[rm_-rf_slash]

IANAL but as I understand it video games are IP.

What I'm suggesting is that if an IP is abandoned in a meaningful way (such as server support for a multiplayer game) then the IP owner should not be allowed to prevent others from replicating that functionality.

A few details still have to be hashed out though: can people charge for the use of their third party servers? Are new players required to purchase the game from the owner? What rights, if any, does the owner have regarding online configuration and interaction for a game they no longer support? If the owner stops distributing the game do they lose the right to demand payment for each copy distributed by a third party, either for pay or for free? I don't know these answers, but it's a better alternative to our outdated IP system.

"Use It Or Lose It" should be the IP motto in the Information Age.

[craigsmansion]

> as I understand it video games are IP

What I think wickedlogic means is that the term "IP" is often used as a catch-all term for legal frameworks that are very dissimilar, and the various sides of "IP" should be treated very differently.

As a catch-all term it might seem useful because it's short, but it's often used to confuse and divide.

As an example: for Free Software,

-software patents are just a terrible idea

-copyright is broken, but usable

-trademarks are important

Three different branches of "IP," with widely varying consequences and implications.

If someone talks to you about "IP," ask them to be specific, even if just to make sure you're talking about the same thing.