copyright holders are obligated to tell people that copyright infringes their free speech. Any other reading doesn't make sense. In the second post you seem to be saying that people have a rights associated with their works but if they exercise them they loose them. That's oxymoronic. What am I missing? Can you give me an example?
5) If they lie about what your right are entitled to I agree the copyright should be lost. However they are not obligated to educate you. The CR holder should be silent except to file suit against infringers.
6)Nope. I agree with the premise but Britney's video is protected. It's clearly art. Bad art and art you don't like is still art. Bad art and art you don't like is still protected. You're just making an opinion call here. The example you're looking for is using copyright to try and punish someone who goes public with a boiler plate legal doc. Saying that the copy they gave to the press is an unauthorized copy of the law firms copyright protected work.
We need to ask why that is. Is it because nobody is contacting their representative to say "hang on a minute here..."? Or is it because the arguments we put forward are viewed as being so pathetically weak that they may as well be ignored? Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.
You're making it too complex. The pro-copyright lobby gives politicians more money than the anti-copyright lobby. It's just that simple.
1. Excellent 2. WTF? How does this work exactly? As far as I can tell it just eliminates usage of the term IP? 3. Excellent 4. Too short. 5. WTF? Please explain what this means. Are you trying to outlaw copy protection? 6. This is just nonsensical. Things you don't like are protected by copyright.
The auto target system works in multiplayer. Yes you can actually lock onto other humans. There is zero skill involved in shooting someone.
The one game I tried with Expert targeting it game me a 100xp expert targeting bonus. The problem is that every game I've played with normal targeting I've received a 100xp normal targeting bonus.
For instance, we have a very small population that actually cares about MTV or VH1, but we can't offer Nick which is very popular without the first two. ESPN is one of the worst. Roughly $4 of your monthly cable bill goes straight to that one channel. But, to carry ESPN the cable company and eventually the customer are required to buy the other ESPN channels like ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, etc. at $0.50-$1.00 each
Stop letting the content providers hold you hostage. Without you they have no customers.
In the last 12 or so years I've had one really bad case. So bad it required government involvement to be solved. That was due to an employee completely fucking up an account switch over.
Other than that Charter has the best internet in town. It's gone down once in the 6 years I've been here. I'm constantly able to max out the connection. No clue how their TV is.
This in a market where they have no competition. The only other non-option is the phone company. They will sell you a DSL line that's 5% the speed of Charter.
I can't agree to that. CCP cannot design something in a reasonable fashion that is fundamentally broken. No one can make it work.
First off it's a flat out nerf to PvP. That alone prohibits any sort of reason in the feature. PvP keeps EvE running. Without PvP the game falls apart. PvP benefits everyone, yes _everyone_ in EvE. Even the uber carebears. Where do their officer fittings come from? Carebears run missions to generate isk to buy bigger ships to generate isk faster so they can buy even bigger ships, etc. The isk the UCB spends goes directly to industrialists and the PvPers who farm officers. The market is the hardest core PvP in EvE. The PvPers farm to sell to the UCBs to fund their PvP habit. By nerfing the people who cause money to be moved, who allow UCB to have something to buy, and who allow the industrials to have customers it hurts the game as a whole.
It fails on a logical/philosophical level. Jail is a punishment. It's a crude tool to remove people from society to prevent them from harming people. First since harm is impossible in EvE the need to remove people is nonexistent. Second since EvE is a computer program they can enforce both laws and punishments exactly and absolutely. Either through making it impossible to break the law or by making it impossible to escape repercussions, depends on which serves better for that game mechanic. Second jail is a way of conditioning behavior. PvP is not a behavior that CCP wants to punish. PvP is is a behavior that CCP wants to encourage. Look at the new insurance changes. If CCP wants to prohibit behavior they can code an instant and ultimate punishment or simply make the behavior impossible.
Game mechanic wise it doesn't make sense. Removing control from a player is something you have to be very very careful with. The most powerful and annoying features in games are the stuns, jams, mind control, target damp, charm, web, confusion, scram and other such effects. They're the most annoying because they prohibit you from playing the game and in some games give control of your character to another player. They're extremely annoying when used with 5-15 second durations. Now imagine that for an hour, or a day.
This is the most important point. A game mechanic that prevents people from playing your game is counter productive to people playing your game. If you tell a player they can't play your game they're going to find something else to do. Stop playing your game. Stop paying you.
You must look at the worst case. It will be abused. Every game mechanic is abusable through social engineering. Innocents will end up in jail. When you end up in jail unfairly it the exacerbates the already existing problems.
Even your solutions have problems:
A breaking out game mechanic is counter productive. This is a situation where you're asking a bunch of PvP players to partake in PvE content. Don't force players to engage is play styles they don't want to.
"you can just suicide out" - Coutner productive to add a punishment when engaging in a behavior that CCP encourages. Just code something that pods them rather than spend all the time and effort on coding a prison system.
Pay off corp - Same as suicide.
Waiting - Hi we here at CCP have decided you can't play our game.
So no I won't agree CCP can do it well. The whole idea is broken and counter productive to the goals CCP has stated for their game.
Post death - You can play Post scam - You can play Losing significant progress in the character - Impossible Losing significant money - You can play Post backstabbing - You can play In jail - Can't play.
A game mechanic that prevents people from playing is in direct conflict to the goal of having paying players.
If your big counter is they can pod themselves then just have concord pod them. Why the need for a game mechanic that PREVENTS YOU FROM PLAYING THE GAME?
Do you honestly not see the problem with designing a game that you can't play?
Yes I said that but you're taking that one sentence and ignoring the post. The post was about how CSM members can promote stupid ideas for the game.
It was a specific example of a CSM member pursuing something obviously harmful to the game. It was a discussion about the CSM, which is what the article is about. You tried to take it into a discussion about game mechanics, which is off topic.
Until the point where all bounty systems in any game have failed. If the bounty is valuable enough to be worth doing then your friend or your self, via alt, will claim it.
Your position is not consistent with the candidate and former CSM member I am speaking of. They want to eliminate PvP. The problem is even the PvE people who hate PvP require it for their parts of the game to work.
Regardless jail time can't work. You're proposing a game mechanic which forces people not to play your game?
Again. You're arguing semantics. Represent has many meanings. The president may represent the country at things like trade talks and treaty signings he does not represent the view of all Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
You nailed it. Legally Blizzard would be the only wronged party. This isn't even that theoretical. The company in question is located in the the States and there have been two separate cases that have decided that EULA are legally binding contracts in the States' legal system.
Now if the group installed malware to get the login info that's obviously a completely different story.
Some bits of their ToS
"The activities and games on the Site or on other Services are just for you to play with while on the Site. You can't sell them, give them to anyone, trade them for anything or pretend you made them."
"Unless otherwise specified in writing on the Site, all materials that are part of the Site (including past, present
and future versions), including, without limitation: graphics; layout; text; images; audio and/or video; designs;
advertising copy; logos; domain names; trade names and marks; service marks and trade identities; any and all
copyrightable material (including source and object code); the "look and feel" of the Site; the compilation,
assembly and arrangement of the materials of the Site; and all other materials related to the Site (collectively,
the "Site Materials") are owned, controlled or licensed by Sulake and are protected from unauthorized use, copying
and dissemination by copyright, trademark, patent, publicity and other laws, rules, regulations and international
treaties. Your ability to use the Site Materials is governed by these Terms of Use. The entire contents of the
Services (including the Site Materials) are copyrighted as a collective work under the United States copyright laws
and/or similar laws of other jurisdictions. Sulake owns a copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement and
enhancement of such content, as well as in the content original to Sulake. Third-party content providers own the
copyright in content that is original to them. Habbo(r), Habbo Hotel(tm) and Sulake(tm) are trademarks and service
marks of Sulake or its parent or its or their affiliates. All rights are reserved. All other trademarks and service
marks appearing on the Services are the property of their respective owners, including, in some instances, Sulake.
All rights are reserved. Use of any of our trademarks, service marks or names as "metatags" on other web sites is
prohibited. You may not display our Services or content in frames or "in-line links" without express written
permission from Sulake"
"You agree not to encumber, license, modify, publish, copy, sell, transfer, transmit or in any way exploit, any of
the content of the Services (including the Site Materials other than your own User Content (defined below)), nor
will you attempt to do so. You agree not to copy, redistribute, publish or otherwise exploit material which you
download from the Services"
According to most EULA/ToS for games the end users own nothing. They are paying for the access to the game.
The people running the game had ownership before the event. They had ownership after the event. Theft is impossible.
tl;dr fake things are fake.
What does the EULA/TOS say? Most have a clause stating that you own none of items/characters/anything in the game. You are merely paying for access to the game.
If you don't own it. Then it can't be theft.
2) I still don't understand. In your first post it seems you're saying that copyright holders are obligated to tell people that copyright infringes their free speech. Any other reading doesn't make sense. In the second post you seem to be saying that people have a rights associated with their works but if they exercise them they loose them. That's oxymoronic. What am I missing? Can you give me an example?
5) If they lie about what your right are entitled to I agree the copyright should be lost. However they are not obligated to educate you. The CR holder should be silent except to file suit against infringers.
6)Nope. I agree with the premise but Britney's video is protected. It's clearly art. Bad art and art you don't like is still art. Bad art and art you don't like is still protected. You're just making an opinion call here. The example you're looking for is using copyright to try and punish someone who goes public with a boiler plate legal doc. Saying that the copy they gave to the press is an unauthorized copy of the law firms copyright protected work.
We need to ask why that is. Is it because nobody is contacting their representative to say "hang on a minute here..."? Or is it because the arguments we put forward are viewed as being so pathetically weak that they may as well be ignored? Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.
You're making it too complex. The pro-copyright lobby gives politicians more money than the anti-copyright lobby. It's just that simple.
1. Excellent
2. WTF? How does this work exactly? As far as I can tell it just eliminates usage of the term IP?
3. Excellent
4. Too short.
5. WTF? Please explain what this means. Are you trying to outlaw copy protection?
6. This is just nonsensical. Things you don't like are protected by copyright.
Thanks for the info.
No need to be rude about it though.
Please document this claim.
As of last week it still asked me for the disk.
It's still higher than most of the country.
Not only did the expensive real estate drop in price but the cheap stuff too.
The auto target system works in multiplayer. Yes you can actually lock onto other humans. There is zero skill involved in shooting someone.
The one game I tried with Expert targeting it game me a 100xp expert targeting bonus. The problem is that every game I've played with normal targeting I've received a 100xp normal targeting bonus.
Obviously this completely breaks multiplayer.
For instance, we have a very small population that actually cares about MTV or VH1, but we can't offer Nick which is very popular without the first two. ESPN is one of the worst. Roughly $4 of your monthly cable bill goes straight to that one channel. But, to carry ESPN the cable company and eventually the customer are required to buy the other ESPN channels like ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, etc. at $0.50-$1.00 each
Stop letting the content providers hold you hostage. Without you they have no customers.
In the last 12 or so years I've had one really bad case. So bad it required government involvement to be solved. That was due to an employee completely fucking up an account switch over.
Other than that Charter has the best internet in town. It's gone down once in the 6 years I've been here. I'm constantly able to max out the connection. No clue how their TV is.
This in a market where they have no competition. The only other non-option is the phone company. They will sell you a DSL line that's 5% the speed of Charter.
Apparently you live in the opposite land of me. The DSL here is shit and my cable connection has gone down once in the last 6 years.
The problem with that is that the only people who will sell me anything larger than 1 Mb pipe is . . . the cable company!
I can't agree to that. CCP cannot design something in a reasonable fashion that is fundamentally broken. No one can make it work.
First off it's a flat out nerf to PvP. That alone prohibits any sort of reason in the feature. PvP keeps EvE running. Without PvP the game falls apart. PvP benefits everyone, yes _everyone_ in EvE. Even the uber carebears. Where do their officer fittings come from? Carebears run missions to generate isk to buy bigger ships to generate isk faster so they can buy even bigger ships, etc. The isk the UCB spends goes directly to industrialists and the PvPers who farm officers. The market is the hardest core PvP in EvE. The PvPers farm to sell to the UCBs to fund their PvP habit. By nerfing the people who cause money to be moved, who allow UCB to have something to buy, and who allow the industrials to have customers it hurts the game as a whole.
It fails on a logical/philosophical level. Jail is a punishment. It's a crude tool to remove people from society to prevent them from harming people. First since harm is impossible in EvE the need to remove people is nonexistent. Second since EvE is a computer program they can enforce both laws and punishments exactly and absolutely. Either through making it impossible to break the law or by making it impossible to escape repercussions, depends on which serves better for that game mechanic. Second jail is a way of conditioning behavior. PvP is not a behavior that CCP wants to punish. PvP is is a behavior that CCP wants to encourage. Look at the new insurance changes. If CCP wants to prohibit behavior they can code an instant and ultimate punishment or simply make the behavior impossible.
Game mechanic wise it doesn't make sense. Removing control from a player is something you have to be very very careful with. The most powerful and annoying features in games are the stuns, jams, mind control, target damp, charm, web, confusion, scram and other such effects. They're the most annoying because they prohibit you from playing the game and in some games give control of your character to another player. They're extremely annoying when used with 5-15 second durations. Now imagine that for an hour, or a day.
This is the most important point. A game mechanic that prevents people from playing your game is counter productive to people playing your game. If you tell a player they can't play your game they're going to find something else to do. Stop playing your game. Stop paying you.
You must look at the worst case. It will be abused. Every game mechanic is abusable through social engineering. Innocents will end up in jail. When you end up in jail unfairly it the exacerbates the already existing problems.
Even your solutions have problems:
A breaking out game mechanic is counter productive. This is a situation where you're asking a bunch of PvP players to partake in PvE content. Don't force players to engage is play styles they don't want to.
"you can just suicide out" - Coutner productive to add a punishment when engaging in a behavior that CCP encourages. Just code something that pods them rather than spend all the time and effort on coding a prison system.
Pay off corp - Same as suicide.
Waiting - Hi we here at CCP have decided you can't play our game.
So no I won't agree CCP can do it well. The whole idea is broken and counter productive to the goals CCP has stated for their game.
That accurately describes Lost.
In this last post you state that a feature designed around locking people out of the game up does not lock out people.
Thanks for the discussion but this has reached troll level.
Not at all related.
Post death - You can play
Post scam - You can play
Losing significant progress in the character - Impossible
Losing significant money - You can play
Post backstabbing - You can play
In jail - Can't play.
A game mechanic that prevents people from playing is in direct conflict to the goal of having paying players.
If your big counter is they can pod themselves then just have concord pod them. Why the need for a game mechanic that PREVENTS YOU FROM PLAYING THE GAME?
Do you honestly not see the problem with designing a game that you can't play?
What's the upside of a feature which prevent people from playing your game?
Yes I said that but you're taking that one sentence and ignoring the post. The post was about how CSM members can promote stupid ideas for the game.
It was a specific example of a CSM member pursuing something obviously harmful to the game. It was a discussion about the CSM, which is what the article is about. You tried to take it into a discussion about game mechanics, which is off topic.
Right, but I wasn't talking about that case. My point was that jail could work in the game, as long as it's done right.
Yes but I was. If you want a new subject then start your own thread. Please don't take mine offtopic.
Until the point where all bounty systems in any game have failed. If the bounty is valuable enough to be worth doing then your friend or your self, via alt, will claim it.
Your position is not consistent with the candidate and former CSM member I am speaking of. They want to eliminate PvP. The problem is even the PvE people who hate PvP require it for their parts of the game to work.
Regardless jail time can't work. You're proposing a game mechanic which forces people not to play your game?
Again. You're arguing semantics. Represent has many meanings. The president may represent the country at things like trade talks and treaty signings he does not represent the view of all Americans.
No. Decisions are made by people who could loose their house if they make bad choices.
Decisions are made by CCP.