Argue with Americans about how it's a sin against the God of Capital to stop a corpo from raping you

[MrSlongDong]

Battlefield 2.
A few years ago, EA did away with support for the game. Fair enough, its well beyond its intended shelf life at this point. That said, the game still had a strong community, so what did that community do? Well of course, they set up their own private servers (through their own hosting, no EA hosts required) so the community could still play the game. The servers were (or were at least intended) to run off of donations to keep things going along with maintenance and such. What did EA do? Send these folks behind this project a C&D and force them to shut it all down.The game could still be bought from Steam, its still available for purchase and makes EA money. Its not really competing with EAs current titles (the game is 20 years old). The hosting and financing of the servers was private, nothing was asked or required of EA. Yet, they could shut down the project with impunity. That is part of the problem. Even if you can and do support the game, independently of its creators, they can come in and force you to stop. While I agree that forcing a company to continue to produce dlc or offer server support for a game after its life is over is stupid, thinking that a company should be allowed to just shut an entire game down, including any and all fan support, is ridiculous. All those people paid for Battlefield 2, and paid for the servers, they purchased the product, and ought to be able to continue to support it if they want to use it.

The point I'm trying to explain is in your last sentence: "All those people paid for Battlefield 2, and paid for the servers, they purchased the product, and ought to be able to continue to support it if they want to use it."

Paying for the servers, does not mean you purchased the right to take the game and run it on your own server. What people don't understand if that when you purchase a product like a video game of a film or any intellectual product, you're not purchasing the IP. You're purchasing a right to enjoy a copy of that thing. This right is not absolute. If you purchase a DVD it still says that you cannot distribute it for commercial reason. You also cannot make copies of a DVD and distribute them for free to everybody in your neighborhood. I'm not saying you shouldn't but it's not "your right" to do so. There are limitations on your ownership and what you can do with the product, because it's an intellectual product. When you purchase a physical copy of Mario Sunshine on the Gamecube, that disk is your property but if you were going to make copies of it and distribute them, you would be infringing the property right of the studio over the IP.

When you pay a monthly fee to access a server, you do not obtain a right to take that game and go create your own servers for people to play on it. If you want to do that, you need to make your own game, which needs to be legally distinct from the source material. If you don't that, you're using somebody's else IP and you have no claim over the IP because you didn't make that product. The game is still the creative product of the studio. If you are able to take your single copy of the game and play it offline (for example, download a local version of the game on your PC), the company cannot retrieve that because you bought that individual copy. The online experience is not something you can copy and run locally.

If you want to run the game on your own private server, you need to seize the product and assume control over it. That goes beyond your property right over the copy of the game that you purchased. If a company decide to release their IP and let people do whatever the heck they want with it, then that's a good thing, which should be encouraged but it's something a company should only do voluntarily. It's not something you can force them to do.

Think about it, if what you say is true and you purchase the right to create a server the moment that you access the company's server, then it's not relevant whether the company keeps the game online or not. You can just immediately go off and create your own server even if the company run their servers still. This notion of property right extending over the servers is inconsistent with how property rights operate in general.

If you have a game, that can be played with a local multiplayer system, for example, by plugging a cable between two consoles or using bluetooth, then it was the company's decision to let you have that. If a company decides to run their games on servers that need to be online and maintained by the company and you go and run the game on your own server, what you have done is create copies of the game for your own purpose and distribute them. You cannot do that unless the company allows you to do that.

Do I think Intellectual property laws should entirely abolished? Absolutely. But currently, we have them and we're not China. Do I think it's morally right to pirate games and run emulation softwares? I do. But I know it's breaking the law. I'm would not pretend that I'm exercising my property right if I did that.

 

[Among Us Gaming]

If you want to run the game on your own private server, you need to seize the product and assume control over it.

Do you mean as in the law, or the ethics of it? If you mean the law, then good, maybe the petition can change that. If you mean ethics, then I frankly I think you're dumb/a shill. I do not see how "I'd like to run my own server so my community can still enjoy this game" is equivalent to "I'd like to own this entire franchise".

it's something a company should only do voluntarily. It's not something you can force them to do.

Why not? Again in our example, it costed EA literally nothing. Nothing was asked or required. All EA had to do was  not shut down that community. There is no way you can interpret that action in any way other than acting in purely bad faith. It didn't even do EA any good, since the players of that game moved to play Squad instead, they didn't pick up another EA title.

Do I think Intellectual property laws should entirely abolished? Absolutely.

Then what is your problem with this petition then? It seems to make some mild moves towards that goal if what you say is to be believed.

If you are able to take your single copy of the game and play it offline

So then do you think that people who bought games that have always online Drm can just suck it?

 

[Not 6 Foot]

Best things about this that a bunch of amerimutts and various third-worlders ITT come in and try to tell us how to run the EU.
Accursed Farms is not even an euro

Don't pretend eurofags don't sit there and tell the US how to run itself better every day.

 

[MrSlongDong]

Do you mean as in the law, or the ethics of it? If you mean the law, then good, maybe the petition can change that. If you mean ethics, then I frankly I think you're dumb/a shill. I do not see how "I'd like to run my own server so my community can still enjoy this game" is equivalent to "I'd like to own this entire franchise".

The petition is not going to abolish notion of ownership over IP. Argument such as "my community should be able to enjoy the game" are neither legal or ethical, it's an emotional argument. Enjoying something that I didn't create doesn't make me the owner of the creation. If you purchase a copy, you are the owner of the copy, not the IP. You do not control the distribution of the product. Creating private servers for the game is still distribution.

Why not? Again in our example, it costed EA literally nothing. Nothing was asked or required. All EA had to do was  not shut down that community. There is no way you can interpret that action in any way other than acting in purely bad faith. It didn't even do EA any good, since the players of that game moved to play Squad instead, they didn't pick up another EA title.

You think EA did this because they hate you? I think a lot of people actually feel that way. If it costed EA "nothing", they wouldn't care. It's a corporate entity, they don't fuck with you just because of seethe. The reason they don't want you to distribute their product is because they want to retain control over their IP and their product. There are many reasons for this, they may not want their own old IP to compete with new products they are putting out for example. If you're still playing an older / better version of their IP, that would divert players and resources from their new IP. If you hate that argument, don't use their IP in the first place. You can support studios that don't rely on shitty commercial practices to market their products, you can set up your own studio and compete with them. The argument that it costs them nothing is a bad faith argument. If it was more advantageous for them to do nothing rather than take down a pirated version of the game, they would do nothing.

Then what is your problem with this petition then? It seems to make some mild moves towards that goal if what you say is to be believed.

Either you have no intellectual property rights at all or you have them. If you have them, then you need to enforce them logically and consistently. In a system where IP right exists, they belong to the creators, not to the people who purchase copies of the thing.

So then do you think that people who bought games that have always online Drm can just suck it?

If your game is in effect a purely single player, offline game, and the only reason the DRM check exist is to revoke service arbitrarily, then it is a scam and that game is remotely de-activated, you are at least, entitled to a full refund. If that was what the petition was seeking to achieve, I would support it.

 

[MrSlongDong]

Don't pretend eurofags don't sit there and tell the US how to run itself better every day.

I always hear eurofags complaining that the US has bad healthcare and too much capitalism - as if it affected them. This is just a cope because they have shitty lives and wished they were Americans. This thread is mostly euros arguing with each other

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

I always hear eurofags complaining that the US has bad healthcare and too much capitalism - as if it affected them. This is just a cope because they have shitty lives and wished they were Americans. This thread is mostly euros arguing with each other

That only happens on reddit. Good job on outing yourself.

 

[MrSlongDong]

That only happens on reddit. Good job on outing yourself.

That's funny I'm not on Reddit but those are things you hear people say all the time in Europe. This goes to show that the EU is basically Reddit in real life. What a nightmare. Imagine leaving in Reddit.

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

That's funny I'm not on Reddit but those are things you hear people say all the time in Europe. This goes to show that the EU is basically Reddit in real life. What a nightmare. Imagine leaving in Reddit.

I'm not dumb enough to believe you redditor, work on your gaslighting.

 

[Nothing Is Written]

Hey @Useful_Mistake can we keep him?

 

[MetalGear - E-Hero Neos]

Hey @Useful_Mistake can we keep him?

just ask him "How does it feel to suck nigger cock on the daily?"

 

[Among Us Gaming]

Argument such as "my community should be able to enjoy the game" are neither legal or ethical, it's an emotional argument.

Good thing that wasn't the argument. It was a statement, that I do not see how that is equivalent to "i want to own this entire franchise"

You think EA did this because they hate you?

No, I think they did it for stupid and arbitrary reasons though, imagine thinking that EA doesn't hate any consumer that isn't a whale

Like this

The reason they don't want you to distribute their product is because they want to retain control over their IP and their product.

Control of something they actively aren't doing anything with? That is pretty arbitrary.

may not want their own old IP to compete with new products they are putting out for example. If you're still playing an older / better version of their IP, that would divert players and resources from their new IP.

Like I said, that did not happen. That community moved to Squad and ARMA, they didn't pick up another battlefield title. If anything, they created more competition by alienating people from the battlefield ecosystem. This move did literally nothing but burn goodwill from players.

The argument that it costs them nothing is a bad faith argument. If it was more advantageous for them to do nothing rather than take down a pirated version of the game, they would do nothing.

Right. Corpos only ever make rational decisions. Bean counters running a company would never make arbitrary and dumb decisions because on paper they make the line go up.

 

[The Voicemail Devil]

elastic architecture in cloud hosted servers that rely heavily on proprietary libraries to interact with,

One of many things devs can pretend is sacred wizardry that only they could possibly wield. But is it? Can the game really not be designed such that a post-service host can plug in their own AWS key? Or even slot in replacement microservices that meet certain specifications?
Let's not pretend that it's perfect, convenient, retard proof post-service conversions or nothing. Players can be expected to meet the devs halfway.

 

[Lurking9e9]

lolbert_arguments.txt

I am not going to shed a tear for multi billion dollar corporations... I am just not going to!

 

[MetalGear - E-Hero Neos]

->

MrSlongDong​

How does it feel to suck nigger cock on the daily?

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

You think EA did this because they hate you?

No, they don't care about me. They did it because they are a greedy piece of shit corporation that should either change or go under so hopefully something better could grow in its place.

 

[Return of the Freaker]

What's that?....did I just hear..?

Yep. It's "muh private companies" time. You know, where if a company does something that dicks over consumers or people near production facilities. All the lolberts and Principled Conservatives come running.

I'm going to go take a NAP.

 

[30+GameOvers]

There is two kinds of people who are against SKG: Unironic paid corporate shills or unpaid useful idiots like Maldavius Figtree. There is no middle ground, you're either one or the other.

 

[Lifeguard Hermit]

I really wouldn't expect a group of people that were dumb enough to continually pay licensing fees to own a television set to have any understanding of what ownership is

 

[Chunky Salsa]

The stock exchange should be illegal. Gambling on your countries economy makes you a clear traitor if you bet against it, and a market where you can't bet against it, is retarded. If a company tries to take the thing you purchased from them, you should be able to retaliate in any way you see fit with no ceiling since the financial power imbalance is so great.

I really wouldn't expect a group of people that were dumb enough to continually pay licensing fees to own a television set to have any understanding of what ownership is

The fee is optional, America has it rolled into taxes; which are not - unless you're extra fucking based and don't pay taxes, in which case I kneel.

 

[FieldPiece]

I expect this to lead to absolutely nothing getting done. Thinking you can sign a petition and get politicians beholden to moneyed interests to work on behalf of consumers is extremely naive. Especially when the main proponent has the same speech patterns as Linkara.