Well done EA. Lastest Update: Jack Thompson responds

Discussion in 'General Gaming' started by Rekkie7, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. Rekkie7

    Rekkie7 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    14,038
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shouldn't everyone have the right to that repuation?

    Now how the courts would determine how much money is payable is questionable...how much do you get for sueing a shop that you slip up on a wet floor? Medical bills? There have been judgements made for a lot more then that.

    It's true you can't actually put a price on what EA has lost, but it doesn't mean that Fox shouldn't be punished for what it is doing.
     
    #41
  2. Tyrranis

    Tyrranis Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    1
    You know what I would do if I was EA?

    Send them a retail copy of Mass Effect with a letter saying 'Go on, point out the gratuitous sex'.
     
    #42
  3. Ted Wolff

    Ted Wolff Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, everyone shouldn't have a right to their reputations. What is a right to a reputation?

    It is control over the subjective valuationsâ€â€
     
    #43
  4. maca2kx

    maca2kx Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hasn't anyone told you it's not nice to lie Ted? The example of Coca Cola and Pepsi is completely different to this since it is based on the 'reputation' of a company, something that can be measured in a variety of ways and is subjective. The only thing that can be said is that the majority of people prefer one product to another. Pepsi has the right to say their product is the best, so does Coca Cola, but neither description holds much water since it cannot be quantified.

    Regarding Mass Effect this is different; Fox made unfounded, and incorrect, accusations in an attempt to stir controversy and generate fear amongst like minded soccer mums. What you are advocating is outright lying, if all news channels decided to completely and unashamedly lie to grab ratings then the purpose of presenting the news is totally undermined. The news exists not just because people are 'busy' but because they lack the resources and influence to learn about the happenings of the world themselves. No one can claim the news is unbiased and completely truthful but by Fox spreading malicious lies such as this only means the lies are absorbed and propagated.

    Freedom of speech is great but should not be used as a wall to hide behind when one is caught out in a lie.

    Sam
     
    #44
  5. Ted Wolff

    Ted Wolff Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    The example of Coca-Cola and Pepsi and FOX and EA is no different. What is being argued over here is reputation, not true/false statements. The definition of reputation does not change whether what is claimed regarding it is true or false.

    Where does EA get a right to force FOX to state only true and correct things about its company?

    I never advocated outright lying; please show me where I supposedly did. I am advocating the free exercise of property rights â€â€
     
    #45
  6. NickKmet

    NickKmet Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about a defamation lawsuit?
     
    #46
  7. EdEdEd

    EdEdEd Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Silent_Player, I'm seriously curious right now: what's your stance on trademark or copyright law? They protect ideas, essentially, rather than reputation, but it's still the protection of something abstract. Would you say there should be no copyright, because there's no physical property being protected here?

    (This isn't a Colombo-like lead in, either. You just seem to have the opinion that ONLY tangible things can be property, and I'd like to know how far that goes, because that's one of those fundamental differences of opinion that would make arguing one's point quite pointless).
     
    #47
  8. NickKmet

    NickKmet Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    EA cannot sue Fox on grounds of Copyright infringement, because Fox hasn't actually violated any of EA's copyrights by making false claims about Mass Effect. That simply does not in anyway constitute violating any kind of intellectual or physical copyright law. The only thing that EA can actually sue Fox for is some kind of defamation/slander/villification. In the United States, EA would simply have to provide proof that those statements made by fox are false, and thus must provide the "truth" about their product.

    This kind of lawsuit happens all the time in the US. In fact, you can sue any company or business for making false advertising claims in all media forms. Ever wonder why there's always a huge amout of small print at the bottom of ads? Its because somebody sued some company at some point for making a false claim in their advertisements. Personally, i think a lot of these kinds of lawsuits are quite sad. For example, the reason car companies put "Professional Driver on Closed Course. Do Not Attempt" at the bottom of their ads. Some dude sued them because he actually tried some of the stunts that are pulled of TV commercials, hurt himself in the process, and was able to sue and win a lawsuit against a car company. All because he was a complete moron and didn't have any common sense.

    But in this case, I think that EA not only has the right to sue Fox for defamation, but they also have an incredibly easy case to make. Under US law, the plaintiff has to provide and prove 5 simple things to have a successful case. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault. From the way the news story was handled, i think its pretty obvious that EA would have no trouble doing any of those. The only thing Fox could really do is drag their feet through the mud on this in court, but that would most likely hurt their image many, many times more than simply settling such a lawsuit outside of court.

    Personally i'm suprised that EA didn't file a civil lawsuit immediately after that story aired on Fox. Its time somebody brought that disgusting "News" corporation down to what they really are: an overfunded, over-bloated tabloid.
     
    #48
  9. Rekkie7

    Rekkie7 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    14,038
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just because we know Fox lied about this, doesn't mean everyone does. We know because we play the game. Likewise we wouldn't know if Fox was lieing or not if they we're reporting on something we are not deeply invovled in. I would prefer it if the news outlets did not mislead me on any of these.

    Thankfully I don't have to watch Fox, but I do believe EA has a case. People have been sued for much less.
     
    #49
  10. Ted Wolff

    Ted Wolff Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am increasingly wary of intellectual property (another dubious description); e.g., trademark, copyright, patent. An object's, or thing's, physicality does not alone qualify it as property. Property are the scarce resources; hence, the need for property rights: how to properly manage scarcity; more on this shortly.

    That said: Ideas are not scarce. The creation of ideas is infinite. Furthermore, ideas can be simultaneously held by multiple individuals, which is integral to property. Property cannot be simultaneously held. For example, Mary and Marge cannot occupy the same property simultaneously. If there exists a certain Red Ball, only Mary or Marge can possess it at any certain point in time. And this follows down to the fundamental object of property: an individual's body â€â€
     
    #50
  11. LinksOcarina

    LinksOcarina Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    0
    If everything you said above is the case then; everything we see, hear, touch, or taste is owned by no one but individuals who happen to own or make these properties. And if that is true, then society as a whole is nothing but a lie, because then no real laws protect us, no real feelings, via touch, taste, sound, sight, are dynamic or different, nothing should stimulate us because we all share external and internal property.

    There is no safeguard to individuality this way, because it is counter active towards it as a whole. If you strip away brands, patents, inventions and copyright laws, then everyone can claim anything they want. I fully claim that I invented Coca-Cola, and therefore you can either agree with me or disagree, or maybe believe you created it yourself. We can claim that George Bush invented KFC, that Kofi Amon made light chocolate, and Nintendo was the original producer of Halo, but they are all lies, downright supid, malicious lies!

    Ideas may be infinite, but when ideas cause chaos due to deception, you lose order. You can say that the U.S government is torturing individuals so they can aquire information on potential terrorist targets, and argue that it is a good idea, and the only alternative that would work because they would not cooperate, but that doesn't change the grisly notions of torture. While it may have been acceptable up until the 19th century, torture as a whole is frowned upon by almost every community because the idea of torture begets unecessary and cruel violence.

    Yet, we do it because we think it's a good idea. Hell, Other countries, like Kenya, Ivory Coast, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Have torture laws in place as well. So we all share the same idea, one that brings about pain to individuals we consider hostile. We follow examples of another countries intellectual property to get our own job done, ignoring any safeguards there is towards torture.

    Granted that is large scale, but the point is still the same; Intellectual property may be an individuals private use, but that still needs to be checked with proper regulation before it gets out of hand. Laws like copyright infringement, slander, libel, patents, exist to safeguard this right we have so there is order. If we went around copying CD's by ourselves, market eceonomies would slowly collapase as the sales and production of CD's becomes free domain. By having laws such as the ones stated above, you safeguard the businesses which distribute the music you listen to, for good or bad, so that they can continue to generate income to produce, record, and create more music CD's from that same band we like so much.

    So in the end, the laws are necessary to make the world go round. As dubious as it sounds, you need these laws to make sure you can still have intellectual property.

    Let me put it this way, how would you feel if someone stole something you were working on for months on end, and not credit you for it? Or far worse, change it up and flame the original creator. How would you feel then, if, by your definition, he can do what he wishes because your creation is inellectually his property as well.
     
    #51
  12. NickKmet

    NickKmet Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said LinksOricana....well said.
     
    #52
  13. Rekkie7

    Rekkie7 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    14,038
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/847/847995p1.html
     
    #53
  14. Longo_2_guns

    Longo_2_guns Forum Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    17,190
    Likes Received:
    46
    For some reason I hate Jack Thompson less.

    So I just realized something. Jack Thompson may not be as bad as people make him out to be. If he really thought video games were all bad, he would have had a field day on this. Maybe he had a change of heart, or maybe he knows that this wasn't that bad. Maybe he realized that everyone hates him and decided to throw in the towel.
     
    #54
  15. Rekkie7

    Rekkie7 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    14,038
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess Thompson is more concerned with violence then sex......which is fine by me...but he's still a wacko.
     
    #55
  16. Longo_2_guns

    Longo_2_guns Forum Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    17,190
    Likes Received:
    46
    I'm fairly certain the whole reason he started his campaign was because of Hot Coffee.
     
    #56
  17. Rekkie7

    Rekkie7 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    14,038
    Likes Received:
    0
    #57
  18. Ted Wolff

    Ted Wolff Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. Property are scarce resources. Human beings own property and use property rights to manage their property. Everything homesteaded â€â€
     
    #58
  19. LinksOcarina

    LinksOcarina Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, to Jack Thompson, I am surprised he is kind of saying nothing is wrong with Mass Effect. I guess that even means that Thompson is either cooling himself because of his own legal troubles, or he legitemately sees no threat to Mass Effect.

    When someone who is known for criticizing games criticizes a NEWS outlet for saying false information on games, then there is something wrong.

    As for you, Silent Player, to answer your questions, here is a minor history lessons.

    First off, property is owned by the one who claims it, be it land or resources. Now in the past, you killed or stole from the one who owns property so you can gain it yourself, in todays modern world, there are laws safeguarding that. I can't go into a brewery and steal hops and secret recipies because it is the intellectual property of the brewers, and illegal to do so. Simply put, everything is owned, and now almost everything is protected.

    Second, the reasons patents and copyright infringement laws exist now is so that no one can claim to anything, thereby causing confusion and distrust in any product.

    Now, you wanted some proof of this, here you go. In 1787, Pennsylvania farmers who manufactured and distilled whiskey were getting outraged by the new U.S government, because the U.S government was not helping them protect their products. There was a demand for drinking, yes, but there was also no originality, almost 90% of the whiskey coming from Pennsylvania was in essence, the same formula, because the brewers stole the formulas that worked. Now since everyone had the same tasting whiskey, people began to notice this, and looked for alternatives. This led to a drop in sales, and due to poor planning under the articles of confederation, and the lack of a stable tax rebate system, as the Federal bank was not in effect yet, the farmers revolted against the U.S government.

    Or how about a more archaic example, it fits even more. During the late middle ages and Renissance period, the formation of guilds was common practice because it was socially and economically a good idea to join one. The reasons are simple, actually. One, people trusted guild products because they know they were crafted well, made in mass production, and not, essentially, flimsy. Two, they know that there are numerous different styles that are taught in the guild, so it is unlikely that two baskets will look the same, unless they are made for the same purpose. Lastly, the guild also supports the community via charities on shanty shrines, chruch offerings, and even participation in the local governments.

    Now supposed our basketmaker acts upon his own, creating similar designs as these guild members but is outside of the guild, and has no intention of joining them. He could make similar quality, lower quality, even new designs if he likes, but four things could happen. Legally at this time, he could be fined or jailed for a violation of the guild code, he would likely not sell as much because he is not under the guild "brand", so to speak, and, in all honesty, he could be put to death by guild members who would take revenge on him. Gruesome it is to act alone, which is why the guild system thrived until the industrial age.

    My point's the same though, there is a certian code of conduct and the laws created in both the past and present are made this way to reflect that code, and to protect a person when creating the wares we use for recreation or living. I frankly don't give a fuck if you make a diet coke better than coke does, it is still illegal and you are violating a law that legally protects coca-cola. And in the case of Mass Effect, EA has a strong case of a libel violation against Fox News, and while on paper they seem different, the laws all have the same goal in the end, to protect property from the individual who created it.
     
    #59
  20. NickKmet

    NickKmet Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem with this argument is that when you remove intellectual property rights, you shouldn't be worried about people copying and trying to steal from an established company like Coca-Cola. What you should be worried about is large companies, or even unknowns, stealing from other unknown companies releasing new products/ideas. As soon as you remove all protection against this, large companies and corporations will strong arm and squeeze anybody who comes into the market with something new and better and steal that product. Because they're well established, the person who just had his idea stolen from him will have no way to fight against that theft. The economy would revert to the way it was before such protections were put into place, in the days of Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Carnegie. They all made their vast fortunes through the manipulation of others. Without intellectual property rights, the economy will become dominated by a few huge corporations that were able to strong arm, cheat, and steal everything of value from their competitors. There will be complete monopolization, and thus no competition, and thus no need for technological advancement, no need for those large companies to make their product better without anyone competing against them. Its kind of like Microsoft...bastards stole a lot of their stuff from small companies that would be unable to defend themselves without intellectual property rights. Same thing with Sony and the rumble controller lawsuit. Intellectual property is a neccesity to protect the viability of the mixed capitalism/socialism society/economy that America has.
     
    #60

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice