Starcraft 2 - worth buying?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Welcome to our domicile. Hope you like it here and stay for maybe quite a while.

I think you are oversimplifying it a little. The problem in my opinion is that the legal meaning of ownership has not yet extended itself into the digital realm. We see this in music and media. So then, it is the act of "selling" a product to us that we do not own thereafter that is dishonest not the act of leasing in a fair manner.

I think the problem extends beyond that. It has to do with just what ownership means. In the strictest sense, if you own something, it is yours to do with as you wish. You can sell it, give it away, destroy it, or duplicate it. Copyright and patent laws restrict what owning something means in order to protect the originators of new ideas. And already things become complex. Look at books. Except for specific uses, it is illegal to duplicate copyrighted books. You can resell it, or give it away, or even lend it, but not duplicate it. In effect, you own the media but not the message.

The software industry is not working on a new concept, but rather on making the existing concept work. There was a time when making a single copy of an item was more trouble than it was worth. Pirates had to have a fair degree of machinery to duplicate a vinyl album or a movie or a book. That made them reasonable targets for legal actions. Starting, probably, with the reel to reel tape deck, duplicating things, especial intellectual property, has become progressively easier. It is this problem that the software companies (and other media companies) are facing, trying to solve, over reacting to (maybe), and irritating their customers with.

It's not really so much a question of ownership -- that was settled when the first copyright was issued -- but one of protection and enforcement.

And I have absolutely no idea of how to do it, but all attempts to date are good examples of how not to do it.

--Pete