Nexon made the game, and their game clients are being used -- on a rather large scale -- in such a way that Nexon can not profit from it.
*sigh*
How is that Nexon's problem? If they're monetizing content on their servers and making money, then trying to stop people from piracy is impossible.
People like games like Maple Story. They modify it to fit their own purposes. This happens in every game out there. There are official servers as well as unofficial. I can point you to 50 different servers of WoW. I can point to hundreds of alternate servers for the most popular MMOs out there.
This idea that people need to be 100% original is not understanding how people will create with whatever's available to them. If they like a game and create new servers for you, there's a market opportunity there. Someone might not be happy with the exp system. Maybe they have custom mods which show better stats.
Piracy in essence is competition. And Nexon needs to understand that instead of being rewarded for being stagnant.
Obviously you don't know a damn thing about Maple Story. You see... It was a free game. You could play on their servers but a modified server might have higher (or lower) exp to attain or other modified goods that aren't allowed on the servers of Nexon.
So in essence, the Nexon people are trying to get free money. You want to know where they get their money? From offering products on their servers.
Good job at showing how there really is no risk in suing someone who may have just wanted to play the game differently from the regular way.
I saw them and read the hearings. Scalia was insistent on this Cornhusker kickback which wasn't in the bill. Thomas will always vote Republican and I doubt Kennedy will vote Progressively.
That hearing is going to be voted on political grounds and I'm sure people will not be happy.
But it's rather ironic that we're deporting a UK citizen when the "crime" is legal in their country and that's exactly what the American Revolution was all about.
Should the court simply defer to Congress and uphold the law? After all, it is a policy judgement made by Congress under another provision of the constitution.
Yes, they should. We don't have 9 wise elders that promote the law. We have a democratically elected President and Congress that has the power to change the laws or enforce them.
We have the Supreme Court to look at what's constitutional. But even then, they do *NOT* have the power of Judicial review in other countries such as the UK or even the EU. If you read the Federalist Papers, they left that part OUT of the Constitution. You will not find it in Article III Section 2 anywhere. Yet Marbury v Madison 'gave' the power of the Judicial Review to the Supreme Court.
The US has suffered ever since. SCOTUS decisions caused our Civil War. They also caused the huge swing in opinion from Roe V Wade and the horrible Grokster inducement decision.
We have wanted a free democracy. We can't do it when you only need a simple majority to agree with you. If SCOTUS really wants to strike down AFA, expect a very poignant shift in politics in two months that will surely become a full scale protest as the effects of that decision cause SCOTUS to be scrutinized very severely.
Certainly not everyone who may support some form of copyright law are "copyright maximalists". Thus, there must be a set of specific criteria by which "copyright maximalists" are distinguished from all others.
Simple. When they look at economic data showing that copyright has not caused increased output, they fight on the moral level.
When the fight moves away from the moral aspects of copyright, they push for ex post facto laws (what was once legal is now illegal) that criminalize the behaviors of the populace.
And when they are faced with public opposition for the first time in 3 decades, they blame one entity for all of their problems. (Google)
That's great and all, but the Supreme Court doesn't get it and always seems to side with "copyright holders" instead of the public as if they don't exist.
I believe that copyright issues will continue to pose a challenge for SCOTUS because no one really understands these issues other than Breyer. I'll even say that Alito has a good understanding, but Kagan seems positively dreadful given her past as one who enforces copyright law to support copyright holders over artists.
It will make me fear the ruling under the first sale doctrine. With a 5-4 decision it seems that the doctrine will go the way of the dodo and any protections for consumers have effectively been written out of copyright law.
So now if you have no allowable copyright terms, no protections for consumers, and retroactive copyright, what is copyright actually protecting?
I might have to side with the AC here. He's correct that the reason we have a failing system in broadband, higher prices, and less innovation in broadband is because we have a government subsidized monopoly in the broadband arena brought on by the FCC.
Right before the elections, they're pissing off the populace. And it's mostly Republican based legislation. So people are truly going to vote these people out and we're left with Democrats with a majority.
Sure, I'm overgeneralizing, but the Republicans vouching for CISPA is going to come back to bite them.
TTP is the new threat that's going to be much tougher. By the time it comes out, it may be too late to change and you can't threaten the president with not signing that treaty. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out next year after everyone has died down and shown that these bills are not well liked.
The meter can not be on the device that is doing the consuming. It must be on the point of delivery. (You don't have an electric meter on every device in the house.) This presents a significant problem to devices that can get signal from differing sources (wifi hotspot or cell tower?)
Re: Re: He pointed out that copyright law gives creators the right to monetize their creations
I was thinking about this when it suddenly hit me what this argument was about... When I went back to the Golan v Holder case and saw the dissenting view of Breyer and Alito, I had to remember what copyright was about and the difference of the utilitarian concept of our Founding Fathers and the "moral" concept given to us by the Berne Convention. In essence, the Berne Convention turns this issue on its head and people are missing that moral concept that the Berne Convention gives us. We take away some of these laws and I'm sure you'll see a ton of the problems with copyright go away.
It is time to understand the new law. This law is trodding not only on the Constitution, but on the precedents set in judicial law.
The 4th Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. That's gone with this bill.
Katz v United States - 4th Amendment applies to technology
US v Warshak - People have an expectation of privacy in their emails and a warrant must be obtained based on probable cause. (I personally believe the standard should be higher such as reasonable doubt).
So in essence, this bill is about one thing: False Accountability. And this bill should recognize that false accountability in its name.
The False Accountability Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act.
Now... Look at the 100 sponsors to this bill. Notice what they've done and what they've tried to do to the United States for the past 40 years. And elitist attitude. Check. Attacks on minorities? Check. A merging of state and government against the people? Check.
Welcome everyone to the 21st century of a fascist government. One that misleads and lies instead of telling the plain truth about a bill that is not needed. So from now on, I'm calling this bill exactly what it is. FACISPA.
It is not a bill to protect consumers. It's a bill to destroy the 4th Amendment. I love liberty too much to allow this to pass. Down with FACISPA!
On the post: Ridiculous Statutory Damages Rules Mean Judge Regretfully Awards $3.6 Million For Circumvention Of DRM
Re: Re: Re:
*sigh*
How is that Nexon's problem? If they're monetizing content on their servers and making money, then trying to stop people from piracy is impossible.
People like games like Maple Story. They modify it to fit their own purposes. This happens in every game out there. There are official servers as well as unofficial. I can point you to 50 different servers of WoW. I can point to hundreds of alternate servers for the most popular MMOs out there.
This idea that people need to be 100% original is not understanding how people will create with whatever's available to them. If they like a game and create new servers for you, there's a market opportunity there. Someone might not be happy with the exp system. Maybe they have custom mods which show better stats.
Piracy in essence is competition. And Nexon needs to understand that instead of being rewarded for being stagnant.
On the post: Ridiculous Statutory Damages Rules Mean Judge Regretfully Awards $3.6 Million For Circumvention Of DRM
Re:
So in essence, the Nexon people are trying to get free money. You want to know where they get their money? From offering products on their servers.
Good job at showing how there really is no risk in suing someone who may have just wanted to play the game differently from the regular way.
Another head shaker of an AC!
On the post: Supreme Court To Review If It's Legal To Resell A Book You Bought Abroad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The bigger picture
On the post: Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?
Re: Re: Re:
That hearing is going to be voted on political grounds and I'm sure people will not be happy.
On the post: Supreme Court To Review If It's Legal To Resell A Book You Bought Abroad
Re: Re: Re: The bigger picture
But it's rather ironic that we're deporting a UK citizen when the "crime" is legal in their country and that's exactly what the American Revolution was all about.
On the post: Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?
Re:
Yes, they should. We don't have 9 wise elders that promote the law. We have a democratically elected President and Congress that has the power to change the laws or enforce them.
We have the Supreme Court to look at what's constitutional. But even then, they do *NOT* have the power of Judicial review in other countries such as the UK or even the EU. If you read the Federalist Papers, they left that part OUT of the Constitution. You will not find it in Article III Section 2 anywhere. Yet Marbury v Madison 'gave' the power of the Judicial Review to the Supreme Court.
The US has suffered ever since. SCOTUS decisions caused our Civil War. They also caused the huge swing in opinion from Roe V Wade and the horrible Grokster inducement decision.
We have wanted a free democracy. We can't do it when you only need a simple majority to agree with you. If SCOTUS really wants to strike down AFA, expect a very poignant shift in politics in two months that will surely become a full scale protest as the effects of that decision cause SCOTUS to be scrutinized very severely.
On the post: Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?
Troll tip # 20348: Don't read the author's name
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Try To Regroup And Figure Out How To 'Fight Back' Against The Public
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple. When they look at economic data showing that copyright has not caused increased output, they fight on the moral level.
When the fight moves away from the moral aspects of copyright, they push for ex post facto laws (what was once legal is now illegal) that criminalize the behaviors of the populace.
And when they are faced with public opposition for the first time in 3 decades, they blame one entity for all of their problems. (Google)
Those typify the maximalist position.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Try To Regroup And Figure Out How To 'Fight Back' Against The Public
Re: Re: Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
On the post: Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?
First sale doctrine under attack as well...
It will make me fear the ruling under the first sale doctrine. With a 5-4 decision it seems that the doctrine will go the way of the dodo and any protections for consumers have effectively been written out of copyright law.
So now if you have no allowable copyright terms, no protections for consumers, and retroactive copyright, what is copyright actually protecting?
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
On the post: DailyDirt: Technology In Education
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
On the post: ACTA Closer To Death: Remaining EU Supporters Contemplate Rejecting It
Re: But... but... piracy!
Right before the elections, they're pissing off the populace. And it's mostly Republican based legislation. So people are truly going to vote these people out and we're left with Democrats with a majority.
Sure, I'm overgeneralizing, but the Republicans vouching for CISPA is going to come back to bite them.
TTP is the new threat that's going to be much tougher. By the time it comes out, it may be too late to change and you can't threaten the president with not signing that treaty. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out next year after everyone has died down and shown that these bills are not well liked.
On the post: The Mantra Of The Digital Generation: Life, Liberty And Blazing Broadband
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: metered as a utility commodity
1) Do more bytes actually incur more cost to the provider?
No
The meter can not be on the device that is doing the consuming. It must be on the point of delivery. (You don't have an electric meter on every device in the house.) This presents a significant problem to devices that can get signal from differing sources (wifi hotspot or cell tower?)
Yes, they can track anyone without competition.
3) I agree whole heartedly.
On the post: Paramount Thinks That Louis CK Making $1 Million In 12 Days Means He's Not Monetizing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Paramount Thinks That Louis CK Making $1 Million In 12 Days Means He's Not Monetizing
Re: Re: He pointed out that copyright law gives creators the right to monetize their creations
On the post: The Rise Of Geek-Focused Online Video Networks
Re: Re: TWiT.tv?
On the post: CISPA Authors Launch Twitter Account To Preach False Merits Of The Bill
Mini-rants of the new 21st century.
The 4th Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. That's gone with this bill.
Katz v United States - 4th Amendment applies to technology
US v Warshak - People have an expectation of privacy in their emails and a warrant must be obtained based on probable cause. (I personally believe the standard should be higher such as reasonable doubt).
So in essence, this bill is about one thing: False Accountability. And this bill should recognize that false accountability in its name.
The False Accountability Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act.
Now... Look at the 100 sponsors to this bill. Notice what they've done and what they've tried to do to the United States for the past 40 years. And elitist attitude. Check. Attacks on minorities? Check. A merging of state and government against the people? Check.
Welcome everyone to the 21st century of a fascist government. One that misleads and lies instead of telling the plain truth about a bill that is not needed. So from now on, I'm calling this bill exactly what it is. FACISPA.
It is not a bill to protect consumers. It's a bill to destroy the 4th Amendment. I love liberty too much to allow this to pass. Down with FACISPA!
Next >>