While we're at it, please hand over the servers to the community.
Oh, and the source code. Thanks.
Not trying to be an asshole, but this a gaming forum, and most of us didn't waste way too much money on a philosophy degree. Its like learning to speak Latin; its 2016 so no1 cares.
I could ramble on and on about climate/energy/regulation, IR theory, global economy, etc. but I know most people here don't care, so I won't.
Hey, well, I didn't waste money getting a philosophy degree either, so we have something in common.
Though, I'd appreciate it if you didn't simply ignore a fundamental argument and only focused on the utilitarian argument. It doesn't take a degree to do some thinking, I'm sure you can come up with something reasonable... if that position is reasonable. Go ahead! Otherwise I'll repeat the same arguments, utterly unopposed save for snobbery, to anyone with a healthy (open) disposition on argumentation.
With all those industries, you have to put in your own work. You can take inspiration, but you can't sell other peoples shit. For example a comedian can copy someones style and cater to the same audience, they still have to be funny and give a good delivery. On the other hand I cannot burn a DVD montage of the funniest bits from a Louis CK and Ricky Gervais standup and sell it, which is more comparable to mandating all video games be open source.
The only reason people have to put in their own work for comedy and magic is because the communities are staunchly against it, as I've already said: comics who've 'stolen' jokes are ousted by an army of angry pamphleteers and their ticket sales plummet. Val Valentino can't get any gigs and other magicians refuse to associate with him because of what he did to reveal their secrets. Say, why can't the 'work' be cracking the dev's code the same way a magician gets into the industry (and why does removing intellectual property law mandate they all be open source)? Or, why can't people simply shun those who are proven to come about their software through dishonorable means, informed by an army of angry internet pamphleteers? There is no obstacle. If there is demand sufficient for a profit, no matter the industry, would-be suppliers would find creative ways of getting that profit. People are incentivized to give workers that profit any ways, because without them they wouldn't have anything.
All that aside, you can't 'sell someone else's shit' if it wasn't ownable in the first place, and so I point to my earlier arguments that you hand-waved. How about you foxtrotting address what it means to own an idea so I can demolish it?
Its comparing apples to oranges. All of those things took years of refinement to improve and replace. Bethesda makes great games, but they are usually buggy on release. The PC version always has a community made patch that squashes a lot of the bugs before the official patch. As a result someone could buy the next Elder Scrolls game, fix a bunch of their bugs first in a couple of days, and then sell the whole game?!?! Literally an absurd proposal, if that's what you're saying. If everyone that bought the game a couple days after the release had the option of $60 buggy vanilla game, or $60 unofficial patch version, there would be no reason not to buy the version with less bugs.
No reason to buy an inferior quality product for the same amount of money? That's right. Would Bethesdas still exist and turn a handsome profit in an industry devoid of IP law? I bet you anything that they would, though I also bet they'd shape up right quick if they knew the rules of the game were gonna be changed. Besides, you failed to address my points about alternative funding / monetization schemes that would likely appear in the absence of state-enforced monopoly on ideas (again, something that's unownable. Do I need to copy-paste the arguments again?).
Relatively speaking, the complete end of legalized slavery in the west, suffrage, child labor laws, etc. are "recent inventions." How long the idea has been around is irrelevant.
Your argument is really odd. On one hand its a "everyone owns everything" communist mentality, but you rationalize it because it would supposedly increase competition, which is a free market idea. Well you don't increase competition by letting someone be lazy and steal code, and then repackage Relic's hard work with different icing on the top to cut in to their market. They don't own the rights to WW2 RTS, cover system, vet, or any other concepts in their game. If someone else wants to compete and develop a COH clone under a new title that would be great, but they better get their own art assets, engine, etc. Ripping off 95% of someone elses hard work just to improve the shitty 5% would be so pathetic, thank god for intellectual property laws.
You mistake my argument(s), sir. I'm not arguing both sides, I'm defending both angles of attack, so no matter what one's position on what constitutes an idea is (there are only those two; either universals or particulars manifest in the mind and some combination of these things) they still cannot rationally be owned. My personal position is the latter, that they are manifest as particulars in each person's mind and not some Platonic universal or communistic public property. They are created by each person and cannot be deprived (that is, appropriated, thus there is no homesteading ideas) from anything. One cannot own that which one could not take from nature first. There is no theft, for theft implies appropriation and thus deprivation from another; one creates each particular idea in one's mind, and the mind which houses it they have complete ownership of. Now, what would be wrong is stealing or altering (without permission) the hardware that the software is on; be it brain or drive.
Furthermore, the argument from time is not meant to stand alone but in context of the more important argument, which I outlined above. It's 'empirical indication that supports deduction of truth, which itself is immutable regardless of the supposed empirical tale (which further needs to be interpreted by an analytical framework, or truth deduced from truth).' For my axiom I take that of self ownership, and reason out what it means to 'own' something, through Lockean homesteading and original appropriation, and what something must be to be ownable. That aside, slavery was not a nearly universal feature of complex society, as say the institution of private property is recognized in some way, nor was suffrage. And, for child labour, the victory is owed to the free market: it turns out when the marginal revenue product of the parents are enough to support the family without putting their children to work they elect to take their children out of work, as rational parents want. Child labor is necessary for those families and places where the marginal revenue product has not yet reached that stage, otherwise the family starves. It is a sad essential for economic development, just as we must say lower levels of capital structure accumulation are earlier stages of such development.
What I mean by all the above is that the natural law is not objective, or subjective. It is normative, and must be carefully distinguished. That is, it implies a norm towards which we should all propend, that nature or its author has allowed us to deviate is because "of the hardness of [our] hearts."
Again, intellectual property law acts as a cost ceiling or price floor. Ceteris paribus
, it decreases the supply of a given thing, and prevent the market from tending towards equilibrium. There will be more supply, if it is not reached already.
Lastly, I'll re-post the utilitarian argument of my main post which you seem to have missed: to be consistent, you'll have to argue that the fashion, magic, comedic, food, and furniture industries are deplorable because they don't have IP law.
Anyways, saying there are other games around is more akin to saying he could eat cheese or drink milk instead of eat bread. There's only one baker, largely thanks to intellectual property law. Which is a hamper on the market's tendency towards equilibrium.
Now, if such laws were removed, society as a whole would be that much richer. It is a case of what is seen (a very immediate effect on a special interest group) and what is not seen (the longer term effects on everyone as a whole), as Bastiat says in Economic Sophisms and Hazlitt says in Economics in One Lesson ( https://mises.org/library/bastiat-collection and https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson, horray free PDFs!). This is not so far-fetched a suggestion. There are plenty, tons, of industries completely devoid of IP, such as the food industry, the furniture industry, the fashion industry, the comic industry, the magician industry. Alas, do we hear much complaining about those? Not a whit. Is IKEA or Brian Reagan out of business because someone copies their designs or jokes? No. Moreover, those high profile ones who do try to copy the jokes or reveal the magicians secrets are universally ousted and campaigned against, which is why it doesn't happen much. In fashion, people pay hand over fist understanding they could get an exact replica for cheaper but with a lesser degree of prestige. Why would it be any different with software? It wouldn't, don't be a silly. There are many routes to secure profit without IP laws, and those that say otherwise are simply uncreative (or not applying their creativity) or selfish. I will give you two small examples. Say, hardware developers would be out of business if they had no software to sell on. They have a vested interest, therefore, in funding game developers that people might buy their physical products. Another, say that a group of developers decides to "kickstart" and fully fund a project that way, and sign NDAs / contracts internally binding them all to keep things on lock until the funding goals are met.
Let me add to that: the entire history of technological innovation has been to stand on the shoulders of giants and make small, incremental improvements. This is how the steam engine, the light bulb, the loom, and so many other marvels, were created. It is rational to apply the same understanding of progress to things like software.
Without IP law I'd predict a much healthier games industry, and a much healthier modding community. Hardware people and alternate funding methods provide strong, flexible bases with ever expanding middleware and assets that take little more to improve or produce, and those passionate fans would tweak the games and host private services as they reached paragon status or fell by the wayside. I stand with Kinsella alongside an eminently rational position: https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 (with a free audiobook too!).
Not ridiculous at all. I'm working in justice and I can say that such kind of internet trolling can lead to serious problems and it's quite common.
Second thing, not in this matter about Barton and Wada but in general, behavior of people here is beyond my understanding. Thick skin? Don't stream? Wtf is this? If I want to play football with a friend but everytime I do, there are few guys who take a ball and smash it far away constantly I guess I should just get thicker skin or stop playing football in this place, aye?
The answer is no. I have a right to play here/I have a right to stream but no one has a right to bully. Case closed.
Go back with your "thicker skin" and use a brain. Not all of us have a thick skin and don't care about other people. We react in different way and in this case it's not Wada's problem.
Your analogy faces a serious problem: One's interior disposition is not a thing people can handle (as a football) in a normative sense (standard, by literally opening one's skull and removing parts of his brain). One cannot expect someone to have such a fragile ego, and one should not: people should be encouraged towards mental stability and away from emotional dependence on other people. That is not beyond understanding, aye? Anyways, please don't mistake this for me meaning that Barton did no wrong, but he didn't do wrong in the sense you seem to think.
How is Wada estopped from arguing that he's being harassed? Has he done similar things to Barton? I think you could make a fair-ish assumption of the risk argument, but IIRC that wouldn't really apply if we're talking about an intentional tort.
The state sues people all the time, and rightly so in a common law context. More often than not in my experience, its not really about the money or an individual conviction so much as the principle of law. Besides which, cyberharassment is a real thing which really should be penalized. I'm not familiar enough with the Wada-Barton beef to really say much about whether it qualifies. TBF I doubt that it does. But I do know prosecutors who have dealt with suicides resulting from extremes of this kind of behavior, so yeah, there really does have to be a tool in the toolkit to deal with it.
You're right on the estoppel front. I should've just said easement. I was thinking of trying to combine the two into something like implicit consent, which I should normally revile. I mean, I don't think the state is a legitimate institution at all because its premise and existence violate the natural law. Tacit consent via the social contract theory doesn't hold up to argument by analogy. Besides all that, it's incredibly dangerous: the incentive for these incredibly small incidents is either make the prosecution financially worthwhile or completely ignore it, and I hope we'd agree that neither of those would be just outcomes. One punishment is far too much, the other too little.
Again, since you seem to have missed it: "The pivotal question for me is what degree of psychological harassment actually breaks the non-aggression principle, or rather the natural negative right to not be aggressed against? I'm pretty sure it's "there is no degree," because nobody is truly forced to be beholden to the words of another. As Marcus Aurelius said, 'they're just words my nigga.' Anyways, if someone thinks they are so beholden then they are mentally enslaving themselves, and that is no fault of the other."
This does depend much upon intent from both sides. I'd argue a tort common law system of private justice (like the ol' merry Brits had for a loooong time) would have these questions in mind: could Barton reasonably expect some harm to come out of this, and is Wada's grief and psychological damage genuine? No clear answers to these, which is why it's a common law system: we can't get perfection (Earth isn't paradise) but we can get closest with this system.
Oh so your example isn't "baker bakes bread then rival baker bakes better bread" your example is "baker bakes bread then thieves steal it from his store and resell it after putting butter on it". If we lived in a world where it was okay to steal other people's work and pass it off as your own then yes video games would be different.
Not better. Different.
You'd have figured this out if you actually read my initial post. Do you want me to copy it here, because you seem to have missed a few key arguments from it? Let me copy the relevant part for you here, though I encourage you to read the whole thing.
"Besides the utilitarian argument, thoroughly in favor of deposing IP law, there's also the natural law argument: if property is from the natural law, then why haven't the vast majority of civilizations throughout history acknowledged intellectual property along side it? Why is it a very recent invention? Moreover, what constitutes ownership, and how can one 'own' an 'idea'? If ideas are ephemeral universals, they must be owned by all, as one could only discover and distribute ownership: there would be no way to scarcity in the economic sense, and thus no way to lock it down as a given person's. If ideas are only present in each mind, be it as universals or as particulars or as illusions, they must be re-created in each person's mind from external stimuli. If it is their creation, and if its removal depends upon aggressing (lobotomizing) them, then it is theirs wholly simply by knowing it."
You have not responded to these objections, and have only asserted your belief.
Edit: last, your analogy is mightily flawed: in that 'stealing,' imagine if the bread was not taken, but someone made an exact replica and materialized it from their brain. Would that so be stealing? No. All it requires is a recipe and realization.
There is no IP law at play with Company of Heroes save for the title. It's not as if you are talking about Star Wars where only people with the rights to make a game can. If people want to make a WWII RTS they can, and have. If there was a large untapped market for this then others would fill it as well.
Relic make a good game and it's sold a lot of copies. 4 million+ when I was there and more since then. 500 people on a forum don't override the millions of copies sold. If you don't like it, fair enough. Nothing is so perfect that it couldn't be better. But the idea that there's some magical IP law preventing the game being made by someone else better is kind of off target. If Blizzard or anyone else wanted to make a WWII game they could. But like CoH2 it wouldn't be perfect. People complain about Blizzard games all the time.
If fans want to make their own game they can. Heck I'll donate $10 to any reasonably professional Kickstarter if you manage to start that.
To the contrary, software code is protected under IP law (or, more accurately, an absurd concept is forced and people's natural property rights are infringed upon). Any impediment to the operation of the market necessarily limits the ability of producers to supply the demand. IP law acts as a price ceiling, and oh if only those untapped markets were allowed to be harnessed! Again, I predict there would be a growth in middleware and refining pre-existing assets, all of which lower production costs which are the barrier to entry for so many potential firms to offer alternatives. More suppliers, more competition, better production processes all groom product towards quality, ceteris paribus
IT'S DA FUKIN INTERNET FOLKS, DA LAST THING WE NEED IS GOVERNMENT'S CENSORSHIP/REGULATIONS ON RANDOM GAME FORUMS.
Let's face it, Wada is a special snowflake with anger management issues. If you don't have a thick skin and brush off malicious comments/trolling why bother streaming at all?
There's certainly something to be said for estoppel and easement. Trolls essentially have right of way as it is the normal operation of the internet. As Antilles said: "Trolling is a risk you take as a streamer. It's happened to most of the coh2 streamers."
EDIT 2: Laws against cyber harassment are largely absurd. Legality doesn't equate to morality anyways, so:
The pivotal question for me is what degree of psychological harassment actually breaks the non-aggression principle, or rather the natural negative right to not be aggressed against? I'm pretty sure it's "there is no degree," because nobody is truly forced to be beholden to the words of another. As Marcus Aurelius said, 'they're just words my nigga.' Anyways, if someone thinks they are so beholden then they are mentally enslaving themselves, and that is no fault of the other. Furthermore, there's the question of who owns the property (implying where he lives, where Wada lives, and all across the servers and within their programs, you sillies) where Barton did the harassment, and whether Barton is violating their rights as a property owner by engaging in activity that they can rightfully prohibit.
None of us are going to sue him, it's unlikely the Polish government will do anything or find out about it.
Heavenly Father, let this cup pass. The state is not a legitimate plaintiff, and this is incredibly small fry. If they have a financial incentive--which means absurd penalties against Barton, and, hotel foxtrot, that would be massive injustice nowhere near in double proportion to his 'crimes.'
But, most of all, this is the best solution: "I heard Wadda chilled out a bit anyways..."
This is called civility. I sincerely hope Wada ain't gonna go whining to some gov't goons to come and bust Barton, and I hope he finds inner peace. We don't have to resort to violence--that would be stupid, again barbarous and uncivilized, and unjust (I think in this case). Justice is easily abused in our hands, but mercy is divine.