It seems they decided to show how to piss off distributors too. Apparently they are bundling Steam along with MW2 and, as a result, numerous digital download outlets are refusing to sell it as a result. From what I've heard, this will also be part of the retail version at stores. Now, I have used steam for several games, but I don't like the idea of having to log into steam just to play a game I have already purchased, especially if I went to the trouble of going to the store and paying for it locally.
Now if we abolished copyright, everybody who makes a creative work would pretty much have to self-publish... so what if some lesser-known person creates a work that happens to be pretty good, but a larger entity with a wider distribution capacity usurps control of it and distributes it without compensating the creator? Without copyright, the creator would have no legal recourse against a company that would do this, since nobody else needs permission to copy.
I would like to introduce you to the internet and P2P. Simply stated, you can't get a much bigger, or more efficient, distribution capacity. In other words, the creator already has access to the best distribution method possible. Assuming of course we are talking about some content that can be put into a digital format.
Copyright isn't, and to the best of my knowledge, never has been about freedom of speech, so maybe your point is valid with regards to free speech arguments. Doesn't change the fact that copyright has been twisted, extended, and abused beyond anything ever intended.
Of course, once again, we won't try to prove our point, we'll just throw out some bogus statement and expect everyone to accept it at face value.
Just for the record, I don't believe a "fully loaded automatic weapon in public" is a free speech issue. In point of fact, that would be a second amendment issue which, while related, is very different.
While I agree with the judge on the point that it isn't a valid copyright, I can also see the whole scenario as a public comment on the idiocy of the current state of copyright law.
So exactly what, or which, "stupid 1st amendment free speech arguments against copyright" would you be referring to?
On the post: Modern Warfare 2 Shows How To Piss Off Fans
http://technologizer.com/2009/11/06/steam-snag-digital-retailers-boycott-modern-warfar e-2/
On the post: The Moral Argument In Favor Of File Sharing?
Re: What about the copyright holder?
On the post: IP Czar Focused On Protecting Jobs, Not Promoting Progress?
On the post: Congressional Study Says $42 Billion Could Be Raised By Legalizing Internet Gambling
Re:
On the post: Bluebeat Claims It Owns Beatles Copyright By Re-recording Songs; Judge Disagrees
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Bluebeat Claims It Owns Beatles Copyright By Re-recording Songs; Judge Disagrees
Re: Re:
On the post: Bluebeat Claims It Owns Beatles Copyright By Re-recording Songs; Judge Disagrees
Re: Re:
Just for the record, I don't believe a "fully loaded automatic weapon in public" is a free speech issue. In point of fact, that would be a second amendment issue which, while related, is very different.
On the post: Bluebeat Claims It Owns Beatles Copyright By Re-recording Songs; Judge Disagrees
So exactly what, or which, "stupid 1st amendment free speech arguments against copyright" would you be referring to?
Next >>