jklinders is right, of course. Monopolies can only be had over an entire industry; IP protection hardly applies here.jklinders said:Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything. A lack of IP leaves anyone with original content naked to exploitation by the likes of Zynga. You know those industry parasites that rob everyone's ideas and copy them without giving any credit.immortalfrieza said:"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth. That's my entire point! Why can't you... Damn it... I'm getting out before I start swearing and insulting you and end up banned. In fact, that's probably what you're trying to invoke since you can't get the incredibly obvious point I've been making.jklinders said:So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.immortalfrieza said:Nope, there are no alternatives, (legal ones anyway) that was my entire point from the beginning. If I want a any system or game that Sony has the exculsive copyrights to, I must get it through Sony's distribution channels, pirate it or get an illegal knockoff, or not get it at all, there are no other companies that can produce and distribute that same game or system legally, which is what makes it a monopoly. In fact, the entire point of this Jimquistion episode is the fact that pirates provide a better, hassle free, and much more wallet friendly service for the PS1 classics than Sony itself does.jklinders said:I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.
I'll just stop you right there, because nothing I've ever wrote in this thread ever stated the above, I never even implied that, which if people that are quoting me actually read what I wrote instead of just reading a couple sentences out of context and then prematurely started complaining about them they'd know.jklinders said:I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry...
NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.
Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.
You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident.
Have your last word.
However, I will say one more thing. I am no troll, I'm making a legitimate point. "You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident."
I could say the same. Just because you aren't willing to admit that you are wrong and I am right doesn't make me wrong.
I don't want to live in a world where creativity is stifled by a lack of reward for hard sweat and work. IP is the only barrier we have to keep ideas flowing as without some mechanism to protect your ideas you are naked to having others steal (copy) your work without putting any effort into it.
It is a very imperfect system. I challenge you to find a better one in this very imperfect world.
I'll be waiting for you to come up with the better way. I don't think I will live to see it though.
You call it technicalities, I call it the difference between holding a monopoly on a service and having protection for your ideas which are also your livelihood. You are the only one here defining it this way. Maybe you should think about that..."Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth.
Now I really am done.
You could make the argument that Sony consolidating so many IPs under their banner, making it easier for them to subject people interested in those IPs to anti-consumer business practices is similar to monopolizing an industry, but Sony hasn't gone far enough for it to count yet.
Not that it isn't still shitty for the end users, but there's a pretty substantial difference between businesspractices that are stupid and harmful, and those that are actually illegal.