Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pinkymadigan]

You were not given the license to do so by purchasing the cards.

I also did not get the license to play on a table made of wood specifically, and I do it all the time. Should I not be able to do whatever I want with the items I buy?

Coding an online platform that uses the IP of the cards is not the same thing as playing with the cards. Specifically, it violates IP laws.

EDIT:
Also, your argument is really flawed.
I paid for this butter knife, should I not be allowed to gouge people's eyes out with it?
I paid my employee's wages, should I not be allowed to sell them to pirates?
Rights have limitations. You can make a Dominion card and jelly sandwich, but you can't hold the neighbor kids hostage and force them to eat it.

[enfynet]

(i mean serously now, kuildeous just used both atari and vhs in his example)

Hey, it's been confirmed that I'm not the oldest member here.

But, still, get off my lawn.

(I do still have my VHS of Monty Python's Flying Circus because I can't bear to throw all that away)

I have my Atari connected to my flatscreen TV.  I never realized how big those pixels were...

[GendoIkari]

(i mean serously now, kuildeous just used both atari and vhs in his example)

Hey, it's been confirmed that I'm not the oldest member here.

But, still, get off my lawn.

(I do still have my VHS of Monty Python's Flying Circus because I can't bear to throw all that away)

I have my Atari connected to my flatscreen TV.  I never realized how big those pixels were...

Just hooked up my NES a couple weeks ago. Turns out the Light Gun won't work on newer TV's. 

[pinkymadigan]

(i mean serously now, kuildeous just used both atari and vhs in his example)

Hey, it's been confirmed that I'm not the oldest member here.

But, still, get off my lawn.

(I do still have my VHS of Monty Python's Flying Circus because I can't bear to throw all that away)

I have my Atari connected to my flatscreen TV.  I never realized how big those pixels were...

Just hooked up my NES a couple weeks ago. Turns out the Light Gun won't work on newer TV's. 

They don't work on many newer TVs due to latency issues, but you can still get high performance new TVs with low latency (they are usually aimed at gaming). The problem is many TVs build in some latency to work with their sound syncing systems now (the ones that don't will usually have syncopation issues between the audio and visual engines that come and go, or get worse).

I think the really low latency ones still work with the light gun. The timing is pretty precise though.

EDIT: Can't you just point it at a bare light bulb? IIRC that works. I mean, it's not fun, but you can play forever.

[soulnet]

EDIT:
Also, your argument is really flawed.
I paid for this butter knife, should I not be allowed to gouge people's eyes out with it?
I paid my employee's wages, should I not be allowed to sell them to pirates?
Rights have limitations. You can make a Dominion card and jelly sandwich, but you can't hold the neighbor kids hostage and force them to eat it.

Everything that you quote here does not violate any right associated with the purchased item, but other rights. Playing online games do not violate any rights, AFAIK, so its not at all analogous to any of those situations.

Also, Dominion cards are better suited to salads than sandwiches. At least the blanks, I don't dare try the other ones.

[pinkymadigan]

Everything that you quote here does not violate any right associated with the purchased item, but other rights. Playing online games do not violate any rights, AFAIK, so its not at all analogous to any of those situations.

There you go making my point for me. Building an online implementation of Dominion uses an IP, infringing on the IP holder's rights. This is really quite simple. Also: Ignorantia juris non excusat

[GendoIkari]

(i mean serously now, kuildeous just used both atari and vhs in his example)

Hey, it's been confirmed that I'm not the oldest member here.

But, still, get off my lawn.

(I do still have my VHS of Monty Python's Flying Circus because I can't bear to throw all that away)

I have my Atari connected to my flatscreen TV.  I never realized how big those pixels were...

Just hooked up my NES a couple weeks ago. Turns out the Light Gun won't work on newer TV's. 

They don't work on many newer TVs due to latency issues, but you can still get high performance new TVs with low latency (they are usually aimed at gaming). The problem is many TVs build in some latency to work with their sound syncing systems now (the ones that don't will usually have syncopation issues between the audio and visual engines that come and go, or get worse).

I think the really low latency ones still work with the light gun. The timing is pretty precise though.

EDIT: Can't you just point it at a bare light bulb? IIRC that works. I mean, it's not fun, but you can play forever.

Duck Hunt has built-in measures to prevent the light bulb method from working. The light needs to be on for one specific frame, and needs to be off the next.

[soulnet]

There you go making my point for me. Building an online implementation of Dominion uses an IP, infringing on the IP holder's rights. This is really quite simple.

There is nothing simple about intellectual property, you are just being simplistic when discussing it. To some extent, using the cards to play could be thought about using the IP of the game. The legal permissions you get by buying the cards are anything but "simple" if you want to go into the details.

Also: Ignorantia juris non excusat

What's that have to do with anything?

[pinkymadigan]

There you go making my point for me. Building an online implementation of Dominion uses an IP, infringing on the IP holder's rights. This is really quite simple.

There is nothing simple about intellectual property, you are just being simplistic when discussing it. To some extent, using the cards to play could be thought about using the IP of the game. The legal permissions you get by buying the cards are anything but "simple" if you want to go into the details.

Okay, you go ahead and make your own implementation, offer it for free, and pay close attention to how simple the judge finds it when he hits you with a cease and desist order. Using the cards for their intended purpose of course uses the IP,  but it uses the IP within the rights that you have been granted by your purchase. The second you infringe on the IP holder's right to do their business with their IP, that's when it becomes really simple. Just like making the neighbor kids eat your Dominion card and jelly sandwich. It is very simple. I'm sorry you have a hard time grasping the simplicity of it.

Also: Ignorantia juris non excusat

What's that have to do with anything?

Playing online games do not violate any rights, AFAIK

[eHalcyon]

The physical expansions <> the virtual expansions.

This is not a difficult concept. You are paying for two different things. I'm not even trying to convince you to buy. I still haven't. I won't until they deliver a way to play offline.

But the whole "I should get X because I paid for Y" argument is fundamentally flawed.

I already paid for that chicken, give me that goat too.
I have a receipt here that shows I paid for a taco, where's my pizza?
Look, I spent $4000 on an engagement ring last week, why can't you give me this necklace for free?

It seems to me that people are not saying that they deserve the online implementation for free since they have bought the physical game. They are saying that they have the physical game and therefore they are personally unwilling to pay what they consider a steep price for something that they already own, albeit in a different media. There is a difference between the two.

I recant.  It seems people ARE arguing that they deserve it for free.  Heh.

[soulnet]

Okay, you go ahead and make your own implementation, offer it for free, and pay close attention to how simple the judge finds it when he hits you with a cease and desist order.

They probably don't have any license rights in Argentina, and I'm surely not going to do that. I'm not discussing law but justice (or at least, my view on justice) which are quite different things, sadly.

Playing online games do not violate any rights, AFAIK

Oh, the internet.

[pinkymadigan]

Okay, you go ahead and make your own implementation, offer it for free, and pay close attention to how simple the judge finds it when he hits you with a cease and desist order.

They probably don't have any license rights in Argentina, and I'm surely not going to do that. I'm not discussing law but justice (or at least, my view on justice) which are quite different things, sadly.

Playing online games do not violate any rights, AFAIK

Oh, the internet.

You find it justifiable to deny another man his right to a profit from his own creation?

[soulnet]

You find it justifiable to deny another man his right to a profit from his own creation?

People with thoughts such as "right to a profit" will probably never fully agree with me. I think getting paid for your job is good. I think becoming rich is noone's right. In between, well, there are a number of middle grounds. Donald already said in the interview that he does not think he needs more money at all, so I don't feel bad for him. RGG (i.e., Jay and his wife who's name I don't know) I don't know, but I suspect has a similar success. Goko, I have no information, but I don't feel they earned my money.

In any case, I don't believe in intelectual property at all. I don't collect any money for people reading my papers (assuming someone is, which is probably not true) nor courses using exercises or classes I made after I moved to teach a different subject. I've already got paid for that, I don't think I have the right to indefinitely get money for the same work. Intelectual property, on the other hand, is virtually infinite reward for a finite amount of work.

[pinkymadigan]

You find it justifiable to deny another man his right to a profit from his own creation?

People with thoughts such as "right to a profit" will probably never fully agree with me. I think getting paid for your job is good. I think becoming rich is noone's right. In between, well, there are a number of middle grounds. Donald already said in the interview that he does not think he needs more money at all, so I don't feel bad for him. RGG (i.e., Jay and his wife who's name I don't know) I don't know, but I suspect has a similar success. Goko, I have no information, but I don't feel they earned my money.

In any case, I don't believe in intelectual property at all. I don't collect any money for people reading my papers (assuming someone is, which is probably not true) nor courses using exercises or classes I made after I moved to teach a different subject. I've already got paid for that, I don't think I have the right to indefinitely get money for the same work. Intelectual property, on the other hand, is virtually infinite reward for a finite amount of work.

A: we will never agree, you are absolutely correct.
B: if no one is ever rich, who will pay you to do your job?

[soulnet]

B: if no one is ever rich, who will pay you to do your job?

Every one of your bosses was rich? My experience was definitely opposite. Now the estate is paying me, so I guess is rich, but is not a person.

[pinkymadigan]

B: if no one is ever rich, who will pay you to do your job?

Every one of your bosses was rich? My experience was definitely opposite. Now the estate is paying me, so I guess is rich, but is not a person.

Classic example of not understanding money.

My boss's wealth has very little to do with my getting paid. But someone in the company (currently my boss's boss) is fairly wealthy. That allowed him to invest in the company initially that now provides a living to 200+ people.

But many of the jobs I've held I've been so far removed from the money that I probably wouldn't even describe the regional officers for the company as rich, but someone at the top was definitely wealthy in every one of those situations.

That doesn't mean everyone who owns a business is wealthy, but they are usually in charge of more wealth than their subordinates. It's one of the benefits you reap for putting your money and reputation on the line in the first place.

If you are being paid by the government, I would guess that someone at the top is what you would consider rich, whether you are aware of that or not.

[soulnet]

Classic example of not understanding money.

My boss's wealth has very little to do with my getting paid. But someone in the company (currently my boss's boss) is fairly wealthy. That allowed him to invest in the company initially that now provides a living to 200+ people.

But many of the jobs I've held I've been so far removed from the money that I probably wouldn't even describe the regional officers for the company as rich, but someone at the top was definitely wealthy in every one of those situations.

That doesn't mean everyone who owns a business is wealthy, but they are usually in charge of more wealth than their subordinates. It's one of the benefits you reap for putting your money and reputation on the line in the first place.

If you are being paid by the government, I would guess that someone at the top is what you would consider rich, whether you are aware of that or not.

So you think everybusiness is a large business? Small buisenesses exist, you know? In which people make a living but don't get rich... you can work for those as well. You don't need a huge amount of capital to start one of those, especially in software development, but many other areas as well (you think every bakery owner is rich?).

Extreme wealth can only survive with a lot more extreme poverty. And I'm not up for that.

And about Government, a country may be rich or poor independently from the people that represent it currently. The president of Uruguay is lower middle class (a little bit by choice) and the fact that it is an exception and not the rule just goes no to show how little election mean when they are decided by how much money you have to advertise yourself. This is true from the US to Russia to the UE to most of Latin America. I know very little about the rest of Asia, but I would guess is probably similar.

But we are clearly digressing and this is helping noone, so I better go keep talking about Dominion and leave political and economical discussions for in person situations, in which they may be more productive.

[pinkymadigan]

So you think everybusiness is a large business? Small buisenesses exist, you know? In which people make a living but don't get rich... you can work for those as well. You don't need a huge amount of capital to start one of those, especially in software development, but many other areas as well (you think every bakery owner is rich?).

Obviously not, I acknowledged that in my last post. Please read all of it. However, large businesses are the reason that many of our modern conveniences are cheap enough for us to be able to afford them. If a large company were not in charge of manufacturing PCs, do you think you would own one? They'd be little more than a toy without a properly sized companies in charge of them. Unless the market dictated that they were popular enough as a toy that everyone would still want one; then, those companies would suddenly become large companies. They would have to, which means they would be in charge of distributing more wealth. And they people at the top, who started those companies, would be rewarded for their initial investment and foresight.

Extreme wealth can only survive with a lot more extreme poverty. And I'm not up for that.

So, the US (a nation which traditionally celebrates wealth) poverty line is $11,490 (1 person family). Approximately 15% of our populace lives below that.

According to the global rich list, this puts our poorest in charge of more wealth than 87% of the world: http://www.globalrichlist.com/

I don't know where Argentina's poverty line is, or how they fare on this list, but I'd be willing to bet that most nations that do not celebrate success do not have a standard of living for their poor that matches our poor's. Our success brings our bottom end up, it does not smother it.

Try to find out how many people die in the US due to hunger. Here's a page dedicated to telling you how hungry we are:
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

Note nothing about deaths. You don't hear about it here. We don't starve to death. Here's the best answer I could find:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_from_starvation_each_year_in_America

~120 people in ~313,000,000. A statistic so low they barely bother keeping it. Clearly our success and wealth cascades down and brings up everyone's standard of living. For a reference point, I googled "starvation in argentina", and the results were quite a bit different.

But hey, I don't need to defend success. It pretty much does that for itself.

[DStu]

Extreme wealth can only survive with a lot more extreme poverty. And I'm not up for that.

So, the US (a nation which traditionally celebrates wealth) poverty line is $11,490 (1 person family). Approximately 15% of our populace lives below that.

According to the global rich list, this puts our poorest in charge of more wealth than 87% of the world: http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Of course, the rich west completely does not interfere with the rest of the world...

[pinkymadigan]

Extreme wealth can only survive with a lot more extreme poverty. And I'm not up for that.

So, the US (a nation which traditionally celebrates wealth) poverty line is $11,490 (1 person family). Approximately 15% of our populace lives below that.

According to the global rich list, this puts our poorest in charge of more wealth than 87% of the world: http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Of course, the rich west completely does not interfere with the rest of the world...

We absolutely interfere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid

[DStu]

Extreme wealth can only survive with a lot more extreme poverty. And I'm not up for that.

So, the US (a nation which traditionally celebrates wealth) poverty line is $11,490 (1 person family). Approximately 15% of our populace lives below that.

According to the global rich list, this puts our poorest in charge of more wealth than 87% of the world: http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Of course, the rich west completely does not interfere with the rest of the world...

We absolutely interfere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid

Top5@2011:

Code: [Select]

Afghanistan 12,924.40 2,659.00 10,265.40 434.32
Israel 3,026.40 31.30 2,995.10 404.97
Iraq 2,147.60 1,183.90 963.70 70.65
Pakistan 1,700.10 1,026.90 673.20 9.07
Egypt 1,471.20 172.50 1,298.70 17.92
But that's to offtopic, ->RSP if that should get a serious discussion...

[pinkymadigan]

Extreme wealth can only survive with a lot more extreme poverty. And I'm not up for that.

So, the US (a nation which traditionally celebrates wealth) poverty line is $11,490 (1 person family). Approximately 15% of our populace lives below that.

According to the global rich list, this puts our poorest in charge of more wealth than 87% of the world: http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Of course, the rich west completely does not interfere with the rest of the world...

We absolutely interfere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid

Top5@2011:

Code: [Select]

Afghanistan 12,924.40 2,659.00 10,265.40 434.32
Israel 3,026.40 31.30 2,995.10 404.97
Iraq 2,147.60 1,183.90 963.70 70.65
Pakistan 1,700.10 1,026.90 673.20 9.07
Egypt 1,471.20 172.50 1,298.70 17.92
But that's to offtopic, ->RSP if that should get a serious discussion...

Well, we do make a habit of helping rebuild places we help mess up. I'm not going to defend our military policies, that's a different beast then our economic policies. Obviously Israel is a close ally in the region, so that makes sense. The Egypt thing I'm not going to touch. That's a big ol' mess.

[DStu]

That's a big ol' mess o' potamia.

but at least it was probably only half the mess back in 2011...

Edit: Also, I should have included the headlines for the columns.  I will not do either because of, but in Afganistan 10k of the 12k is military aid...

[LastFootnote]

This got off-topic long ago. Can we get it moved to RSP please?

[pinkymadigan]

This got off-topic long ago. Can we get it moved to RSP please?

Considering the original topic was pretty much mockery of a certain type of thought process, I'm not really sure we're off topic by too far. But RSP might be the more appropriate place for it anyway.