11–20 of 62 posts
We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.
Any game devs: This was the single most fun mechanic I've played in years. Please please please make an FPS where you can hotswap between characters like that. For some reason apparently this awesome feature didn't even make it into the PC version of the game. I'd love to play a game with that mechanic again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.
It's more like renting out apartments and then tearing down the building while people are still living in it. There are laws against that.
We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.
What bothers me about this is that people bought the game, but they can't play it because EA doesn't want to run servers for it and prohibits everyone else from doing so. I very much preferred the old days when players had to run their own servers. It was less convenient, but made for great community and avoided situations like this.
Well it's not about server, but about MASTER servers. Those used to discover "players own servers" in the internet.
We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.
We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.
There's only so much space on the island of Manhattan. It can't fit everybody on the planet.
Digital property is reproducible at zero cost. We could have a copy of Battlefield 2 for every man, woman, cat, and dog on this planet, at effectively the same cost that it takes to create the first copy.
Anyone play Battlefield 2 on the PS2 I think it was? You could look at any allied character on the battlefield and hit a button and you'd take over control of the character. So you could be a soldier on the ground being pinned down by a machine gun nest, look up to an allied helicopter, hit the button, become the pilot, launch missiles at the nest, then look down to a tank, become the driver, then back to the soldier…
We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.
We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.
3 years in this instance were the alternate Battlefield servers being run outside of EA, which might be considered a reasonable space of time without the publisher taking action to the point where the alternative servers might be considered the inheritors of the intellectual property?
It's a bit of a stretch, but perhaps there is some validity here. I don't feel too strongly about it, so I hope you don't feel like I am trying to shut you down.