We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
What I'm suggesting is that if an IP is abandoned in a meaningful way (such as server support for a multiplayer game) then the IP owner should not be allowed to prevent others from replicating that functionality.
A few details still have to be hashed out though: can people charge for the use of their third party servers? Are new players required to purchase the game from the owner? What rights, if any, does the owner have regarding online configuration and interaction for a game they no longer support? If the owner stops distributing the game do they lose the right to demand payment for each copy distributed by a third party, either for pay or for free? I don't know these answers, but it's a better alternative to our outdated IP system.
"Use It Or Lose It" should be the IP motto in the Information Age.
What I think wickedlogic means is that the term "IP" is often used as a catch-all term for legal frameworks that are very dissimilar, and the various sides of "IP" should be treated very differently.
As a catch-all term it might seem useful because it's short, but it's often used to confuse and divide.
As an example: for Free Software,
-software patents are just a terrible idea
-copyright is broken, but usable
-trademarks are important
Three different branches of "IP," with widely varying consequences and implications.
If someone talks to you about "IP," ask them to be specific, even if just to make sure you're talking about the same thing.
Dear [REDACTED],
I write on behalf of Electronic Arts Inc. and its development studio DICE or, in other words, "those guys that make Battlefield."
We've noticed that Revive Network has several projects and websites devoted to being a Medic by reviving older Battlefield games, including Battlefield Heroes, Battlefield 2, and Battlefield 2142. It's great to see your enthusiasm for these titles. Not to brag, but we too get the nostalgia chills when booting up these classic entries in the Battlefield franchise.
We need a favor though: we must ask that you stop throwing down Ammo Crates. In other, more legal-styled terms, please stop distributing copies of our game clients and using our trademarks, logos, and artwork on your sites. Thing is, your websites may easily mislead visitors to believe that you are associated or affiliated with EA we're the only ones that get to wear the Official EA dog tag. Since you're Battlefield community members, we know that you are smart and helpful, and will respect that we must protect our intellectual property rights in the franchise.
Please drop us a line to let us know you're on board with this. Should you have any questions regarding all this, please do not hesitate to contact me via e-mail at [REDACTED]@ea.com.
Thanks,
[REDACTED] IP Counsel Electronic Arts Inc.
Trademark infringement is not what took down this service (or so motivated these people to take down the service). I have yet to read an "IP" compliance request that was accurate, truthful, or aligned with achieving a correct legal understanding between parties. This is not an accident. The use of that term creates an artificial whole, which is then used to imply greater authority over the sum of the parts.
My comment is on the prior comment, which is about the concept... not this specific instance, even though it is still applicable.
>Inb4 South China Sea.
There's only so much space on the island of Manhattan. It can't fit everybody on the planet.
Digital property is reproducible at zero cost. We could have a copy of Battlefield 2 for every man, woman, cat, and dog on this planet, at effectively the same cost that it takes to create the first copy.
Actually, in theory it could - it wouldn't be very comfortable, nor easy, and forget fire codes, but...
Manhattan is approximately 22.82 square miles in area; or approximately 59103529 square meters.
If we say "standing room only" and allocate 2 square meters per person, we could cram approximately 29551765 people on the island (assuming we level everything else, of course).
There are 7.6 billion people on the planet Earth, so:
7600000000 / 29551765 = 257 layers
If we say "let's build a building to house them all - and let's give 10 feet of room between levels" - then we get a (very ugly) "building" 2570 feet tall.
The Burj Khalifa is 2722 feet tall.
So that's 260 * 8 + 26 * 24 + 16 = 2720 feet.
But at ~50W thermal output per person, that's 380 GW of heat that has to be removed from the building. The perimeter of Manhattan is about 32 miles, or 168960 feet, so that's about 1 billion sq.ft. of surface area, about 1/3 outer wall and 2/3 roof. The building would need to reject 380W of waste heat from every single square foot. You would need AC capable of moving 1.3 trillion BTU/hr, or 108 million "tons".
I think regular air conditioners might not cut it. You'd probably have to use all collected urine to transport waste heat to a gigantic radiator out in the ocean.
You're already running some heavy-duty nuclear reactors just to circulate fresh air into the building and waste products out, so the real problem, I think, is getting food calories in, and the solid waste out.
Even if you can fix the structural problem, and the waste heat problem, and the CO2 problem, you can't get food into the building fast enough to feed everyone.
A 2000 kcal/day diet for 7.6 billion people is 18 million tons of sweet potato running up the elevators all day, every day. New York is a freight transit hub, but I don't think it could currently handle 6.5 billion tons of freight annually. The entire US transports 20 million tons of freight annually. There's just no way.
You would have to reduce the food to a liquid nutrient slurry off-site, and bring it in via pipeline. And your sewer... we're talking a literal river of poop, here, at 7300 cu.ft./s .
3 years in this instance were the alternate Battlefield servers being run outside of EA, which might be considered a reasonable space of time without the publisher taking action to the point where the alternative servers might be considered the inheritors of the intellectual property?
It's a bit of a stretch, but perhaps there is some validity here. I don't feel too strongly about it, so I hope you don't feel like I am trying to shut you down.
Which makes your argument absolutely hilarious, because there's actually a provision for houses that aren't used that allows squaters to take over and own it legally.
It's called "Adverse Possession."
So yeah, people who abandon (the use of) property... don't actually have the right to hold onto it forever. It's almost like the law favors society over complete assholes.