Personal beliefs and the laws to which you are upheld are two different things. I didn’t say I agree with the law. Why are you assuming my personal beliefs?
Right. So whoever did the update at Bethesda found it important to do that update. The developers of FO:London found it important to release their mod. If you ask the Bethesda employee they’d think their work was more important. If you ask the FO:L team they would say their work was more important. How do you determine whose importance was more important?
I think Fallout London adds more to the game and was wanted by more people. Democracy and utility seem to be agreed on this case, and those are the two measures I use to determine importance.
I disagree with the fundamental assertion that software can be owned
And that’s completely valid. However, under the current legal framework, that simply isn’t the case.
Why are you using a state’s laws to determine your own sense of morality?
Personal beliefs and the laws to which you are upheld are two different things. I didn’t say I agree with the law. Why are you assuming my personal beliefs?
Because you said what they say is important is more important. That sounds like a subjective opinion to me, not an interpretation of the law.
Well, if they own the IP, under the framework under which we live, their will is factually more important. 🤷♀️
No. Importance is a metaphysical construct, not a legal one.
Right. So whoever did the update at Bethesda found it important to do that update. The developers of FO:London found it important to release their mod. If you ask the Bethesda employee they’d think their work was more important. If you ask the FO:L team they would say their work was more important. How do you determine whose importance was more important?
I think Fallout London adds more to the game and was wanted by more people. Democracy and utility seem to be agreed on this case, and those are the two measures I use to determine importance.