Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [IG] Overwatch to Permanently Ban Cheaters On First Offence
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[IG] Overwatch to Permanently Ban Cheaters On First Offence - Page 21

post #201 of 242
tongue.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimlock View Post

Here's another site that properly explains how copyright works.

http://www.hypergridbusiness.com/2011/08/how-to-lose-your-copyright-in-three-easy-steps/

Don't just take what a CEO says without a grain of salt. That's just ignorance. I have more sites with the exact same information if you'd like me to continue. As I said before, Blizzard likely used the statement as a means to defend their action against the fact that people did not see it as a reasonable action, just like the first article I linked stated. The only thing Blizzard is losing is the respect of ownership for their title by allowing people to play their property for free, while dedicated players are paying a monthly fee.

I didn't say I'm not taking the Executive Producer's side without a grain of salt, I said I'm going to believe him more than an article which doesn't give any reasoning and over simplifies+muddles the issue.

That link explains the situation in a way that makes sense and doesn't dismiss the bare minimum of technicalities in favor of excessive ambiguity.
post #202 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIYDeath View Post

tongue.gif
I didn't say I'm not taking the Executive Producer's side without a grain of salt, I said I'm going to believe him more than an article which doesn't give any reasoning and over simplifies+muddles the issue.

That link explains the situation in a way that makes sense and doesn't dismiss the bare minimum of technicalities in favor of excessive ambiguity.

You just don't want to admit you're wrong. I have also provided you with material that completely supports the article and dismisses the statement provided by the CEO. Multiple times.
post #203 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimlock View Post

You're going against your own argument then. This is the exact opposite of what Blizzard used to defend their actions. I'm not attacking Blizzards actions, I'm attacking the reasoning they gave. Because as a CEO, he should of known the legality of copyright law, and if he did then he is purposefully misleading people with misinformation and you fell right into it.

It's not against my own argument. At all.

Going after every end user is unrealistic, going after a large group with a high profile is not. You need to re-read my example. I addressed this already.
post #204 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIYDeath View Post

It's not against my own argument. At all.

Going after every end user is unrealistic, going after a large group with a high profile is not. You need to re-read my example. I addressed this already.

You're mutating your standing point. You originally supported the CEO's statement because they were a CEO of a company. Now you're changing it to what I was using as my argument. I don't need to go back and reread anything.
Quote:
I'm going to take the executive producer's word over an article that specifically says "in the narrowest sense" when commenting on how it wouldn't damage the ability to protect their IP from unauthorized servers.

Your original stance.
post #205 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimlock View Post

You just don't want to admit you're wrong. I have also provided you with material that completely supports the article and dismisses the statement provided by the CEO. Multiple times.

No, I'm just highly suspect of someone who can't even read examples all the way through, presents articles that don't go into detail and gloss over important aspects of the argument as proof of their point.

If I took your word as gospel, that would be ignorant. I never said I wasn't wrong, I said that I'd believe the Executive more than I'd believe the original article you presented. That is all. So stop adding more meaning to the words I choose, English is pretty straight forward given the context that's being used.
post #206 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimlock View Post

You're mutating your standing point. You originally supported the CEO's statement because they were a CEO of a company. Now you're changing it to what I was using as my argument. I don't need to go back and reread anything.
Your original stance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimlock View Post

You're mutating your standing point. You originally supported the CEO's statement because they were a CEO of a company. Now you're changing it to what I was using as my argument. I don't need to go back and reread anything.
Your original stance.

"I'm going to take the executive producer's word over an article that specifically says "in the narrowest sense" when commenting on how it wouldn't damage the ability to protect their IP from unauthorized servers."

Exactly. Don't add additional meaning to my words.
post #207 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIYDeath View Post

No, I'm just highly suspect of someone who can't even read examples all the way through, presents articles that don't go into detail and gloss over important aspects of the argument as proof of their point.

If I took your word as gospel, that would be ignorant. I never said I wasn't wrong, I said that I'd believe the Executive more than I'd believe the original article you presented. That is all. So stop adding more meaning to the words I choose, English is pretty straight forward given the context that's being used.

You continued to defend your point even when I provided you proof that the statement was false, and theres nothing in the original article that would lead anyone to believing that they are stretching any sort of truth or providing misinformation. You also never stated you were wrong, you only continued to defend your opinion and the statement made by the blizzard employee.
Edited by Brimlock - 6/2/16 at 2:12pm
post #208 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimlock View Post

You continued to defend your point even when I provided you proof that the statement was false, and theres nothing in the original article that would lead anyone to believing that they are stretching any sort of truth or providing misinformation.

No, I'm defending my choice of words which you are misinterpreting. You're saying I said something I did not, I'm telling over over and over what I specifically stated. This has nothing to do with your 2nd article where it was properly explained.
post #209 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIYDeath View Post

No, I'm defending my choice of words which you are misinterpreting. You're saying I said something I did not, I'm telling over over and over what I specifically stated. This has nothing to do with your 2nd article where it was properly explained.

No I'm not, you argued that a company could potentially lose its copyright protection by not actively acting on it. I provided you with evidence that that statement is false and is a myth. Short and simple.
post #210 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimlock View Post

No I'm not, you argued that a company could potentially lose its copyright protection by not actively acting on it. I provided you with evidence that that statement is false and is a myth. Short and simple.

*sigh*

I'm not even discussing that yet because that's part of your second link. Stop shoving words in my mouth. This is exactly what I said verbatim.

"I'm going to take the executive producer's word over an article that specifically says "in the narrowest sense" when commenting on how it wouldn't damage the ability to protect their IP from unauthorized servers."

That does NOT mean that I'm automatically believing the Executive. It means I'm going to trust the executive over an article which over summarizes, doesn't cite resources and is highly casual.

That has nothing to do with your second link which does not over summarize, does cite resources and is not highly casual. Nothing!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Game News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [IG] Overwatch to Permanently Ban Cheaters On First Offence