Normal
Because without licensing as is, we would have never even gotten The Pinball Arcade because the only way anyone would get use of any license would be by purchasing it outright. Scientific Games bought the Williams license for 1.2 billion dollars. A few months later they bought the Bally license for a number similarly large. FarSight and Zen could have pooled their capital together and would still been nowhere close to securing that. If you had chosen to argue over exclusivity rights, there might be some meat on the bone. Instead your adherence to rights "in perpetuity" is where everything falls apart immediately.I have given detailed explanations of real world situations, both in physical and digital realms. I have addressed how competition is very present even when one party has exclusivity rights. I have shown that controlling one's own library of content is a major asset in determining a company's worth. I have also shown how these license laws are beneficial to the company seeking to use the license. The counter response has been akin to saying "nuh uh" and then yelling "corporate greed!" before ducking for cover. Until you can address this topic from any other standpoint than that of a consumer, until you can show any sensible reason why a license owner would lease out those rights to a company for life, there's no point in further argument.
Because without licensing as is, we would have never even gotten The Pinball Arcade because the only way anyone would get use of any license would be by purchasing it outright. Scientific Games bought the Williams license for 1.2 billion dollars. A few months later they bought the Bally license for a number similarly large. FarSight and Zen could have pooled their capital together and would still been nowhere close to securing that. If you had chosen to argue over exclusivity rights, there might be some meat on the bone. Instead your adherence to rights "in perpetuity" is where everything falls apart immediately.
I have given detailed explanations of real world situations, both in physical and digital realms. I have addressed how competition is very present even when one party has exclusivity rights. I have shown that controlling one's own library of content is a major asset in determining a company's worth. I have also shown how these license laws are beneficial to the company seeking to use the license. The counter response has been akin to saying "nuh uh" and then yelling "corporate greed!" before ducking for cover. Until you can address this topic from any other standpoint than that of a consumer, until you can show any sensible reason why a license owner would lease out those rights to a company for life, there's no point in further argument.
