Job losses are a key point in all of this, but I agree we shouldn't quibble over a few thousand either way. The jobs created by the internet and related tech industries dwarf any number the content industry want to make up. So if it boils down to it it's pretty obvious which one to choose, right?
"Advocating denial of a human rights" does sound terribly menacing doesn't it, but it's the same argument as "it's illegal so it's wrong". That declaration was originally written almost 70 years ago, a time where the impact on global freedoms and this interwebs couldn't have been anticipated (and a slight rewording would sort all that).
You knew these things, and yet posted that, choosing to ignore a comprehensive debunking apparently loaded with BS but you're 2 big rebuttals were some minor technical niggle which I don't get the point of, and a "think of the children" plea.
That's all I kept thinking reading this. The games company as the franchisee provide the core software (and probably run their own servers with their preferred setting/rules), but allow individuals such as those running personal servers to become official franchisees. The franchisees get permission to run the core software on their servers, with customised setting/mods etc, and Shanda get a cut.
If you want to see how the hardcore IP enforcers view it, have a read of http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/18/hargreaves_summary_and_first_reaction/
PS: If you're not aware of that authors other work, it's painful. No comments allowed on most stories (email direct to author so he can cherry pick), and in the ones where you can anything contradicting him is screened. Also, he's master of the straw-man, he's like a voodoo priest or something.
After reading his comments in the previous Techdirt article I just had to go look at the Patent Hawk blog ("Underdog" is the one relating to the case against Microsoft)..............It's.....well....You've gotta read it, it's hilarious. The third person stuff is great, and the fact everyone is evil and against him makes it so much funnier.
If it wasn't so entertaining I would love to see him locked up for knowingly manipulating the system and wasting so much of everyones time and money because he's an asshat (but unfortunately that law hasn't come into place yet)
Interesting attempts at arguments, but "event" and "expecations" are far too vague and differ so much from person to person that you can't base laws on them.
So you're back to "in public = no privacy", seems pretty straightforward to me.
Closerest: He bought a house with an awesome games room. The guy he bought it off comes along and locks the door to it, saying that it shouldn't be usable because the floors are unstable (and if someone gets hurt in there it's your fault!).
He decides he's a responsible guy, and reckons he should be able to decide how he uses all the rooms in the house he bought, especially since he bought the house based on that really cool room which was a main selling point (the dodgy floors didn't seem to be a problem before). So he tries to open the door. He's pretty nifty with locks and eventually figures it out.
Since he knows other people have had the same thing happen in their own homes he shares his knowledge.
I've been "debating" this with a few Sony apologists, and they've got a few staples they keep falling back on, so if we are going to discuss this can we agree this is about Sony punishing those who "jailbreak" their PS3 and not:
1) Stopping piracy: A potential follow on, but not part of this debate
2) Stopping cheats: Again, maybe a possible follow on, but cheats have managed to mod save filed and use other methods prior to this
If you can keep it on topic then I am very interested to see why you think these actions are acceptable.
Not sure which way you're going with that. Is that a defense of him? "It's okay because he's done lots of stuff"?
Or are you recommending that someone needs to have a look at all his work over the last 10 years, as since he claims he didn't know he was supposed to attribute there is a very high chance the rest of his work [or at least some of it] is plagiarised too?
If it's the first one, shame on you. If it's the second then I concur.