"That's part of the logic behind the various companies that sell property lots on the moon and stars in the sky (for novelty purposes)"
Companies that do this are not actually selling any property at all. They are selling a certificate and an entry in a publication. No property rights are being transferred -- which is why they have to say "for novelty purposes only", which is just code for "this has no legal meaning".
Re: Re: Re: Please don't let facts get in your way...
"It is not legal because the government does it."
It's legal when the government does it because the law says it is.
"Just because the government hacks and does not get caught does not make their actions any more right"
True, but you're confusing what's right and wrong with what's legal and illegal. They are two completely different things.
"I know members of the NSA who have nothing to do with hacking or surveillance."
Yes, that bit is clearly hyperbolic. However, it's also understandable. When an agency is engaging in Very Bad Things as a matter of accepted policy, then every single person who works for that agency is guilty of supporting those Very Bad Things even if they aren't directly engaging in them.
API: A specification for how one piece of code talks to another piece of code. The API itself does not consist of any code whatsoever: it's a specification.
I think that some of the confusion comes because programmers use a shorthand when they talk about APIs: they refer to specific implementations of the API as "the API". It's not accurate, but in most cases it's close enough.
Some more confusion comes from the choice of language. Some popular languages (such as, say, Java) are constrained so that you can't use a binary interface. This means that you need to use certain specific strings. Those strings look like code, but are in fact part of the specification (the API), and not actually code at all.
"What I'm saying is that neither business entities nor people can be held liable for "what might happen""
Of course they can, if the elements line up right. For example, if I take an action that a reasonable person understands as posing a substantial risk of serious injury to others, then I have committed the crime of "reckless endangerment" -- even if nobody got hurt.
"The cheaters pay money for the cheat, right? The seller is facilitating the fraud and profiting from it. A co-conspirator, in cases where they know their cheat is likely to be used this way."
This veers off into Japanese legal doctrine, of which I know nothing. But I do know what would make sense to me. The fraud argument seems weak, but in certain cases (such as trying to cheat a contest out of the winnings) it could be supportable. It doesn't seem supportable that sellers of the cheat should be on the hook, though, unless they were actively taking part in the specific case of fraud.
I think it would be one of the worst possible jobs. Senators aren't just sitting around doing nothing or escaping consequences. They work obscene hours.
The problem is that most of that work is fundraising (or related activities) for their reelection campaigns, and the consequences they are most exposed to is being unable to get any of that sweet corporate money.
They also don't get an unusual amount of vacation days. this is a little confused, because when congress adjourns for a vacation, it's not really a vacation. It's the time that congresspeople return to their districts and continue to work (mostly with fundraising).
The sender has to believe an Infringex document will be more effective than anything he or she could accomplish on their own.
Indeed. Infringex looks very much like yet another in the long list of scam psuedolegal services.
I suspect you'd generally get better results by writing a good personal letter than sending something like this. I know that this is how I'd react to an Infrigex-type document: I'd laugh, then either throw it away or put it up for public ridicule.
That's very different from how I'd react to a real, personal communication: I'd actually listen to and think about what it had to say.
The involvement of money with videogames isn't a new phenomenon at all. The two have been intertwined from the beginning. But what does the involvement of money have to do with whether or not cheaters should be arrested?