vlad321 said:
Final-Fan said:
It's true that I didn't buy the StarCraft II computer game just for the box and the plastic coaster within. But on the other hand, it's a long established practice, and one I fully support, that the physical product is a transferrable license to the content within, either on paper or on disk. TRANSFERRABLE. The concept of "ownership" to me implies the power over what is done from that point on with the product, which is why I hate non-resellable games. Let me go into detail below.
What I get from what you said is that your position is that there is only one actual "property" of StarCraft II, and every game out there is just a little piece of it, all tied together by ethereal strings and you're paying Blizzard to hand you a string so you can have access to Blizzard's property.
I, on the other hand, think that (using books for an example) the book is the physical property, which is bought by the customer and owned by the customer, to do with as he pleases, and which contains a piece of the intellectual property, which is owned by the author/publisher/whatever. In this case the book (which you OWN) contains the string from the last example's metaphor (the strings being the IP, and which you DON'T own), but the property containing the string is completely in the control of the customer, and the author has no right to take that string out of the property which is not theirs, and no right to control what is done with that property, including reselling it to someone else who would then own that property and have access to that string.
I admit that some publishers are treating their games as being the first type (your idea), to control what you can do with the string, because they say it's still theirs and you're just paying to hold it, and they have set it up so that you can't hand it to someone else. I hate that. I think that they shouldn't control the string anymore. On a practical level, since publishers are capable of making their games fit your definition, that may mean your idea is factually more correct, and any control I have over the strings of my games is at the sufferance of publishers. But morally, I'm sticking with my version.
P.S. So your position is that, morally, the hierarchy would be (bad to worse): free pirated stuff --> used stuff --------------------> pirated stuff that people pay for ... right?
P.P.S. So in that metaphor, piracy is creating counterfeit strings. That's how it creates property.
|
Let me just say this to make it clear, I am totally agreeing with you that the used market is just fine.I also like your string analogy and fully agree with it to view it as a form of property.
I didn't make this clear enough, but what makes you buy a book or game is the experience you had with it. The entertainment and joy, if you will. When you pass your string onto the next person, you don't lose the value, utility if you wish, that you gained from the book/game unless someone hits you on the head and you forget about it. Therefore you don't just transfer the value (this is the only way to compare ideas to physical goods, more in a second), but you quite literally duplicate it. Now there is someone else out there who receives value from the same string. The creator's product is that utility you gain from the game which you jsut doubled. He sees no reward for the duplication of utility.
This is actually very similar to physical goods. If you take a car as an example. Its value is the ability to get you around, and to have fun driving if you are into it. Once you sell it, you have lost the value of the car. It's gone, and you no longer have it. You would have to make a copy of the car, then sell it (counterfeit), for you to be able to retain its value, and have someone else also have its value.
|
