This. This fast churning play it and quickly jump to the next big thing was created by the game companies themselves. Back when when online multiplayer was something I cared about, I would play a game for at least a year. Now it seems like there's always some new must play multiplayer game coming out every month. Kinda hard to keep people's interest that way.
One thing that has always nagged at me whenever the question of whether used games sales harm new games sales comes up is this. Everything we've been led to understand about the games market says that the first month of sales is critical for the profitability and success of a game. If your game has a enough used sales in the first month to impact your profitability and success, maybe, just maybe, could your problem be something other than used games sales?
Can you explain why a trademark holder shouldn't protect their trademark?
Because they only have trademark rights to the phrase 'Twisted Sister' for 'ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES RENDERED BY A VOCAL AND INSTRUMENTAL GROUP' but not anywhere else that would not be 'likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods'. If you understood trademark law, you would know that having a trademark doesn't give you the right to stop all other uses of it in commerce.
This is the prevailing mindset in the US that allows idiotic reports like these get considered. For the record--US law (IP or otherwise) holds no force in countries outside the US unless included in a treaty between that country and the US--which would make it an issue for the departments of state of those two countries--not the WHO.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
You have an interesting view of due process, seeing as how you have already concluded that Kim Dotcom is guilty without ever seeing any evidence or having a trial--you know, all those things that are part of 'due process'.
No, I think I've got your point pegged. Your masters aren't concerned about infringing or non-infringing. They're concerned about loss of control. Which is what this bill does--puts the control over peoples' legally purchased items back into their hands and not in the rights-holders'.
How does this weaken copyright? How does engaging in non-infringing uses have anything at all to do with copyright? This is the most idiotic argument I've heard on this subject. Non-infringing use of copyrighted material was always legal before the DMCA. Everything that was infringing and therefore illegal under the copyright laws from before the DMCA, will still be illegal if this passes. Everything that was infringing and therefore illegal under the copyright laws from after the DMCA, will still be illegal if this passes. What changes? Nothing, other than your masters loose some control that they shouldn't have had in the first place.
You actually have to make a point before anyone can refute it. You've been asked once by Chosen Reject, and now I ask you again. Support your claim. If you can't, your statements on this subject are meaningless.
Someone doesn't understand the mechanics of an MMO
I don't think our friend Blue understands how important those 70% 'freeloaders' are for a f2p MMO (I'll give him a hint--MMO = massively MULTIPLAYER online). If only a very few are playing, the game becomes almost impossible to play because you can't find anyone to play with (almost all the content worth playing needs multiple people to experience it--especially endgame content and PvP). With every MMO I've played, the main reason I quit was the lack of decent people playing at the time of day I was playing it. Those 'freeloaders' are providing a service in the game by creating a large player base which makes the game more valuable to the ones who are willing and able to pay. This is why their revenue doubled. At the rate things were going, if they didn't go f2p the game would have been dead in a year (and it's kinda hard to get any profit from a dead MMO).
The same is also true in any online game--the more players you have, the more value your game has for your players.
Re: Re: WHOA! Stop at: "everyone just wants stuff for free".
Copyright should not provide a right to compensation--this leads to attempts to legislate protection for failing business models and monopolies. Copyright should only provide a limited window of opportunity for compensation--in the form of exclusivity. This allows for the consumers to choose what business model they want to support, and stops the content providers from trying to dictate the market to the exclusion of anything else. In any healthy business model it is the consumer that dictates how it should function not the provider. Why should content distribution be any different?
No, we'd have to hold onto something securely attached to the planet for dear life, or go flying out into space from the inertia of planetary motion and rotation. But most likely horribly die in the vacuum caused by the lack of an atmosphere.