A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Game Patents Need To Die
-
The “nemesis system” is just hundreds of voice lines and a dice roll to decide when they pop up. I liked the middle earth games but always thought it was funny how they pushed the nemesis system like some kind of groundbreaking thing.It's more the hierarchy of having super bad that can get bonuses based on your actions.
-
Oh interesting, but in piefed, you are still just opening a youtube link correct? The website wouldn't be changing unless the link is being forwarded or something else like that.
-
In the post, the YouTube link is above and the video is below. Initially, the video was viewable directly, then on subsequent visits it changed.
-
Interesting. I guess that's a piefed feature? Is there a client that you are using or is this just using the web ui?
-
It would if I could get modded Skyrim to work. Months working on my mod list only for it CTD on start up.That's why you enable mods in small batches. When you get an issue it's a lot easier to find the offender. Also, if you're getting a CTD on startup you're probably missing a dependency. Mod Organizer 2 is a lot better with warnings about that than Vortex
-
That's why you enable mods in small batches. When you get an issue it's a lot easier to find the offender. Also, if you're getting a CTD on startup you're probably missing a dependency. Mod Organizer 2 is a lot better with warnings about that than Vortex
-
Fuck software patents. Copyright made sense when it was a decade or two. Industrial patents seem basically functional. Trademark's mostly truth-in-advertising for consumer choice. But software patents aren't about *how* you do something - they're claiming the entire concept, in the broadest possible terms, and killing it. Straight-up murdering that potential. It is denied the necessary iterative competition that turns dogshit first implementations into must-have features. Nobody's gonna care in twenty years. Entire hardware form-factors have come and gone in a single decade. Can you imagine if swipe keyboards were *still* single-vendor, and still worked like in 2009? Or maybe Apple bought them, and endlessly bragged about how Android can't do [blank], because fifty thousand dollars changed hands in the 3G era. How many games would not exist, if Nintendo had decided they own sidescrollers? A whole genre, wiped out, because a piece of paper says those mechanics are theft.
-
I have advocated for the abolishment of IP many times in my life. Never, in my wildest dreams, would have thought that it would be abolished willingly through AI. All it took was to show that they could make more money by ignoring it. Like a light switch IP suddenly gets switched off. Now the corrupted federal government considers it a matter of national security and will protect it at all costs. Truly a bizarre world we live in.
-
IP laws are meant to protect creators, but are backdoored by corporate personhood. Remove corporate personhood and the world of IP law immediately becomes less toxic.This is objectively false. The propaganda of IP is that it is designed to protect the little guy. History shows that this was never the case as copyright was always a tool of censorship and control. The patent system has been twisted beyond the breaking point since before I was born. It does not exist for its intended purpose anymore and instead is a legal arms race between corporations and governments. Trademark law has also been leveraged by monopolists. Although arguably its purpose makes the most sense being a commercial protection used exclusively against other commercial entities. It too has been abused regularly. The average copyright court case is around $250,000+ from begging to conclusions in the federal courts. Asserting or defending your rights is insanely expensive. Many innovators and developers have been litigated out of existence by not being able to pay to defend themselves in the case of patent trolls. IP is for the wealthy and their favorite proxy the corporation to create artificial scarcity. They have authored a regulation empire to commercialize our culture. They act as gatekeepers to our thoughts and creations. It really is a bizarre system.
-
This is objectively false. The propaganda of IP is that it is designed to protect the little guy. History shows that this was never the case as copyright was always a tool of censorship and control. The patent system has been twisted beyond the breaking point since before I was born. It does not exist for its intended purpose anymore and instead is a legal arms race between corporations and governments. Trademark law has also been leveraged by monopolists. Although arguably its purpose makes the most sense being a commercial protection used exclusively against other commercial entities. It too has been abused regularly. The average copyright court case is around $250,000+ from begging to conclusions in the federal courts. Asserting or defending your rights is insanely expensive. Many innovators and developers have been litigated out of existence by not being able to pay to defend themselves in the case of patent trolls. IP is for the wealthy and their favorite proxy the corporation to create artificial scarcity. They have authored a regulation empire to commercialize our culture. They act as gatekeepers to our thoughts and creations. It really is a bizarre system.The problem is the imbalance, not the idea of protection. We don't jump to laissez faire legislation because regulatory capture exists. It makes good sense to give legal rights to individual creators for their works so they can choose whether to seek to monetize them or make them freely available, at least until their death. If you wrote a book/song/program/etc. I want you to have the authority to make that determination for your creation, and in a system of person vs person, while it's not a given that both people would enter litigation as equals, it would at least be more likely than when one of the 'people' is a multi-million dollar VC-funded company. If companies have no personhood, they cannot own IP from creation to the end of the universe. No corp personhood would also limit their ability in many jurisdictions to enact lobbying, regulatory capture, and various other chicanery. I'm not saying it'd be easy but it would be effective and a solid step in the right direction, where eliminating IP would only enable further corporate abuse.
-
The problem is the imbalance, not the idea of protection. We don't jump to laissez faire legislation because regulatory capture exists. It makes good sense to give legal rights to individual creators for their works so they can choose whether to seek to monetize them or make them freely available, at least until their death. If you wrote a book/song/program/etc. I want you to have the authority to make that determination for your creation, and in a system of person vs person, while it's not a given that both people would enter litigation as equals, it would at least be more likely than when one of the 'people' is a multi-million dollar VC-funded company. If companies have no personhood, they cannot own IP from creation to the end of the universe. No corp personhood would also limit their ability in many jurisdictions to enact lobbying, regulatory capture, and various other chicanery. I'm not saying it'd be easy but it would be effective and a solid step in the right direction, where eliminating IP would only enable further corporate abuse.I think the advent of AI really highlights that we are finally on a post artificial scarcity trajectory. Corporations and the government have almost completely stopped caring about IP enforcement in the quest for AI. The system you describe sounds somewhat reasonable. I was just pointing out it never existed in the first place. It is a compelling fantasy put forth by IP Maximalist to justify their rent seeking behavior. Making that fantasy a reality is probably possible in a non-fascist society. I am a bit confused by the last part where without an IP system corporations would be allowed to abuse artists. That is literally what they do everyday with the current laws with AI being their ultimate fuck you to artists. I suppose part of the issue is these laws have been exclusively written by corporations to benefit corporations.
-
I think the advent of AI really highlights that we are finally on a post artificial scarcity trajectory. Corporations and the government have almost completely stopped caring about IP enforcement in the quest for AI. The system you describe sounds somewhat reasonable. I was just pointing out it never existed in the first place. It is a compelling fantasy put forth by IP Maximalist to justify their rent seeking behavior. Making that fantasy a reality is probably possible in a non-fascist society. I am a bit confused by the last part where without an IP system corporations would be allowed to abuse artists. That is literally what they do everyday with the current laws with AI being their ultimate fuck you to artists. I suppose part of the issue is these laws have been exclusively written by corporations to benefit corporations.Yep. It'd be a massive improvement to see artists getting an iota of the deference the courts show to large corporations. To make the last part clearer, the state we have now effectively is the 'no IP' state, but as created by uneven enforcement. Per the letter of the law, companies are supposed to pay for the IP they use, including, somehow, AI derivatives. Things are bad enough but dumping IP entirely would mean there wasn't even those ostensible protections. It'd be some Libertarian's fantasy I don't want to be anywhere near.
-
You probably know more about YouTube channel controls than i do. Anyway, piefed, in a post. The video worked at first, then it didn't.
-
Somebody modded it into Skyrim if that helps