Sorry, I didn't take issue with your entire post. I only quote the parts that I care about. If you think I missed something essential to your argument, how about you quote it from the original post so I can show how full of it you are?
Where? Please quote and show where I missed some essential information.
The filesharing network fiasco is such a horrible analogy when it comes to MUDs that I don't even know where to begin in refuting you. I'll start with intent: The intent of a MUD is to provide a game, not a place where users can exchange copyrighted material. I'll next touch upon volume: Most communications within a MUD have nothing to do with copyrighted materials; the same can't be said for filesharing networks. See what the Supreme Court calls a "substantial noninfringing use". And third: Nowhere did I suggest that banning people that you know are engaging in illegal activity makes you a control freak. Finally: Most muds are free. They are not benefitting financialy from these activities.
All of these are major points of the RIAA's cases against filesharing networks (particularly Napster), but none of them apply to my argument. You're so wrong it's funny.
My mud chat server can be found in my sig, and you're welcome to come by even if I don't agree with your opinion or I think you're a doofus.
We can see another facet of the control-freak here: The belief that control is an all or nothing affair. It's funny how you think that just because I do not have 'snoop', that I also do not have 'ban' or 'disconnect'.
EDIT: But the implications of this statement are disturbing. I don't want to control the community found on my server. They are intelligent people that can handle themselves. I am not their nanny. I am only there to stop unpleasantries that they can not stop themselves, like DoS spam attacks.
EDIT: And for once, I agree with erdos =).
|