6:47 AM me: Ok, so microsoft bans people with modded xboxs from xbox live
Should they be allowed to?
berstff27: Yeah
me: Why?
berstff27: Yeah
6:48 AM me: Why?
6:49 AM berstff27: Because its their product. And xbox live is a community in which they have to be the moderator since it affects their own financial well being.
| 16 minutes |
7:06 AM me: Well, like, why should they have control over their products after they go to market? Yes, xbox live and xboxes are both owned by microsoft, but they are separate products, and if you do something wrong with your xbox your gamertag shouldn't be affected
berstff27: If you mod your xbox that would affect xbox live
7:07 AM Its not like they're taking your xbox away
7:08 AM me: They make it so your xbox cannot play future games
7:09 AM And, if you play pirated single player games, it hardly affects xbox live's livelihood
Heck, pirated multiplayer games hardly affect xbox live
7:10 AM berstff27: They should be able to whatever to people who pirate games. That's theft. Its illegal.
| 19 minutes |
7:30 AM me: Its not like microsoft has the right to punish thieves
That's the point of courts
7:32 AM berstff27: True but it can protect its own well being.
7:33 AM And people don't have a right to use xbox live. Its of course conditional. Remember all the terms of agreement you had to go through.
7:37 AM me: Yeah, but the ToS obviously has to be reasonable. Like, the ToS couldn't require you to only play xbox live standing up, or only play with microsoft controllers
7:40 AM berstff27: Then you shouldn't agree to it. Then you should take it up in court.
Until then though they stand.
And what microsoft is doing isn't unreasonable. They are taking measures to prevent abuse of their products. We can't all be extreme pacifists like you.
Especially if we're trying to make a profit.
7:42 AM me: Ha, I know. I'm just saying that the fact that xbox live is run by microsoft shouldn't change what it can do. That is, what if a third party did the same thing? What if xbox live was run by like, google, and then google came in and bashed up everyones xboxes
7:45 AM berstff27: Well I don't think that would happen where a third party controls an aspect of someones product.
7:46 AM And google live would still ban people with modded xboxs
7:47 AM me: Yes, but the intrusive bans are the problem. I mean, like, what does it matter to google live if someone is playing a game they bought, rented, or pirated?
7:50 AM berstff27: But google live could never exist without microsofts expressed permission
7:54 AM me: Why's that?
Why does microsoft have the right to dictate what you do with your console after you buy it?
7:55 AM berstff27: Because the games and console would have to be designed to allow it.
7:56 AM The whole point of copyright laws is that a company still has some ownership of their product despite the fact that you bought it.
7:58 AM me: Only the right to be the only people profitting off their intellectual property. But interfacing with their intellectual property is quite the opposite.
8:00 AM berstff27: Yes but microsoft completely controls the design. It could make it so others can't interface with their product
| 19 minutes |
8:19 AM me: And what happens when other succeed in interfacing with it?
8:20 AM Also, in my honest opinion, you are dangerously blurring the line between copyright law and contract law
| 44 minutes |
9:04 AM berstff27: How am I blurring the line between the two?
9:08 AM me: Well, like, copyright violations are a public matter
9:09 AM berstff27: The whole idea of ownership makes contracts necessary. In effect, someone has something you don't, so you have to barter.
9:11 AM me: Yes. That's true. And the service has every right to have an eula
| 27 minutes |
9:38 AM me: But the service doesn't have the right to act for the public benefit
9:39 AM Sure, it could act to stop harm to itself, but not to another service
berstff27: What?
What do you mean?
me: The first service being live, the second being the console
9:40 AM Like, live can't help xbox's well being
That's for the public to do
9:43 AM berstff27: What does that even mean?
9:44 AM me: What do you mean?
Like, how do you not get what I'm saying?
9:46 AM berstff27: Why do you talk of services without talking of companies?
9:47 AM me: Because who provides the service shouldn't matter
9:48 AM berstff27: But it does. For exactly the reasons I've said. Copyright and contracts.
9:49 AM me: What?
Copyrights are to a company and enforced by the courts
Not by the company
9:51 AM berstff27: Who provides the service does matter.
Your point?
| 15 minutes |
10:13 AM me: My point is that if their was one company that made xboxes and one that ran live and one that made games
That situation should be the same as microsoft
10:14 AM berstff27: Yeah if...
Why should it?
me: ?
10:15 AM Because otherwise you don't have perfect competition. You have some companies getting a head start legally on others
And, more importantly, you encourage big companies
10:16 AM berstff27: Yes...
So?
10:17 AM The idea of perfect competition in every market seems unrealistic
| 18 minutes |
10:35 AM me: Yeah, I know.
No comments:
Post a Comment