Crowdsourcing the preservation means the one UND ONLY ONE copy can't be destroyed by fire, flood, disk failure, ransomware, whatever else.
back
1 comments
There is not only one copy. There are many copies under Konami's control. It is also fully up to Konami if they want it to eventually become public or if they just want to delete it and have it never revealed. That is the decision that they themselves have the power to make and leaks like this is stripping them of their creative rights over distribution.
> That is the decision that they themselves have the power to make and leaks like this is stripping them of their creative rights over distribution
Fuck yeah, that's exactly why this leak is a great thing. It should belong to everybody. “Konami” as an entity is not even comprised of the same people that worked there when MGS2 was created. Stop personifying corporations as singular entities.
You are entitled to think that people's hard work should belong to everyone after X many years. Stealing it is not something to celebrate as it is a deeply malicious action. Konami being made up of different people does not mean that they don't own still own it and have control over it. While archival sounds like a noble goal, in practice it is an excuse used by people who want to steal copyrighted works and take advantage of them. Konami by definition is a legal person (法人) so I do not see anything wrong with personification of it.
You have it precisely backwards. Culture belonging to the people is the default, natural state, and copyright is an unnatural legal fiction that should only be tolerated insofar at it produces a net positive in terms of promotion of the arts and sciences.
Unfortunately, the whole intellectual property concept has been co-opted by big business for rent-seeking.
I don't think the Konami execs are at a board meeting saying, "we can't fund another Metal Gear sequel because it will just become public domain in 20 years."
Culture may belong to people, but intellectual property like source code doesn't. It's protected by NDAs for the express fact that it doesn't become part of what the people have. Copies of the game have been released for people to play to directly experience the game.
>unnatural legal fiction
It is extremely natural for someone to have ownership over what one has created. If you make a beautifully designed pendant someone can't just steal it from you and claim that they are "archiving it" and want to experience culture.
> Culture may belong to people, but intellectual property like source code doesn't.
> It is extremely natural for someone to have ownership over what one has created.
Intelectual property is an oxymoron, and no oxymoron can be natural. Only scarce things can be property. Making non-scarce things (e.g. binary code) act as property is conflict-seeking behavior that often results in the violation of real ownership of others.
> It's protected by NDAs for the express fact that it doesn't become part of what the people have.
NDA do not protect IPs. While they restrict the flow of information, they are still contracts, and bounded by their limits as such.
> If you make a beautifully designed pendant someone can't just steal it from you and claim that they are "archiving it" and want to experience culture.
Yes, someone can "steal" (copy) my beatiful design on the basis that they own their own pendant materials. To prevent that is to violate their private property rights and, in some cases, their right to live.
>Only scarce things can be property.
Abundant things can be property too. Property is about ownership. Intellectual property is a subcategory of property. It isn't an oxymoron.
>NDA do not protect IPs.
But they do indicate intent.
>someone can "steal" (copy) my beatiful design
I was talking about the physical object. They may think it is of such importance that it should live in a museum instead of as your private property. Other people believe that a museum could preserve it better and they think they know how best the pendant should be used than its actual owner.
> While archival sounds like a noble goal, in practice it is an excuse used by people who want to steal copyrighted works and take advantage of them
“Take advantage” of them by restoring cut content, fixing bugs, and porting them to platforms that Konami never would. I am very excited for MGS2 to be taken advantage of.
A thief would be excited to eat the food they stole. Taking's other stuff for free always looks great from the thief's perspective.
> A thief would be excited to eat the food they stole
I don't concede that the act of sharing this code is stealing, of course. The act of helping one's fellow man is a good thing. You've made your stance clear, and the very cogent and fairly conclusive arguments people have made against your stance don't seem to land, and I have no interest in repeating that exercise (and neither do you, I'm sure).
But this phrase stood out to me, and in particular that you would choose food as an example. You could've used any other example, like a new hat, or a baseball bat, a tricycle, a mirror, and so on. But you chose food, something people need to survive. Is the case of stealing food not at all morally ambiguous to you? What about the case of a young mother stealing diapers she can't afford?
>Is the case of stealing food not at all morally ambiguous to you?
It is not ambiguous in the least. To me part of being human is being able to ignore one's natural instincts and make one's own actions. If someone is stealing food either they are no better than an animal, so they should be locked up like one, or they are antisocial and want to commit malicious acts in which they should be punished.
>What about the case of a young mother stealing diapers she can't afford?
To me this clearly is also wrong. Either the father needs to be working more so they can afford them, or the mother should create them herself instead of resulting to stealing them. The age of the mother makes no difference as basic harmful behavior like stealing is taught and understood at a very young age.