Another Massively article on closing MMO's

[thunderforce]

If you believe that the artist should be the sole arbiter of whether it's available and how, I am not necessarily against you.

I don't know, but I suspect what the previous poster is saying is that no-one should be the sole arbiter of whether it's available and how. If we're going to have something like the modern system of copyright, then we should remember its purpose is to promote the availability of art, and it should never be possible to use it to lock things away again.

[Sin Stalker]

I don't know, but I suspect what the previous poster is saying is that no-one should be the sole arbiter of whether it's available and how. If we're going to have something like the modern system of copyright, then we should remember its purpose is to promote the availability of art, and it should never be possible to use it to lock things away again.

I thought the point of our modern system of copyright was a totalitarian/utilitarian method to stimulate creativity and profit.

[thunderforce]

I thought the point of our modern system of copyright was a totalitarian/utilitarian method to stimulate creativity and profit.

America has it "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" although since they also have it "for limited Times" and that rule is effectively moot as long as Disney can afford bri- campaign contributions.

I think we might say, at _best_ the modern system of artificial scarcity can serve to promote the availability of art by incentivising creation.

[Segev]

Less "incentivizing" creation and more "enabling it to be something the originator can make a living from."

Well, I suppose those kind-of amount to the same thing, but my point is, without it, you or I could create the next awesome heart-warming cartoon character and his setting, and within a month see Disney making a mint off of the new cartoon series they've built without so much as letting us know it was in their plans. They're bigger than I am, and they can get the word out, the ads out, they'd be under no obligation to share any profits with us. And we couldn't get a word in edgewise unless we were VERY savvy about reaching people and being believed that we really did it first. Even then, at best, we cold only hope for C-list celebrity status at conventions. Disney's bigger and better-advertised production would be what advertisers wanted to buy space on, and our own productions would be slower and possibly lower-technical-quality (even if we wrote much better scripts or jokes or what-have-you). We'd come off as the fan-fic of our own creation!

That's what copyright law is designed to prevent. If Disney saw our brilliant work and wanted to make their own enormously-profitable cartoon series out of it, they MUST get us to give them permission, which means we have a property they want to buy, license, or otherwise acquire so they can legally use it.

[thunderforce]

Less "incentivizing" creation and more "enabling it to be something the originator can make a living from."

No, not really, that's part of the industry's usual routine about starving artists. Obviously making a living is an incentive; but it is also expected to incentivise rockstars even though they are unlikely to be short of a penny, and to incentivise garage bands even though they will be lucky ever to see a penny. (Arguably, the fate of the second lot is not ideal in the current setup).

Well, I suppose those kind-of amount to the same thing, but my point is, without it, you or I could create the next awesome heart-warming cartoon character and his setting, and within a month see Disney making a mint off of the new cartoon series they've built without so much as letting us know it was in their plans.

If that's your point then I'm afraid you're just talking past me. I'm not trying to argue the overall merits of the current system; that's another discussion. What I'm trying to say is that if you do create the next awesome heart-warming cartoon character and enjoy the protections granted you by copyright law, it should not then be possible to lock away said character completely. The public good is not served by doing so.

[Segev]

Neither is "the public good" served by an inventor keeping his invention private and only using it, himself. And yet, we celebrate "super heroes" who do just that: Tony Stark's Iron Man suit is a prime example.

He has good reasons for doing so, largely centered around a distrust of what certain other powers would do with it if they got it. But any argument that says that an artist should not be allowed to keep his art private could be used to say Stark should not be allowed to keep his Iron Man suit private.

...and I just pictured Robert Downey Junior playing Ned Stark. >_<


*ahem* Anyway. Where was I?

Ah, yes. The creator of a work, the man who performs the labor, unless employed by another to do it for them (and given compensation to which he agreed in order to do it), is the sole rightful arbiter of how that work is to be used. At least, up until the point that he DOES choose to distribute it to others, at which point he has chosen how to use it and that use has given rights to others to do the same.

And even then, such distributions (barring him having transferred full ownership) must be in line with however he agreed to distribute it in the first place. This is due to IP's "intellectual" nature - that is, how easy it is to replicate and build upon without needing a physically scarce item unique to the original creation.

It's complicated, but there are good solid reasons for all of the consideration that goes into it.

[thunderforce]

Neither is "the public good" served by an inventor keeping his invention private and only using it, himself. And yet, we celebrate "super heroes" who do just that: Tony Stark's Iron Man suit is a prime example.

I'm not sure we should regard implausible fictional characters as particularly good role models. However, something like the situation I advocate does exist for inventions; if you choose to patent one, you enjoy the additional protection of the patent - but you must reveal how it was done; you cannot lock the invention away forever. (Leaving aside the discussion of how well patents work for, say, software.)

But any argument that says that an artist should not be allowed to keep his art private

Not an argument I am making. By all means keep it private; but if you publish, using the artificial monopoly granted you by copyright law, you should not then be able to make it private again. (I appreciate that at present much of your mechanism for keeping it private is also granted by copyright law, but that is not set in stone).

It's complicated, but there are good solid reasons for all of the consideration that goes into it.

I think it is at best optimistic to suppose that the current structure of the law (even if we accept that artificial scarcity is the best way to do it, but that's another argument) is optimal - especially in a situation where we have an example, dear to our hearts, of how it gets it wrong.

[Golden Girl]

As each year passes, the current outdated form of copyright becomes harder and harder to enforce.

[srmalloy]

America has it "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" although since they also have it "for limited Times" and that rule is effectively moot as long as Disney can afford bri- campaign contributions.

You mean the "Mickey Mouse Perpetual Protection Act"?

[TonyV]

Neither is "the public good" served by an inventor keeping his invention private and only using it, himself. And yet, we celebrate "super heroes" who do just that: Tony Stark's Iron Man suit is a prime example.

He has good reasons for doing so, largely centered around a distrust of what certain other powers would do with it if they got it. But any argument that says that an artist should not be allowed to keep his art private could be used to say Stark should not be allowed to keep his Iron Man suit private.

This is a bad example for a lot of reasons.  First of all, it's make-believe.  I doubt that many people who go to see Iron Man put much thought into patent and ownership issues while watching it.  But a lot of artists and inventors face these issues in a much more realistic setting every day.  Second of all, the Iron Man suit could pose a significant danger to the public if unleashed on everyone, if the technology behind it were to suddenly be freely distributed.  Third of all, it's extraordinarily unrealistic.  Nothing like Iron Man could really happen, because we all know that the government would most certainly have access to this technology itself through superior research or, if necessary, *ahem* appropriation from Tony Stark.

Ah, yes. The creator of a work, the man who performs the labor, unless employed by another to do it for them (and given compensation to which he agreed in order to do it), is the sole rightful arbiter of how that work is to be used...And even then, such distributions (barring him having transferred full ownership) must be in line with however he agreed to distribute it in the first place.

I don't think that this is being disputed, at least not by most people.  I have never said that NCsoft doesn't have the legal right to shut down the game and shutter Paragon Studios.  What I do argue about, however, is that I feel that NCsoft has a moral responsibility to do everything they can that's feasible to keep the game going.  This means that if it's turning a profit, don't shut it down.  If it gets to the point where it's not turning a profit, they have a moral obligation to take steps so that it will.  If they just can't, then they need to make it available for acquisition by someone who is willing to buy it for a reasonable price and who can.  Shutting down the game and shuttering the studio should have been the absolute, dead last resort reserved only if NCsoft were literally about to go bankrupt and simply had no way to sell the game and its IP to someone else.

The reason why is because as I mentioned in my comment to the article, NCsoft isn't the only stakeholder in the game.  A lot of players invested a lot of money, time, and energy into the game.  In fact, I've mentioned this before, but the fact that the game was profitable mathematically means that the players invested more money into the game than NCsoft did.  We created works of art ourselves in the game, and now NCsoft has taken the canvas they rented us, art and all, and either destroyed it or locked it away.  No matter how you slice it or dice it, that's just not right.

Worse, they've poisoned the well, so to speak, when it comes to MMORPGs.  How many people here have expressed disdain with MMOs after the game shut down because of NCsoft's actions?  I know that other than a few days of messing around with some games, the only game I seriously played for a while is Neverwinter, and I haven't even logged into it for several weeks now.  Thanks to NCsoft, I'm not so eager to take up another MMO, especially an MMORPG, precisely because I've experienced firsthand what happens when a company simply decides for no good reason that a game is going to be irrevocably gone.  They've taken the hypothetical case of, "Here's what a company can legally do if they don't really care about their customers" and turned it into a depressingly concrete reality.  This doesn't just affect NCsoft, it affects the industry as a whole.  If I owned another publisher trying to get people to play my MMOs, their actions would piss me off even though I am a competitor, because I'd be afraid of what affect they have on my own games.

But I digress.  The point is that companies (and individuals) every day engage in activities that are technically legal but morally reprehensible.  Most of the people who are boycotting NCsoft's products aren't doing so because they think that NCsoft broke the law, they're doing it because they were burned.  And one thing that gets on my nerves is that some people are of the opinion that those who were burned shouldn't speak out about it because, hey, it was legal.  I strongly disagree.  I think that people speaking out against is exactly what needs to happen, and the louder, the better, because it's the only way for NCsoft and the industry as a whole to realize that while treating customers like crap may be legal, there is a price to pay, to keep them from doing so.

And yes, copyright and patent law desperately needs to be rewritten.  The simple fact is that no matter how many allegories or analogies we spit back and forth, what happened with NCsoft isn't exactly like anything that was relevant fifty or a hundred or two hundred years ago.  I wish the law did take into account media in which users participate and generate content.  I wish that the law would account for how companies are trying so very, very hard to turn our ownership society into a rent-everything culture, where ownership is only reserved for the rich and powerful.

[Golden Girl]

moral responsibility

Since when has that ever mattered to big business?

[thunderforce]

Worse, they've poisoned the well, so to speak, when it comes to MMORPGs.

It amazes me that other publishers didn't make more hay out of that. "Hey, look at us, Everquest 1 is still going! We promise it will be in another ten years time!"

[JaguarX]

This is a bad example for a lot of reasons.  First of all, it's make-believe.  I doubt that many people who go to see Iron Man put much thought into patent and ownership issues while watching it.  But a lot of artists and inventors face these issues in a much more realistic setting every day.  Second of all, the Iron Man suit could pose a significant danger to the public if unleashed on everyone, if the technology behind it were to suddenly be freely distributed.  Third of all, it's extraordinarily unrealistic.  Nothing like Iron Man could really happen, because we all know that the government would most certainly have access to this technology itself through superior research or, if necessary, *ahem* appropriation from Tony Stark.

I don't think that this is being disputed, at least not by most people.  I have never said that NCsoft doesn't have the legal right to shut down the game and shutter Paragon Studios.  What I do argue about, however, is that I feel that NCsoft has a moral responsibility to do everything they can that's feasible to keep the game going.  This means that if it's turning a profit, don't shut it down.  If it gets to the point where it's not turning a profit, they have a moral obligation to take steps so that it will.  If they just can't, then they need to make it available for acquisition by someone who is willing to buy it for a reasonable price and who can.  Shutting down the game and shuttering the studio should have been the absolute, dead last resort reserved only if NCsoft were literally about to go bankrupt and simply had no way to sell the game and its IP to someone else.

The reason why is because as I mentioned in my comment to the article, NCsoft isn't the only stakeholder in the game.  A lot of players invested a lot of money, time, and energy into the game.  In fact, I've mentioned this before, but the fact that the game was profitable mathematically means that the players invested more money into the game than NCsoft did.  We created works of art ourselves in the game, and now NCsoft has taken the canvas they rented us, art and all, and either destroyed it or locked it away.  No matter how you slice it or dice it, that's just not right.

Worse, they've poisoned the well, so to speak, when it comes to MMORPGs.  How many people here have expressed disdain with MMOs after the game shut down because of NCsoft's actions?  I know that other than a few days of messing around with some games, the only game I seriously played for a while is Neverwinter, and I haven't even logged into it for several weeks now.  Thanks to NCsoft, I'm not so eager to take up another MMO, especially an MMORPG, precisely because I've experienced firsthand what happens when a company simply decides for no good reason that a game is going to be irrevocably gone.  They've taken the hypothetical case of, "Here's what a company can legally do if they don't really care about their customers" and turned it into a depressingly concrete reality.  This doesn't just affect NCsoft, it affects the industry as a whole.  If I owned another publisher trying to get people to play my MMOs, their actions would piss me off even though I am a competitor, because I'd be afraid of what affect they have on my own games.

But I digress.  The point is that companies (and individuals) every day engage in activities that are technically legal but morally reprehensible.  Most of the people who are boycotting NCsoft's products aren't doing so because they think that NCsoft broke the law, they're doing it because they were burned.  And one thing that gets on my nerves is that some people are of the opinion that those who were burned shouldn't speak out about it because, hey, it was legal.  I strongly disagree.  I think that people speaking out against is exactly what needs to happen, and the louder, the better, because it's the only way for NCsoft and the industry as a whole to realize that while treating customers like crap may be legal, there is a price to pay, to keep them from doing so.

And yes, copyright and patent law desperately needs to be rewritten.  The simple fact is that no matter how many allegories or analogies we spit back and forth, what happened with NCsoft isn't exactly like anything that was relevant fifty or a hundred or two hundred years ago.  I wish the law did take into account media in which users participate and generate content.  I wish that the law would account for how companies are trying so very, very hard to turn our ownership society into a rent-everything culture, where ownership is only reserved for the rich and powerful.

Yup moral and legal are sometimes two different things.

It would be nice if everyone did the morally right thing, but then, even morals are not cut and dry.  Who morals to follow? That person? This person?

Yep, I think they should, on a moral standpoint not shut the game down. But sometimes people, even here confuse moral and legal. It's one thing to say that it was immoral, by their definition, as even morals vary from person to person, and to say it was illegal or should be illegal for them to shut it down. When the word "legal" or it's evil twin "illegal" is thrown around then the focus tends to not be about morals and end up about...well whether it was legal or not. Then some say it should be illegal because it was immoral. Well, deep down personally, in a way I definately agree. But then again going back to the first few question. By who or what definition of moral?

Yes customers put a lot of money sweat creative brain work into their creations and it was immoral, by my definition for them to take it away. In fact, I think it was immoral for the allowment of them or any company of games able to just shut down a game on the whim and it should have never been allowed to be written in their TOS, EULA, what ever its' called enforceable or not, believalble or not, it shouldnt have been allowed in the first place. How did it get that way? Well I havea few theories one that customers/consumers took the carrot instead of looking at the possible fine print. And it went from indy games, to corporations where it will be nearly a cold day in hell before they change it now.

Legally, though, lets say they had the moral obligattion to keep the game running. Well then, with laws cant single out one industry's products and ignore the rest. Exemptions are already in placer of live and death things, which unfortunately I dont think games fall into that category as addictive as they can be sometimes. Then what? Take the right away for any company or anyone to discontinue their work? A guy copyright a song, but decide to not publically release it at the moment, should he be forced to relinguish his work? A company wants to clear their product line to make rom for another, should they give up all rights to the said product because they dont wish to make it anymore and want to clear the path for a new product? Sounds good in theory, it really do. I can enjoy Surge until I buy the farm and my kids can enjoy it and their kids can enjoy it and their kids can enjoy it until 3,000 years later it's still around and being made. Then will it stop at businesses? Small business resturant wants to shutter because he wants to retire and live peaceful, but then get a letter saying he cant because people liked eating there so he either must stay open or give away his work, a place he built and worked at for 50+ years and watch someone else make money off his work while he gets nothing. Or anything a person is not using after a certain time period, they must give away or continue using for the sake of their neighbor's enjoyment. Might went into tin foil terriotory but history has learned that even the most noble causes end up as big regrets from short sighted thinking.

But really moral and legalities are sometimes best kept separate. Think about the current laws passed through where people are saying that a person cant or shouldnt be legally allowed to get married to another because it's morally wrong in their eyes. Sometime the separation of morals and legal are good. And all the other rights now taken for granted that someone in the past said it would be morally wrong if legally allowed. Or a laws that are now defunct that stood around for as long as they did because someone decided it was the morally right thing to do. Sometimes it's good they intertwine.

The sad part is that unfortunately, businesses have a lot of the politics i ntheir pockets, so we have to figure something out or this will happen again to another game and the next game and so on with the same results. The player base getting pissed about it, saying it's morally wrong or legally wrong should not be allowed and so on, just like the past games. The question is, what can we do? I think many are doing what they have to do already and that is good, the first step. Some vowed off NCSoft. Ok, that is fine and dandy but what about all the other game companies that have the same writing int heri EULA? The problem still remains. A game company can shut down a game at anytime, as I said years ago. Yes, it's unlikely just as it was said it was unlikely that COX would get shut down. Well...it was unlikely a purple IO dropped  in many cases but for some it happened didnt it? Eventually we asa player base have to say "Enough" not with only forums not with empty words, but with our wallets. RIght now bid the time. But when those new games come about that says it will never shut down, and bets believe I will hold them to their word, but I have faith they wont disappoint, then we can speak with what matters most. Money. Then they have to evolve to survive.

At one point in time, F2P was laughed upon as a stupid idea not long ago. Well lo and behold most games are jumping on the band wagon now. They change and follow them oney. They dont care about gripes, unless it affect money they care about. They dont care about blogs forums, a few people boycotting especially if they closed down the game and written off that playerbase to begin with. They probably never even ever logged into their own games. Only thing many know of their game is that little chart that comes across their desk every month or quarter. The game they care about is grinding that line in the right direction and grinding cash. They play the real life market like people played the WW market. They have the ability to take away our game anytime anywhere for any reason and believe it or not we have the power to take away theirs but most dont realize that. Instead they ratehr be a level 1 taunting a fully IOed level 50. Sure you might tick 1 health here and there and to the level one, that is big damage but to the IOed 50 that is nothing they go about it all day. Now lets say that level 50 walk through the same town and nothing to fight nothing to kill. Knwo what this mean? He cant grind inf if there is nothign to kill. He cant get drops if there is nothign to kill to get drops from. AT this point he wishing for a level 1 but even the level 1s have boycotted and left him. Now if they return, he'll have new found respect even for the level ones and realize they need it just as much as they need him. Right now, corporations have too many believing that they dotn need us but we need them and the sad part is many bought into it. Remember how did they get their millions and billions in the firts place? Usually not by their own genius of making money but people gave it to them. We up hold our end of the bargain but we allow them to not even have to hold up theirs. What I'm saying is that this is our chance when the new games come out. We will have choices. We can continue to fall under corporations with the writing that the ycan shut down anytime and reason, whether they do or not is irrelevant...until they do... and that is a folly to fall into believing. It's like knowing that I have a missle and can drop it on someone hosue anytime I feel. Even if I probably wont, you think that person that know that this missle is pointed at their home can sleep or should sleep easy knowing that at the whim I can blow up their entire existance? Maybe I'm best friends with them and then one day their dog get lose and tears up my yard and ina rage I let loose. Or maybe I'm bored and decide to let loose. Or for the hell of it because I can, like it is right now with mmos and the game companies. It may not be likely but as long as it exist the choice is there for any reason any time any moment. Unfortunealty some people that invested heavily into this game thought it was like console games and it would be no possible way or at least until it's in the red. Yet ignored the lettering or overlooked it or didnt read it to begin with that it didnt say only when unprofitable or only when they lose money or only when everyone leaves. It said anytime any reason. Sad they found out the hard way, it would have been courteuos especially to at least give a proper notice, but again not legally bounded to. Morally, should they? Probably. But again, morality can be a flood gate when mixed with law. How about not even allowing that option. Meaning when the choices are there it's up to us to use them even if the carrot looks liek the most delicious thing in the world, if they can take it away anytime, then what good is it compared to the other carrot where you know it's yours for good. The choice will be ours. Now lets get ready to make some real noise and show them that a game that put people at ease that it wont just up and go away at anytime can make money. And they can do if they are willing to remove that clause for good.


I remember doing research on Sam Walton. In the beginning, this guy knew the name of all the customers and if someone had a complaint he addressed it personally. He was a small mom/pop store then. His business go large and huge, of course, he couldnt remember everyone, impossible, but anyone notice that it seems, while in the chase of efficiency, corporations forget who and how they got there? Big investors most of the time came after the fact after they already was big. The customer got them there and they forget that. They have consumers fooled into thinking they are powerless, when in reality we hold all the power. They know that, we asa whole consumers just dont know that. It's like a drug dealer drug user relationship. The drug user thinks he needs the drug dealer but in reality, without the drug user the drug dealer makes nothing no matter how much drugs he has. And as long as the drug user thinks he needs the drug dealer, the dealer can make great amount of money while at the same tiem treating the drug user anyway they feel like treating them. I seen some treat their customers in ways that would make even JP Morgan, rest his soul, blush.

[thunderforce]

Legally, though, lets say they had the moral obligattion to keep the game running.

To either keep the game running or allow others to run it, so you're already a _bit_ into a straw man here.

A guy copyright a song, but decide to not publically release it at the moment, should he be forced to relinguish his work?

You know, explicit registration of copyrights went out in 1976 even in the USA, so a guy doesn't "copyright a song".

You're completely into a straw man here; we're discussing not never-released works, but works, once released, being locked away again.

Small business resturant wants to shutter because he wants to retire and live peaceful, but then get a letter saying he cant because people liked eating there so he either must stay open or give away his work, a place he built and worked at for 50+ years and watch someone else make money off his work while he gets nothing.

Yes, physical objects don't have the convenient property of being duplicable with minimal effort. I'm not sure this is news. But _if_ the restaurant could be copied essentially for free, _then_ perhaps if he doesn't want to run it anymore, he should not be allowed to deny the person opposite the opportunity to run a copy of the restaurant - even if they make money!

[JaguarX]

To either keep the game running or allow others to run it, so you're already a _bit_ into a straw man here.

You know, explicit registration of copyrights went out in 1976 even in the USA, so a guy doesn't "copyright a song".

You're completely into a straw man here; we're discussing not never-released works, but works, once released, being locked away again.

 I dont think it's straw man. I think you are missing the point. You're thinking small, NCSoft and the game.

And the last quote, yes if you read further I go into works that have been released.

Basically it seems you are saying there should be a law that take away the main rights of purpose of owning something. Even adding "or allow someone else to run it" the point remain the same. That's you being straw there or simply missing the point.

I dont think there should. I think it should be kept asa choice. If one chooses to keep it or sell it, it should be their choice to do so and not be forced by law to relinquish their property.

[JanessaVR]

Honestly, my opinions on the matter are pretty much in line with why I still buy CDs instead of just downloading MP3s.  I'm leery of spending money on anything I don't own my own hard copy of.

Exactly!  You and me both.  To assuage my CoH loss, I've ended up getting into The Sims 3, not another MMO.  And I've never purchased the digital versions, just the cold, hard DVDs that live on my shelf.  Combined with a locally stored copy of the latest game updates, even if EA went out of business tomorrow (which I know would please many, many people), I could still play The Sims 3 indefinitely.  NCSoft totally destroyed my trust in any MMO (that isn't owned by our community).

[thunderforce]

I dont think it's straw man.

Yes, it is. The straw man is "they should be forced to keep running it", which is something I haven't said.

You're thinking small, NCSoft and the game.

No, actually, if you read what I write, you'll find I discuss (for example) the music industry, patents, etc.

And the last quote, yes if you read further I go into works that have been released.

That doesn't mean that your mention of unreleased works isn't responding to a point that wasn't being made.

I did read further, but frankly it all becomes a bit incoherent.

Basically it seems you are saying there should be a law that take away the main rights of purpose of owning something.

Well, no. The purpose of "owning" something, in this context - remembering that we are not discussing physical property - is to make money from it. That is why NCsoft owned City of Heroes. When you aren't willing to sell it anymore, manifestly, that purpose is no longer relevant.

I dont think there should. I think it should be kept asa choice. If one chooses to keep it or sell it, it should be their choice to do so and not be forced by law to relinquish their property.

A lovely soundbite, but it does rather miss the point that we aren't discussing property in the sense of your physical possessions, but something that has value because you are granted an entirely artificial state-created monopoly on the sale of it. If the state chooses to grant you such a monopoly it is entirely reasonable that it puts the condition on that you actually sell the commodity in question. No sale; no monopoly.

(Incidentally, I think a much better counterargument here is "what if it's hopelessly intertangled with trademarks?". Suppose DCUO is to close and in my world it must be kept running, sold as a going concern, or put in the public domain... the latter's going to open a giant can of worms.)

[ROBOKiTTY]

Copyright transference is completely counter to the intended purpose of copyright, and yet it's the norm in the industry. Artists and programmers create works whose copyrights are instantly transferred to their company because of a work-for-hire clause, and the rights are then up to corporate whims. The real original creators have no protection, and despicable anti-competitive practices are used to stifle creativity. Microsoft and EA are both well-known offenders; they acquire IP franchises to bury them.

Copyright law in its present and historical forms simply do not work for software. Even going back to the original 14 years is untenable; hardware and software turnover is simply too fast-paced. Imagine running software released in 1999 today without any compatibility patch or emulation software, or the obsolete hardware it ran on. Imagine antiquated games written before OpenGL for long-defunct consoles. What good would they contribute to society, even if they went into the public domain today miraculously with source code and assets intact?

[JaguarX]

Yes, it is. The straw man is "they should be forced to keep running it", which is something I haven't said.

Wait a sec. now. How and when did I say you said that? First of all I replied to Tony V so how this become about something you said and my post in replying to Tony V

No, actually, if you read what I write, you'll find I discuss (for example) the music industry, patents, etc.

That doesn't mean that your mention of unreleased works isn't responding to a point that wasn't being made.

I did read further, but frankly it all becomes a bit incoherent.

Well, no. The purpose of "owning" something, in this context - remembering that we are not discussing physical property - is to make money from it. That is why NCsoft owned City of Heroes. When you aren't willing to sell it anymore, manifestly, that purpose is no longer relevant? And secondly as I said, even if you add your little bit of "Or allow others to run it." It's still the same point.

Either way, you aint address none of the points you aint even open for discussion. All you did was look at a few points and decided to focus on those.

So what is the point of discussing it further.


Ok so you think that they shold give up their property by law if they are not using it, OR BE FORCED TO ALLOW SOMEONE ELSE TO RUN IT. I dont think so by law they should be forced to.


Well here we are. If you want to discuss difference without calling what you disagree with straw man, and saying I'm saying something you said when in my original post I wasnt even replying to you, and really dont want to discuss it, then fine. Lets not go through the motions and end it right here. The main point that you missed is that property ownership rights in the form of trademark IP copyright and etc. is what spawn competition. It dont allow taking of others property. That is why there are different games. I dont think NCSoft should be forced to keep a product or forced to allow someone else to run it. Someone should make their own, which they are, to fill the gap if one is missing or the owner decides to make it defunct. In fact, they could have done so while COX was up and running if they wished. COX may be the only COX but it's another MMO, by law and catergory, where NCSoft actually dont have a monopoly and thus shuttign it down is not takign away a monopoly in any way. What is straw man is thinking they should be forced to give up their ownership rights. And again I ask why? Did you answer that? No? Just avoided every single point and immediately went straw man which leads me to believe you dont have a good reason for it besides that COX was a game you were playing, probably the only game you played, but it;s not the only game out there, so again, why should they give that up? If anything it opened up a market that anyone can tap with their own creativeness which I think is about to happen. 

You think it's straw man. What ever your opinion. I think you want people' property to be taken away and yes, being forced to allow someone else to run it is taking a right of ownership away. I'm sure there are objects laying around your place you either aint used ina while or dont plan on using. Relinguish owner ship this instance. That is the type of law you want in place. But of course probably not for you. For businesses so you can enjoy your game forever at what ever cost and regardless of the owner. That's not heroic. That is selfish. Just as selfish as you accuse the corporations of being. The difference is that they actually are the owners of said game.

[thunderforce]

Yes, it is. The straw man is "they should be forced to keep running it", which is something I haven't said.

Wait a sec. now. How and when did I say you said that?

You responded to that idea. If no-one's actually advocating that idea, and they're not, that's a straw man.

Either way, you aint address none of the points you aint even open for discussion. All you did was look at a few points and decided to focus on those. So what is the point of discussing it further.

Obviously I can only address the points where you have managed to write in something approximating coherent English. I can't reply to the stream-of-consciousness stuff because it doesn't make any sense. Sorry, and all that. You're quite at liberty not to continue the discussion if you don't feel it's productive.

You think it's straw man. What ever your opinion. I think you want people' property to be taken away and yes, being forced to allow someone else to run it is taking a right of ownership away. I'm sure there are objects laying around your place you either aint used ina while or dont plan on using. Relinguish owner ship this instance.

Well, this is just the confusion with physical property again. An analogous situation would be that there is an object lying around my place - let us say, the sofa - and the state grants me an artificial monopoly on sofas, so that no-one else can have a sofa. _In that case_ should I be forced to give up the sofa (or the monopoly) if I'm not using it? Absolutely, yes.

(Of course, the idea that ownership of unused land, houses, etc. is an absolute right is also one that gets examined critically from time to time, but let's not get into that.)

That is the type of law you want in place. But of course probably not for you. For businesses so you can enjoy your game forever at what ever cost and regardless of the owner. That's not heroic. That is selfish. Just as selfish as you accuse the corporations of being. The difference is that they actually are the owners of said game.

Well, not quite; if they can be said to be the "owners", they're so because they have been granted a monopoly in a fashion originally intended to promote the public interest. The public interest is not promoted by having them lock it away.

(As for "That's not heroic. That is selfish.", please can we try for some sort of coherent argument, rather than rhetoric? I must admit, I wasn't aware I was a superhero - or prohibited from advocating my own interests!)