PDA

View Full Version : General Copy protection discussion



XStationCube
5th Sep 2009, 02:43
They're pretty much handing us the finger. They delayed the game a month just to add "Realistic paper physics", they didn't allow us to buy the Collector's Edition, tacked Securom to the game, etc. I was excited for this game from the moment I read about it last year, and it seems like every time I turn around Eidos is doing something stupid to screw over their PC fans. :mad2:

Pbrad08
5th Sep 2009, 03:20
I believe you are looking far too much into the game. What you need to do is sit back, take your mind off of it and forget about it untill the 15th.

This is what I have done and i'm not breaking my balls over anything. Just stop worrying about everything and just be excited about the game.

SecuRom wont be nearly as bad as most think, most of the negativity is from people having too much time on their hands.


Also: why the crap is everyone freaking out about limited installs and copy-protection? Honestly, how many freaking times do you people install games? As for my second arguement, you go make a game and then let me pirate it and give it to everybody so you make no money. After that write me a letter telling me how peaches and cherries YOU feel.

SolidSnake_123
5th Sep 2009, 03:52
Don't worry PC gamers.. shhh... shhh... I'm here for you. Hehe.

iceman0124
5th Sep 2009, 08:07
The way I look at it is, were damned lucky to be getting this on the PC period, let alone a largely superior version at least on the graphics front. The delay is rather short for a PC release period, most can be 6 months to a year, and are often stripped down featurless letdowns.

After this last spiel I'm done on the securom bit, those that feel its the most abhorent evil in the world can just boycott the game, leave their cars unlocked with the keys in, front doors wide open , combination to the safe written in plain view on the safe itself and while your at it just toss your paychecks and credit cards in random places over the city you live in....oh right....most of you die hard rights fighters dont have any of those things, your parents do, and provide you with the rest....:scratch:

Grow the frack up...

matches81
5th Sep 2009, 08:28
The way I look at it is, were damned lucky to be getting this on the PC period, let alone a largely superior version at least on the graphics front. The delay is rather short for a PC release period, most can be 6 months to a year, and are often stripped down featurless letdowns.

After this last spiel I'm done on the securom bit, those that feel its the most abhorent evil in the world can just boycott the game, leave their cars unlocked with the keys in, front doors wide open , combination to the safe written in plain view on the safe itself and while your at it just toss your paychecks and credit cards in random places over the city you live in....oh right....most of you die hard rights fighters dont have any of those things, your parents do, and provide you with the rest....:scratch:

Grow the frack up...
Sorry, but who the frack are you to look down on others? What's so wrong about people actually caring for what they get when they pay $50 that you go on and insult them? Obviously you don't care, but that's no reason to attack the ones that do, even more so if those can give you a list of reasons why they care. If you honestly don't see a problem when a publisher reserves the right to make your copy of the game a paper-weight, good for you (perhaps), but learn to accept other peoples' opinions... if you can't do that, you shouldn't tell others to grow up.

iceman0124
5th Sep 2009, 08:38
this whole forum is turning into a giant ***** fest, instead of a discussion of the game I'm chomping at the bit to play and enjoy discussing, and its really pissing me off.

I can accept valid opinions, but rampant parrot talk about rights being violated and how victmless internet theft is......:mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2:

Go start your own fricking forum and leave this one to the game....please.

jtr7
5th Sep 2009, 08:38
Also: why the crap is everyone freaking out about limited installs and copy-protection? Honestly, how many freaking times do you people install games?

Hard drive crashes, corrupted installs, interrupted installs, power outages, software conflicts, troubleshooting, new computer, multiple systems, reformatting, viruses, accidentally deleted gamefiles in folders other than the main install folder, registry over-cleaning, full hard drive so some things need to be temporarily uninstalled until work or projects are completed, and many other legitimate and moronic reasons. Real life. Real people. Real problems. Real life decisions and changes...:wave:

Pbrad08
5th Sep 2009, 13:11
Hard drive crashes, corrupted installs, interrupted installs, power outages, software conflicts, troubleshooting, new computer, multiple systems, reformatting, viruses, accidentally deleted gamefiles in folders other than the main install folder, registry over-cleaning, full hard drive so some things need to be temporarily uninstalled until work or projects are completed, and many other legitimate and moronic reasons. Real life. Real people. Real problems. Real life decisions and changes...:wave:

I dont see any logic in any of those reasons aside from "new computer". The way I see it, if you exceed your maximum install limit then its your own damn fault, buy an xbox if you cant figure out how a PC functions.

Will do Harley anytime!!!
5th Sep 2009, 15:11
As I have found out the delay excuse of needing to improve the game for PhysX sounded legit , until I read that it was tested out in its complete released version in late Aug. , And as for this:

"The way I look at it is, were damned lucky to be getting this on the PC period, let alone a largely superior version at least on the graphics front. The delay is rather short for a PC release period, most can be 6 months to a year, and are often stripped down featurless letdowns.":eek:

It reads like a managements programmers reply to the criticism (wonder what gaming company he or she works for) As for the securom , it looks like this was added at the last minute and is the legit excuse for the delay, do I blame the programmers , NO , do I blame there upper management , YES , so good luck to those programmers and there supervisors in getting this game to work with there last second upper management involvement.:mad2:

LeoNatan
5th Sep 2009, 15:28
Don't pay attention to iceman, people. He's a known troll.

SteMot
5th Sep 2009, 16:00
I dont see any logic in any of those reasons aside from "new computer". The way I see it, if you exceed your maximum install limit then its your own damn fault, buy an xbox if you cant figure out how a PC functions.

Are you really that idiotic not to realise that if somebody does know exactly how their PC functions, they will go through installs quicker?

I bought Dark Athena on release day, since then I have had a new power supply, a new processor, a new cooling solution and a new graphics card, all done intermittently with the game being activated between upgrades. I have no installs left. Now tell me why I shouldn't be able to play a game I bought 4 month ago simply because I upgraded my PC. Tell me why Atari are allowed to get away with not giving any support for their decision to land me with this DRM.

These are all valid reasons and if you can't understand this then your as crazy as your post dictates.

Pbrad08
5th Sep 2009, 20:08
Are you really that idiotic not to realise that if somebody does know exactly how their PC functions, they will go through installs quicker?

I bought Dark Athena on release day, since then I have had a new power supply, a new processor, a new cooling solution and a new graphics card, all done intermittently with the game being activated between upgrades. I have no installs left. Now tell me why I shouldn't be able to play a game I bought 4 month ago simply because I upgraded my PC. Tell me why Atari are allowed to get away with not giving any support for their decision to land me with this DRM.

These are all valid reasons and if you can't understand this then your as crazy as your post dictates.

Let me get this straight, you unintsalled a program when you...installed a power-supply?

Jocosity
5th Sep 2009, 21:14
Let me get this straight, you unintsalled a program when you...installed a power-supply?

Dark Athena's copy-protection made it so that if you so much as change a part in your computer (A harddrive, for example), the game thinks that it's a new computer and uses another installation.

Kettels
5th Sep 2009, 21:52
im not really that worried about the wait for the pc version. Personally (purely dumb speculation with no back up) i think it was finished a while back and they are releasing it for xbox 360, PS3 first because of piracy reasons. Which i think is fair enough, and after all its (pc version) being released much sooner then some cross platform games. I am a bit annoyed about the pretty crappy expensive CE and drm, but thats more an issue about Eidos then the game itself.
But they have also kept the pirates at bay to some extent, although it has been leaked its buggy. Hopefully it stays that way and i give them big props for that :flowers:

SteMot
5th Sep 2009, 22:01
Let me get this straight, you unintsalled a program when you...installed a power-supply?

No, Securom and Tages force you to re-activate when you change a hardware component. Let me get this straight, your arguing about the validity of a program such as this when you don't even have a clue to how they work?

Way to go, you have no business being in this thread.

matches81
6th Sep 2009, 09:29
But they have also kept the pirates at bay to some extent, although it has been leaked its buggy. Hopefully it stays that way and i give them big props for that :flowers:
Uhm... let's sum this one up: It's nearly two weeks until the PC version gets officially released and you give Eidos props because the cracked version of the game that is already out there still has some kinks to be ironed out? :scratch:
I really hope you're kidding.
First of all, I think, publishers should fix their own security issues before they annoying their customers with their results. Seemingly they have trouble keeping their products from leaking before they're released.
Also, my guess is that those problems will probably have been solved prior to the game's release. If not, it's a matter of a few days, max. What exactly is left to give them props for?

Kettels
6th Sep 2009, 21:41
Uhm... let's sum this one up: It's nearly two weeks until the PC version gets officially released and you give Eidos props because the cracked version of the game that is already out there still has some kinks to be ironed out? :scratch:
I really hope you're kidding.

Also, my guess is that those problems will probably have been solved prior to the game's release. If not, it's a matter of a few days, max. What exactly is left to give them props for?

"my guess is that those problems will probably have been solved prior to the game's release", who says they are problems with the game itself. I give them props because it doesnt work properly, which is clear by all the people posting on here about their game not working. Maybe they're hooks put into the game to stop pirates, so i give them props for sort of minimizing piracy to an extent. If they're in the final release i will be mad but atm at least there aren't all this people playing the game weeks before i actually get to play the game.

Totenglocke
6th Sep 2009, 21:46
@PBrad08

In regards to installing / uninstalling programs, many gamers install and uninstall the same game a few times a year (to keep their system uncluttered). Some people just don't want to hassle with buying a new hard drive, so they only keep a game or two installed at a time. Even if you do upgrade your hard drive (if you only have one), you have to reinstall Windows and all of your programs.

Also, when you upgrade your computer, Windows tracks hardware changes. You can only make a certain number of changes before you're forced to reinstall Windows and all of your software. SecuROM uses up an activation every time you change any piece of hardware - even if you just add another stick of RAM. SecuROM also frequently makes you use one activation per user account on the same computer - so if you have a computer for you and your wife / girlfriend and you each have your own account, then you have to use two installs even though you only have one computer.

I personally only keep a handful of games installed at a time to make sure that I focus on completing the games I'm playing and don't get sidetracked by the dozens of other games. Also, many gamers (like me) play a game, beat it, uninstall it, then a few years later want to play it again. As I said on another thread, I regularly play games up to 15 years old - those older games have been installed and uninstalled on the various computers I've owned probably a good dozen times.

No company has the right to tell you how often you can reinstall software you paid for own your own system.

Mistress of Fear
7th Sep 2009, 01:59
Because that's how they roll?

....With my luck my processor will slowly burn in my computer (again), I won''t find out it did until my computer just won't start one day and I'll have to fix my comp and reinstall it (like I had to with all my other games last time it happened).
Though I get that they are "trying to keep piracy at bay" limiting installs is just a pain in the ass especially when your computer brakes (an unstoppable force in life as it's out of your control) and you can't reinstall a game you had to pay around 50-60$ for cause they decided to limit installs and if you want to play it again you have to go out and buy it again....Or possible complain like hell to the company will work I don't know...
Still a pain in the a' if that happens to....happen because that's how they have it set to (they might not).

Laokin
8th Sep 2009, 01:58
I dont see any logic in any of those reasons aside from "new computer". The way I see it, if you exceed your maximum install limit then its your own damn fault, buy an xbox if you cant figure out how a PC functions.

There are numerous problems with this argument. Number 1, when your purchase something... you OWN it. Not rent... not lease... not for "x" amount of time.

Secondly, I install it... the game doesn't run to good because my graphics card is old.... So I upgrade my graphics card.... some how this validates a second activation?

Sorry. Doesn't compute. I BOUGHT the software... If I have 10 computers in my house... I HAVE the right to install it on all 10. If you owned 10 xbox's or playstations... your console counterparts can play the game in all 10 of them can they not? In fact.... Xbox AND playstation both allow installs of the game.... so why do they get unlimited numbers?

Oh but this is beside the fact since... last I heard there was no install limits allowed legally by law in the USA. Hence the reason nearly all games that have it... have had it removed.... or they come with a "Revoking" device... which gives your installs back.

If you can revoke an install... than why have install limits? It's illogical.


Also: why the crap is everyone freaking out about limited installs and copy-protection? Honestly, how many freaking times do you people install games? As for my second arguement, you go make a game and then let me pirate it and give it to everybody so you make no money. After that write me a letter telling me how peaches and cherries YOU feel.

Wow... how old are you 10? Here is a great example of your ignorance. Spore..... most pirated game of 2008. Was pirated nearly 2 million times in the first year. Guess what, Spore was still the NUMBER ONE seller of the year for PC games. It sold well over 3 million units.

Lets use simple math here for a second. The game budgets for the most EXTREME games right now are around $7 million to make. They cost $60 each. What is 60 x 1 Million? 60 MILLION. They are still making EXTREME amounts of profit.... EXTREME. Mind you the $7 million budget covers the cost of advertisement and the paychecks of everyone involved AND the disc press + the Shipping to the stores. The publishers take a certain percentage based on how much money they handed out for the development of the game. Once they sell about 200,000 copies... nearly every penny goes to the developers.

I fail to see how this isn't a greed thing. People who pirate games... don't buy them... so even if they couldn't pirate the game... they still aren't going to buy it. They will just move on to the next pirateable game and play that instead. So these people would of NEVER paid Eidos ANY money..... yet... some how they are marginalizing the revenue? Get real.

Pirates don't hurt PC gaming at all... it's the greedy upper management that see's these figures as "potential gains" so they employ tactics to try to force these "would be" customers to pay them even more money. The catch 22 here is that the pirates aren't your customer base as they NEVER INTENDED on giving you there money in the first place.

How could you even say a game that cost 7$ million dollars that gets pirated 2 million times but still grosses 60 million is even remotely fair? The games should all be $20. If they were all $20 poor people could play them too.... which ups your sales which would bring you in more than 60 million.

I know if I spend 7 Dollars... I don't expect to get 60 back. That would be a $53 increase. In the game world this equals a $53 million dollar increase. This is a 750% mark up. Would you purchase a floppy disc that costs 83 cents to make for $20? No. Because the guy selling the floppy disc is greedy and making an unbalanced and "Unfair" amount of profit.

There is a law called "Fair Trade" that limits things that aren't entertainment to a certain mark up percentage. This way people who NEED things can afford them. I mean seriously... why should Brad Pitt get to own 5 10M$ houses just for pretending? Because entertainment mark ups are caused by greed.. and when you sell things to the masses... oh what's $20?

Grow up and get educated before you even TRY to participate in this conversation.

For all those that think I'm talking out of my bum.... try this little linky linky right here.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10054438-62.html

"EA GAMES: Piracy Didn't Hurt 'Spores' Sales"

This was said by EA, only a few months after spore came out. Hence the reason the Sims 3 and pretty well all future EA games have NO anti piracy software.... Just the basic "Disc Check." Your average person doesn't even know what a torrent IS... but they know where the games store is.

Grow up... or Shut up.


Oh and MOTHER FRAK CLIFFY B.

Oh and what about the NON pirateable games like MMORPG's like World of Warcraft. They sell 20 million boxes for $40. That is $800,000,000 of of the boxes alone. Just shy of a billion dollars.... then they charge everyone $15 a month? No wonder they are worth 50 something billion. They could afford to run the servers and pay to make 10 sequels to WoW with just the retail boxes alone.

This paying for "Server Maintenance" is such an ABSURD argument. Why? Because server maintenance doesn't cost 1 million for 10 years. Let alone even dip into the $800 million. Also... this 800 million dollar figure is the LOW ball estimate. Since people in Australia pay nearly $175 for a boxed game. They charge more where the currency is worth .... more. Like Europe.... Some countries in Europe that are part of the union (using euro's which are currently worth nearly double USD) pay around 80Euro a retail box. For you simpletons that is roughly $140 American money. For a GAME... A GAME THAT ON AVERAGE LASTS 6 HOURS.

So with the inflation it could very well be a Billion off just the retail boxes. So one more time... Corporate America isn't about what is "Fair" it's about which corporation can deceive you, cleverly hiding just how greedy they are. Like Microsoft. Seriously? Charging a monthly fee for something that is free on all other platforms and has been free for 10 years prior to them even entering the market?

Lets not even talk about DLC. Matter of fact... I'm gonna.

Street Fighter 4 shipped with all the alternative costumes ON THE DISC. You paid for data you ALREADY HAD. You never had to "Download" ANYTHING other than a simple "Unlock" code. Resident Evil 5... VS multiplayer... was ALSO on the disc. Bet all the people who paid for it feel mighty ripped off right now.

You paid full price for the game... but didn't get the full game.... so you have to pay ABOVE full price in order to have the full game????????

Oh BTW. I'm sitting outside the botanical gardens ready to fight poison ivy and then the joker. Game Over Arkham Asylum.... Awesome use of securom....

:nut:

Furthermore... KNOWING all this.... I STILL pre-ordered IN FULL the PC version of Batman. So while I have a pirated copy... it's still oh so very LEGAL. So STFU.

Laokin
8th Sep 2009, 02:57
*Bump*

I didn't type all of that just so it wouldn't be read.

Bonecrusher
9th Sep 2009, 14:13
I believe you are looking far too much into the game. What you need to do is sit back, take your mind off of it and forget about it untill the 15th.
SecuRom wont be nearly as bad as most think, most of the negativity is from people having too much time on their hands.
why the crap is everyone freaking out about limited installs and copy-protection? Honestly, how many freaking times do you people install games?

I dont see any logic in any of those reasons aside from "new computer". The way I see it, if you exceed your maximum install limit then its your own damn fault, buy an xbox if you cant figure out how a PC functions.

Let me get this straight, you unintsalled a program when you...installed a power-supply?

I wonder where you live? in space?

I hate narcissistic flamers that even don't know the subject they talk about.

A PC, especially if it is a Windows, it needs frequent formattings, because it slows over time or sometimes operating system starts to malfunctioning.
PC gamers frequently delete their games to earn more partition for new games or softwares.
There is also the DRM risk, some gamers encounter the "hardware change" and depleting their one installation limit when they plug-in USB gadget like a webcam.

Before you lecture people how to "use" the PC, first go get some information about PC.
Don't behave like a X-Box fanboi.

I have many games that I bought 15 years ago and frequently install&play them each year.

Nemesis296
9th Sep 2009, 15:01
*Bump*

I didn't type all of that just so it wouldn't be read.

I don't think anyone responded to you because you admitted you were a pirate...so bravo on that. It doesn't matter that you bought the actual game...that's like saying "Well I robbed the jewelry store last week, but I came and bought something this week!" It's still illegal. And people here, from what I have seen/read/know...don't appreciate discussion of piracy. Not to mention that your tone of voice and the way that you basically attacked whoever it was that made a point with "STFU's" and frequent caps use. I have nothing more to say to you.

SteMot
9th Sep 2009, 15:40
I don't think anyone responded to you because you admitted you were a pirate...so bravo on that. It doesn't matter that you bought the actual game...that's like saying "Well I robbed the jewelry store last week, but I came and bought something this week!" It's still illegal. And people here, from what I have seen/read/know...don't appreciate discussion of piracy. Not to mention that your tone of voice and the way that you basically attacked whoever it was that made a point with "STFU's" and frequent caps use. I have nothing more to say to you.

That's completely wrong. Your analogy couldn't have missed the mark any further.
Depending on your country it can be different, but in the UK your perfectly entitled to have a working backup of a game you own. Since he has paid his money and is merely awaiting the games arrival he is well within his rights.to play a copy of the game.

jaywalker2309
9th Sep 2009, 15:46
That's completely wrong. Your analogy couldn't have missed the mark any further.
Depending on your country it can be different, but in the UK your perfectly entitled to have a working backup of a game you own. Since he has paid his money and is merely awaiting the games arrival he is well within his rights.to play a copy of the game.

When you pay money for a game you are paying for the disc/digital download which gives you the right to play the game you are not paying for the IP itself (that costs millions). The version a preorderer is buying is ONLY legal when they get it from the source they PAID for it from.

As for the legal `backing` up of a disc yes its technically true you can make a backup, however its pretty clear in that you cannot use this for anything but personal use OR make any changes to the files supplied. Any circumventing of copy protection is illegal, and since most copy protection systems try and stop copying it means to back up you have to do something that could be deemed illegal.

Its like ordering a car from a ford garage, but then taking one from the next ford garage and saying `tis alright mines coming soon`.

Nemesis296
9th Sep 2009, 15:46
That's completely wrong. Your analogy couldn't have missed the mark any further.
Depending on your country it can be different, but in the UK your perfectly entitled to have a working backup of a game you own. Since he has paid his money and is merely awaiting the games arrival he is well within his rights.to play a copy of the game.

But you can't OWN it unless it's been released. Therefore the copy he has, he doesn't own, and therefore it's piracy. I'm not stupid, and I'm not about to be believing that this is any different than it is.

Choronzonon
9th Sep 2009, 16:27
Sorry. Doesn't compute. I BOUGHT the software... If I have 10 computers in my house... I HAVE the right to install it on all 10.
Not really. What you bought was a license to use the software, which is a legal contract. If the license says you can install on one machine, then only one machine is legal. Your analogies about other objects that aren't intellectual property are meaningless.

Oh but this is beside the fact since... last I heard there was no install limits allowed legally by law in the USA. Hence the reason nearly all games that have it... have had it removed.... or they come with a "Revoking" device... which gives your installs back.

I'm pretty sure you heard wrong, since install limits are pretty common. Can you supply a link to the law or an article citing that law?

Here is a great example of your ignorance. Spore..... most pirated game of 2008. Was pirated nearly 2 million times in the first year. Guess what, Spore was still the NUMBER ONE seller of the year for PC games. It sold well over 3 million units. Lets use simple math here for a second. The game budgets for the most EXTREME games right now are around $7 million to make. They cost $60 each. What is 60 x 1 Million? 60 MILLION. They are still making EXTREME amounts of profit.... EXTREME. Mind you the $7 million budget covers the cost of advertisement and the paychecks of everyone involved AND the disc press + the Shipping to the stores. The publishers take a certain percentage based on how much money they handed out for the development of the game. Once they sell about 200,000 copies... nearly every penny goes to the developers.

Actually, your statement reveals your own ignorance. I hate to break this to you, but your opinion about what a justifiable profit on a creative endeavor is completely and totally irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of their business model, nor are you the owner of the content and intellectual property.


I fail to see how this isn't a greed thing. People who pirate games... don't buy them... so even if they couldn't pirate the game... they still aren't going to buy it. They will just move on to the next pirateable game and play that instead. So these people would of NEVER paid Eidos ANY money..... yet... some how they are marginalizing the revenue? Get real.

You are incorrect. The collapse of CD sales -- which were not, by the way, replaced by online sales -- is ample evidence that piracy can cause massive financial damage to a content-producing industry. As for your protestations of "greediness", the only greediness I see is people who want content but aren't willing to pay for it. If they don't want to pay, then they should go do something else.


There is a law called "Fair Trade" that limits things that aren't entertainment to a certain mark up percentage. This way people who NEED things can afford them.

There is absolutely no such law. A game company could charge $1m for each copy of a game if they wanted, and sell it only to billionaires. And they would if that were a viable business model, and you'd still be a thief if you pirated it.


This paying for "Server Maintenance" is such an ABSURD argument. Why? Because server maintenance doesn't cost 1 million for 10 years.

Once again, you completely miss the point. It's not about what you think game companies SHOULD be charging for anything. You're nobody. Your opinion is meaningless. Content owners created something new, so they own it. They can charge whatever they want. If you were capable of creating something other than ramblings on a forum -- and got paid for doing so -- you'd feel exactly the same way.


I STILL pre-ordered IN FULL the PC version of Batman. So while I have a pirated copy... it's still oh so very LEGAL. So STFU.

Oh, yes, I believe you. Totally. No question about this. Take it to the bank!

tenth8sphere
9th Sep 2009, 16:37
Choron knows what he's talking about. Though I will say that US courts do make determinations on whether something is a sale or a license based on more than the language used in the sale. Which is interesting because under the current standard, buying a physical disc might be a sale, while buying off steam might be a license. It depends on the overall context of the sale.

Other than that though, his post is accurate in so far as I understand copyright law.

Choronzonon
9th Sep 2009, 17:02
Choron knows what he's talking about. Though I will say that US courts do make determinations on whether something is a sale or a license based on more than the language used in the sale. Which is interesting because under the current standard, buying a physical disc might be a sale, while buying off steam might be a license. It depends on the overall context of the sale.
That's really interesting. This falls under the category of there being a difference between what's in a contract, and what's actually allowable under contract law. I've often felt (for what it's worth, which is exactly bupkis) that software licensing contracts were too restrictive. Can you cite any articles? Might make for interesting reading, for those of us interested in such things.

tenth8sphere
9th Sep 2009, 17:34
Choron,

Unfortunately its been a while since I studied copyright law in class. I googled a link that may not be particularly helpful but does list a couple of cases and could lead to more links. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1467247.1467258

As I recall the landmark case in the area was "Adobe vs." someone, but I'm not sure who. Its not one of the cases referenced in the article googled above. It's an interesting subject.

I'm of the same opinion you are. And I've also been a proponent of the view that gray area's in this type of law ultimately restricts consumer rights. If you're not able to be SURE until you go to court, this makes the act defacto illegal. If I buy off steam and am not sure if I can resell, I probably won't. Same with fair use. If I cannot tell clearly whether something is fair use, I probably won't use it. Thus consumers faced with gray areas of law actually lose some of their rights, IMO.

Totenglocke
9th Sep 2009, 19:52
@Choron

CD sales were replaced by online music stores like iTunes. The main reasons why people switched to iTunes were 1) if a CD is $15 and only 3 songs worth buying, people have no problem paying $1 per song for those 3 songs - they get what they wanted from the CD (all 3 songs worth listening to) and they didn't pay an extra $12 for crap that they didn't want and 2) if a CD is $15, you can buy the same album on iTunes for $10 (since they discount if you buy the whole album).

Piracy "killing" CD sales is a lie told by the RIAA so that they can justify raising prices for no reason and charging people $20,000 per song in "losses" if they get someone in court over it.

Typically the RIAA sends out a letter reading along the lines of "Send us $5,000 or we take you to court" - since most people can come up with $5,000 a lot easier than they can afford a lawyer for a long drawn out court case, people typically just hand over the money even if they are innocent.

Before you try to claim I'm a pirate, I'm not. On the rare occasions I find something these days worth buying, I go to the store, buy the cd, then rip the mp3's from it to put on my iPod. I also avoid any label that is associated with the RIAA and I know a lot of people out there who got fed up with the RIAA's crap and boycott any RIAA label as well. That also leads to a decrease in CD sales since people finally caught on that the RIAA is nothing but a front for extortion.

In regards to Laokin talking about game company profits, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks a "reasonable profit" is - the fact of the matter is that gaming companies lie and say that they can't afford to make games due to piracy, yet even the most heavily pirated games (if it's a good game) will still sell enough copies that the company makes a good $50-$100 million in profit. Sorry to burst your bubble, but even if it's not as much as they want, making a $50 million dollar profit after all your expenses are paid is a long, LONG way away from going bankrupt or not being able to afford to make new games. They lie so that they can justify putting in DRM so that they can eventually change the system to pay-per-play or a monthly fee for every game you own.

Totenglocke
9th Sep 2009, 19:59
@JCW


As for the legal `backing` up of a disc yes its technically true you can make a backup, however its pretty clear in that you cannot use this for anything but personal use OR make any changes to the files supplied. Any circumventing of copy protection is illegal, and since most copy protection systems try and stop copying it means to back up you have to do something that could be deemed illegal.

Which is exactly why no one respects copy protection. Companies got it rigged so that, while it's legal to make a backup, there is no legal way to make the backup since you have to break copy protection. That way if someone DOES want a 100% unquestionably legal backup, they have to pay double for the game / movie. Rather convenient for companies, eh?

I have my legal right to make a backup / copy for my own personal use. I don't share my copies with anyone. That is why I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt in breaking copy protection since the only way for me to use my legal and moral rights is to break the copy protection.

That is also why I felt no guilt in (the few times I got songs from iTunes before they removed DRM) in using programs to strip the DRM. I paid for the song, Apple has no right to tell me how many new computers I can own and use my files on.

Totenglocke
9th Sep 2009, 20:18
@ Choron again


Quote:

Originally Posted by Laokin View Post
This paying for "Server Maintenance" is such an ABSURD argument. Why? Because server maintenance doesn't cost 1 million for 10 years.
Once again, you completely miss the point. It's not about what you think game companies SHOULD be charging for anything. You're nobody. Your opinion is meaningless. Content owners created something new, so they own it. They can charge whatever they want. If you were capable of creating something other than ramblings on a forum -- and got paid for doing so -- you'd feel exactly the same way.

Yes, they can charge whatever they want. However, people, like me, have the right to say "your costs are x, you're charging 15 times x, I refuse to pay for it. You could charge 2 or 3 times x and still make a massive profit, you're just being greedy now, so I'm not paying for your service". Laokin never said anything about pirating WoW or playing on private servers (which you can do). He simply pointed out that there's no reason for Blizzard to charge $15 per month per person when it probably doesn't even cost them $1 per month, per person to maintain the servers. I've played WoW a few different times and my biggest reason for quitting was always the same "For the amount of time I have to spend playing it, I just can't justify spending $15 a month on it". If it was $10 a month I'd be more likely to play (as would others I know who refuse to pay to play an online game).

Companies are getting the first two rules of running a business flipped.

The first rule of running a business is to make a good product / service and make sure your customers are happy. The second rule is to make lots of money. Companies, especially entertainment ones, only focus on making lots of money and rarely give a crap about the quality of the product or if their customers are happy.

RYO_91
11th Sep 2009, 00:37
this alway happens with the pc games, like star wars the force unleashed it was released 1 year ago on xbox a ps3 and now in november 3 is being released to pc with all the dlc of course, gta iv is another example

Choronzonon
11th Sep 2009, 13:04
@Choron
CD sales were replaced by online music stores like iTunes. The main reasons why people switched to iTunes were 1) if a CD is $15 and only 3 songs worth buying, people have no problem paying $1 per song for those 3 songs - they get what they wanted from the CD (all 3 songs worth listening to) and they didn't pay an extra $12 for crap that they didn't want and 2) if a CD is $15, you can buy the same album on iTunes for $10 (since they discount if you buy the whole album).

Piracy "killing" CD sales is a lie told by the RIAA so that they can justify raising prices for no reason and charging people $20,000 per song in "losses" if they get someone in court over it.
At the risk of beating this to death, you're wrong. Online sales via iTunes and clones have not nearly replaced the decline in CD sales resulting directly from pirated copies becoming widely available. Prior to wide availability of broadband, growth of CD sales almost exactly matched overall economic growth.

After broadband became widely available, CD sales slumped down rapidly, even though nothing else changed. Revenue from online sales has only replaced a fraction of that lost revenue. This is all simple spreadsheet stuff and there's no controversy about it whatsoever in the business world. You've just picked up and repeated one of the "piracy is justified because..." myths that people use to feel good about themselves, even though they're committing petty thievery.

As for the punitive damages, the RIAA undoubtedly pays more in legal fees than they will ever collect from the pirates. Since it's not actually economical to pursue such cases, they're making examples of people, hoping it will reduce piracy.

But all of this is beside the point. People who steal content are thieves, regardless of whether they wrongly believe that their thievery is justified because they're poor and the content owners are rich. It might be different if we were talking about food and shelter, but we're talking about entertainment content here. If you can't (or won't) pay, don't play.

Totenglocke
11th Sep 2009, 16:31
At the risk of beating this to death, you're wrong. Online sales via iTunes and clones have not nearly replaced the decline in CD sales resulting directly from pirated copies becoming widely available. Prior to wide availability of broadband, growth of CD sales almost exactly matched overall economic growth.

After broadband became widely available, CD sales slumped down rapidly, even though nothing else changed. Revenue from online sales has only replaced a fraction of that lost revenue. This is all simple spreadsheet stuff and there's no controversy about it whatsoever in the business world. You've just picked up and repeated one of the "piracy is justified because..." myths that people use to feel good about themselves, even though they're committing petty thievery.

As for the punitive damages, the RIAA undoubtedly pays more in legal fees than they will ever collect from the pirates. Since it's not actually economical to pursue such cases, they're making examples of people, hoping it will reduce piracy.

But all of this is beside the point. People who steal content are thieves, regardless of whether they wrongly believe that their thievery is justified because they're poor and the content owners are rich. It might be different if we were talking about food and shelter, but we're talking about entertainment content here. If you can't (or won't) pay, don't play.

And if you bothered to read what I wrote instead of your pre-programmed response of "everyone has a duty to pay the RIAA $X per year, regardless if they want any music or not!", you'd have realized that I explained how you being able to buy individual songs has "hurt" album sales (because very rarely is every song on an album good). Most people only enjoy 2 or 3 songs on an album. With CD's, if you want those few songs, you're forced to pay for the whole CD. Buying per song online, you only pay a couple dollars for the songs you want. Also, I pointed out that buying a whole album online is discounted, so even if you buy every song you still pay $3-$5 less for the album than if you bought the CD.

Revenue went down because prices dropped and because people were able to buy songs individually. Revenue did NOT drop because of piracy.

Nemesis296
11th Sep 2009, 17:09
FYI, threads get closed if they stray too far off-topic...:wave:

SteMot
11th Sep 2009, 19:13
But you can't OWN it unless it's been released. Therefore the copy he has, he doesn't own, and therefore it's piracy. I'm not stupid, and I'm not about to be believing that this is any different than it is.

If you've already paid for your pre-order, as you would with Steam, this means that the developers have already received money for the game which you can't actually play yet.

If they have their money that I paid, I can have the game I paid for. Simple as.

In no way did I question your intelligence, but the game is paid for, no-one is losing anything if I play a leak until my pre-order is available, the company still have all their money they would normally get.

Choronzonon
11th Sep 2009, 19:15
And if you bothered to read what I wrote instead of your pre-programmed response of "everyone has a duty to pay the RIAA $X per year, regardless if they want any music or not!", you'd have realized that I explained how you being able to buy individual songs has "hurt" album sales (because very rarely is every song on an album good). Most people only enjoy 2 or 3 songs on an album. With CD's, if you want those few songs, you're forced to pay for the whole CD. Buying per song online, you only pay a couple dollars for the songs you want. Also, I pointed out that buying a whole album online is discounted, so even if you buy every song you still pay $3-$5 less for the album than if you bought the CD.

Revenue went down because prices dropped and because people were able to buy songs individually. Revenue did NOT drop because of piracy.
I didn't respond to this aspect of your note because it was so absurd. The plummet in CD sales happened before legal sales of individuals tracks were available. The drop recovered somewhat when legal sales became available, but haven't nearly put music sales back on its original track, even though online sales activated millions of songs that otherwise weren't being sold. (See "The Long Tail" by Chris Andersen.)

Your problem is that you think the world SHOULD be a certain way and then get all bent out of shape when it doesn't correspond to your preconceptions. A content owner owns the copyright to that content. The content owner should be free to package that content any way they want. The single legal option is to buy, or not to buy. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

For some reason you feel compelled to defend the indefensible position that piracy (i.e. copyright infringement) shouldn't be illegal because that illegality conflicts with your distorted sense of what's right and what's wrong. Well, if you feel so strongly about the matter, then petition your members of congress to have the law changed. Good luck with that.

But frankly, you just make a fool of yourself coming on a public board and pretending that people have rights to content that they have not purchased or that content owners shouldn't take whatever steps they deem necessary to protect their content. If you don't like the copy protection or DRM or the packaging, don't buy the product. Is it really that complicated?

Totenglocke
11th Sep 2009, 19:38
I didn't respond to this aspect of your note because it was so absurd. The plummet in CD sales happened before legal sales of individuals tracks were available. The drop recovered somewhat when legal sales became available, but haven't nearly put music sales back on its original track, even though online sales activated millions of songs that otherwise weren't being sold. (See "The Long Tail" by Chris Andersen.)

Your problem is that you think the world SHOULD be a certain way and then get all bent out of shape when it doesn't correspond to your preconceptions. A content owner owns the copyright to that content. The content owner should be free to package that content any way they want. The single legal option is to buy, or not to buy. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

For some reason you feel compelled to defend the indefensible position that piracy (i.e. copyright infringement) shouldn't be illegal because that illegality conflicts with your distorted sense of what's right and what's wrong. Well, if you feel so strongly about the matter, then petition your members of congress to have the law changed. Good luck with that.

But frankly, you just make a fool of yourself coming on a public board and pretending that people have rights to content that they have not purchased or that content owners shouldn't take whatever steps they deem necessary to protect their content. If you don't like the copy protection or DRM or the packaging, don't buy the product. Is it really that complicated?

The fact that, once again, you ignore facts and logic and keep insisting that I pirate (when I've repeatedly said that I don't) shows that you are nothing more than a troll.

Goodbye Choron-troll, have fun in your lonely, hate filled world.

Nemesis296
11th Sep 2009, 20:18
If you've already paid for your pre-order, as you would with Steam, this means that the developers have already received money for the game which you can't actually play yet.

If they have their money that I paid, I can have the game I paid for. Simple as.

In no way did I question your intelligence, but the game is paid for, no-one is losing anything if I play a leak until my pre-order is available, the company still have all their money they would normally get.

It's called being like the rest of us and WAITING for what you paid for. Sorry, but I still fail to see how because you paid for something and don't have it yet, that entitles you to have an illegal copy of the game...illegal meaning that it hasn't been released yet, and cannot be purchased and put into your hands at time of purchase.

That's like saying, "Well I pre-ordered the DVD, but it doesn't come out for weeks. Oh here let me download this copy from this torrent site so I can watch it!" Sorry, it's still illegal, therefore you are still a pirate. The fact that you have no patience is simply terrible my friend...:(

Totenglocke
11th Sep 2009, 20:55
It's called being like the rest of us and WAITING for what you paid for. Sorry, but I still fail to see how because you paid for something and don't have it yet, that entitles you to have an illegal copy of the game...illegal meaning that it hasn't been released yet, and cannot be purchased and put into your hands at time of purchase.

That's like saying, "Well I pre-ordered the DVD, but it doesn't come out for weeks. Oh here let me download this copy from this torrent site so I can watch it!" Sorry, it's still illegal, therefore you are still a pirate. The fact that you have no patience is simply terrible my friend...:(

He paid for it, they have their money for his copy. Is doesn't cost anyone a penny to make a copy of a file, so you can't even try to claim that they're losing even a cent by him getting a copy off bittorrent.

Face it, he paid for his copy of the game. You're just mad that he's playing it before you are.

Illegal is not the same as immoral.

(No, I didn't pre-order it, and no, I haven't downloaded it either)

Choronzonon
11th Sep 2009, 23:36
The fact that, once again, you ignore facts and logic and keep insisting that I pirate (when I've repeatedly said that I don't) shows that you are nothing more than a troll.

Goodbye Choron-troll, have fun in your lonely, hate filled world.
You don't even bother to read my posts. I said you were defending piracy, which you are. And since your posts are collections of opinions (e.g game companies are greedy), while mine refer to actual facts (market behaviors, actual copyright infringement laws, etc.) I think it's pretty clear who's talking facts and logic here.

Call me a troll if you like. The fact that you're reduced to hurling insults is good indication of the weakness of your arguments.

Totenglocke
11th Sep 2009, 23:59
You don't even bother to read my posts. I said you were defending piracy, which you are. And since your posts are collections of opinions (e.g game companies are greedy), while mine refer to actual facts (market behaviors, actual copyright infringement laws, etc.) I think it's pretty clear who's talking facts and logic here.

Call me a troll if you like. The fact that you're reduced to hurling insults is good indication of the weakness of your arguments.

Ok troll, this IS the last time I'll respond to your baiting.

I do read your posts. All you do is make bogus claims about how "it must be pirates because they don't sell as many cd's as they used to!" - I have supplied many reasons why they would not sell as many cd's and why their profits would go down (due to lower prices when buying online and being able to buy individual songs, so people only buy the #1 single from a cd instead of the whole cd). You repeatedly ignore every reason I give and just foam at the mouth about "it has to be pirates!!" and then claim that I'm defending them when I give you rational and factual explanations for why cd sales have dropped.

THAT is what makes you a troll - the fact that you just say the same thing over, and over, and over again, regardless of the facts presented. Also, calling out a troll is not an insult. If I had said "you're an (@$#(*& moron", that would be an insult. I didn't say that because I realized that only someone who is intentionally out to cause trouble / harass people would act the way you have.

Choronzonon
12th Sep 2009, 00:11
Ok troll, this IS the last time I'll respond to your baiting.
I do read your posts. All you do is make bogus claims about how "it must be pirates because they don't sell as many cd's as they used to!" - I have supplied many reasons why they would not sell as many cd's and why their profits would go down (due to lower prices when buying online and being able to buy individual songs, so people only buy the #1 single from a cd instead of the whole cd).
You haven't supplied any reasons, because the timing is off. The sharp drop in CD sales happened BEFORE it was legal to sell individual songs. A point that I've made repeatedly and which is entirely non-controversial and easily verifiable.

But even if you were right about CD sales dropping for reasons other than piracy, it doesn't matter. What you fail to understand is the major point of my response, which is that copyright owners have the right to package their products however they like and sell them for any price that they prefer. Legally and ethically.

The reason I care about these things, just so you know, is that I am a fairly major content creator and have had my writing ripped off innumerable times, even more so since the Internet. One book I wrote, The Tao of Programming, has been copied innumerable times and has been posted -- VERBATIM -- on hundreds of websites.

As a result I feel it necessary from time to time to waste my energy arguing with people who know nothing about content creation, copyright law, and ethics. That would be you. I'm not baiting you; I'm calling your argument puerile and counterproductive.

If you don't like Eidos's packaging strategy, go play something else. Don't get on a public board and moan about how they're being unfair to you.

Totenglocke
12th Sep 2009, 00:13
You haven't supplied any reasons because the timing is off. The sharp drop in CD sales happened BEFORE it was legal to sell individual songs. A point that I've made repeatedly and which is entirely non-controversial and accepted by every major business journalist who covers the media space. Which is one of my beats as a business reporter as it happens.

But even if you were right about CD sales dropping for other reasons, it doesn't matter. What you fail to understand is the major point of my response, which is that copyright owners have the right to package their products however they like and sell them for any price that like. Legally and ethically.

The reason I care about these things, just so you know, is that I am a fairly major content creator and have had my writing ripped off innumerable times, even more so since the Internet. One book I wrote, The Tao of Programming, has been copied innumerable times and has been posted -- VERBATIM -- on hundreds of websites.

As a result I feel it necessary from time to time to waste my energy arguing with people who know nothing about content creation, copyright law, and ethics. That would be you. I'm not baiting you; I'm calling your argument puerile and counterproductive.

If you don't like Eidos's packaging strategy, go play something else. Don't get on a public board and moan about how they're being unfair to you.

I've never said that people can't charge what they want. However, consumers also have the right to NOT BUY YOUR PRODUCT. That is what you don't seem to get. You think that people are obligated to buy things, even if they don't want them.

SteMot
12th Sep 2009, 07:16
It's called being like the rest of us and WAITING for what you paid for. Sorry, but I still fail to see how because you paid for something and don't have it yet, that entitles you to have an illegal copy of the game...illegal meaning that it hasn't been released yet, and cannot be purchased and put into your hands at time of purchase.

That's like saying, "Well I pre-ordered the DVD, but it doesn't come out for weeks. Oh here let me download this copy from this torrent site so I can watch it!" Sorry, it's still illegal, therefore you are still a pirate. The fact that you have no patience is simply terrible my friend...:(

So would it still be illegal of your copy came a week early from pre-order? Would you not play it? As far as I'm concerned, the developers are losing nothing by me playing early, they have my money and there is nothing morally wrong with me playing a game I have forked over the cash for.
It must be so nice to live your life with such a black and white sense of law and morals. Shame the actual laws that govern us aren't as black and white as you would like to believe.

There is not a court in the UK that could charge someone for downloading the game if the person had not helped distribute the leak and company had received the payment from the individual. Hence it would not be illegal. Breaking a street date is not illegal, if it were, many retailers would end up in court on a weekly basis. It's perfectly legal to download a game you own from whatever source, this for all intents and purposes is much the same thing.

Choronzonon
14th Sep 2009, 03:34
I've never said that people can't charge what they want. However, consumers also have the right to NOT BUY YOUR PRODUCT. That is what you don't seem to get. You think that people are obligated to buy things, even if they don't want them.
Your last statement doesn't make any sense at all, unless you think that people should have have things that they haven't paid for.

Look, let me try to explain in words of one syllable. Maybe that will help. Here goes:

======

A game firm can charge what they like. A game firm can put things in their games to keep thieves at bay. If you don't like that, don't buy their games. Don't whine on a board when you can't get a game that's not how you like it and claim you've been wronged due to the game firm's need to get paid for their games. It only makes you seem like you can't form a clear thought. The game firm worked hard to make a great game; if they make lots of cash. they'll make us some more great games. But if folk steal their games, they'll make less dough and have less drive to build new ones. That is how the world works. You may think that you should have a game that lacks the stuff that keeps it safe from folk who want it free. But you are wrong. If you don't like that kind of code, punch your friends when they steal stuff off the web. Then they might stop and the game firms could let us have games that lack the code that keeps the games safe. That's all I have to say on this.

Totenglocke
14th Sep 2009, 06:31
Your last statement doesn't make any sense at all, unless you think that people should have have things that they haven't paid for.

Look, let me try to explain in words of one syllable. Maybe that will help. Here goes:

======

A game firm can charge what they like. A game firm can put things in their games to keep thieves at bay. If you don't like that, don't buy their games. Don't whine on a board when you can't get a game that's not how you like it and claim you've been wronged due to the game firm's need to get paid for their games. It only makes you seem like you can't form a clear thought. The game firm worked hard to make a great game; if they make lots of cash. they'll make us some more great games. But if folk steal their games, they'll make less dough and have less drive to build new ones. That is how the world works. You may think that you should have a game that lacks the stuff that keeps it safe from folk who want it free. But you are wrong. If you don't like that kind of code, punch your friends when they steal stuff off the web. Then they might stop and the game firms could let us have games that lack the code that keeps the games safe. That's all I have to say on this.

Honestly? I didn't really read this bunch of crap. I read a few random sentences in it here and there. Want to know why? Because you STILL think that, even if someone does not want your product, someone should force them to buy it just so that you get more money.

As for your bit at the end about DRM, many games still do not have DRM. Why? Because some companies still believe in treating their customers well. Pirates will pirate your game, no matter what DRM you put on it. Why punish your paying customers and risk causing them to stop buying your products? Don't believe me? Look at the huge list of games that companies released patches to remove DRM because of consumer backlash.

Oh, and for your bit about how "I don't have a right to software without DRM" - no, I do have a right to use the things I purchase as I please (for my own use). And you know what? Greedy jerks like you will never see a penny from me because of your entitlement mentality. Eventually, the people like you will go out of business, and people like me will laugh at you because you wanted to harm your paying customers in your greed.

I forgot, did you know that the FTC is going to be holding hearings on whether or not to ban the use of DRM? The way the FTC has been going lately, it looks like they really are out to make things better for consumers. In which case, you can say goodbye to DRM when those hearings end! It'll be right up there with the fall of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Nemesis296
14th Sep 2009, 11:50
The personal one on one wars really need to stop. Not only is it painful to read, but it's just annoying.

Choronzonon
14th Sep 2009, 12:47
The personal one on one wars really need to stop. Not only is it painful to read, but it's just annoying.Why are you reading it, then? And commenting on it. Got lots of time on your hands?

Choronzonon
14th Sep 2009, 12:56
Because you STILL think that, even if someone does not want your product, someone should force them to buy it just so that you get more money. etc. etc.

First, I don't work for a game company, so your remarks about greed are completely off base.

Second, if somebody takes the time to download a pirated version of a product, they want the product. They just don't want to pay for it. The idea that somebody who pirates a product would buy it if they REALLY wanted it is so ridiculous that it doesn't justify a rebuttal. If you can't play you don't have the right to play.

Third, DRM is currently legal. As long it remains legal, the decision to use it resides in the hands of the content owners.

Fourth, complaining about DRM is absurd, since the real problem is a lack of social pressure concerning the theft of intellectual property, not the justifiable attempts of content owners to get paid for their efforts. Your pitiful attempt to justify the behavior only make the problem worse. YOU are the problem; not DRM.

Nemesis296
14th Sep 2009, 13:29
Why are you reading it, then? And commenting on it. Got lots of time on your hands?

No, I don't read it at all anymore. But I do browse the topics, and when I see "No, you are a troll", or "Your arguments make no sense" in the first sentence of each post and see that the only real posters are the same two people with walls of texts for each post I assume a post war, which I'm sure that NOONE on here will really loyally read...aside from you two. Since FAO posts, and personal attacks are against the ToC for the forums, I was suggesting that you guys stop pointing out each other's flaws in trying to make the other look like a buffoon who can't do his research and just find something better to do with your time :)

EDIT: And I rest my case when 95% of your and Totenglocke's posts reside in DRM/SecuROM threads...

Pbrad08
14th Sep 2009, 13:46
I wonder where you live? in space?

I hate narcissistic flamers that even don't know the subject they talk about.

You speak of thinking I live in space, when you yourself doesnt even know what a "flamer" is. At no point in any of my comments did I put forth any effort to flame. Usually flaming involves name-calling, tell me agian, where do you see me call anyone anything? The only "flaming" I saw was directed at me. The cliches' of "how old are you,10?" and "Where do you live, in space?" are so far gone past logic that it completley diminishes any credbility you have.

Oh and taking a class about computers in High-School does not count you as "knowing what they talk about", because you dont either.

Good-day, sir.

Totenglocke
14th Sep 2009, 15:20
First, I don't work for a game company, so your remarks about greed are completely off base.

Second, if somebody takes the time to download a pirated version of a product, they want the product. They just don't want to pay for it. The idea that somebody who pirates a product would buy it if they REALLY wanted it is so ridiculous that it doesn't justify a rebuttal. If you can't play you don't have the right to play.

Third, DRM is currently legal. As long it remains legal, the decision to use it resides in the hands of the content owners.

Fourth, complaining about DRM is absurd, since the real problem is a lack of social pressure concerning the theft of intellectual property, not the justifiable attempts of content owners to get paid for their efforts. Your pitiful attempt to justify the behavior only make the problem worse. YOU are the problem; not DRM.

1) You can be greedy and not work for a game company - it's been shown countless times since the beginning of history.

2) You still think that anyone who doesn't buy your product is a pirate. That's the RIAA mentality that everyone owes you money, even if they don't use your product and have no wish to use your product.

3) The real problem has nothing to do with piracy, it has to do with companies mistreating their customers. For the one millionth time, I'm not a pirate, nor do I promote it or condone it. What I am against is companies punishing the people who DO buy the product and trying to blame it on piracy when it's been proven time and time again that it doesn't stop pirates in the slightest.

The fact that you STILL try to claim I'm a pirate and ignore everything I say really does prove you're a troll, so I'm done reading this thread now.

Marcus
14th Sep 2009, 15:39
What I am against is companies punishing the people who DO buy the product and trying to blame it on piracy when it's been proven time and time again that it doesn't stop pirates in the slightest.

You're undoubtedly correct that there are some people who will never pay for games, and will always wait for pirated versions to be available.

However, there is also probably a significant population of people who will obtain a pirated version if it is easily available, but will be prepared to front up the cash to buy a legit copy if the pirated version is too much of a pain. They may be less technologically savvy, and/or distrustful of downloading software from the internet, so will go no further than trying to burn a copy of a friend's purchased game. Alternatively, they may be prepared to download a cracked version, but unwilling to muck around with partially cracked versions.

For those people, the anti-piracy measures are effective, and because they want to play the game they are likely to purchase a copy. Those are the real lost sales that a company risks by not including anti-piracy measures. I suspect that there is industry data that demonstrates how many extra sales can be gained through anti-piracy measures, though I wouldn't have the foggiest about what the numbers might be.

Totenglocke
14th Sep 2009, 19:43
@ Marcus

I wasn't referring to disc-checks and CD-keys (which deter the things you're talking about). I'm referring to online activation, activation limits, having the game check in with the server every few days, and so on.

If the software industry uses the same math as the RIAA, then they falsely claim every download as a "lost sale". For instance, I have a friend who (because someone else installed it for him from their copy) has some very high end photo / video / 3d modeling editing software that costs thousands of dollars. He'll probably never even use it, but he has it. The accountants at the software companies would claim this is a lost sale. However, he would never buy it because he has no need of it and even if he was curious, sure wouldn't spend thousands of dollars for it.

I have a free (legit, but I was not the one who paid for it) copy of Office 2007 that I use. I would never pay the excessive cost of Office - if I wasn't given the free copy, I would have continued to use OpenOffice.org (which is 100% free to anyone and everyone) because it does the same exact things and uses the same file formats. So, again, MS would claim that normally I would pay, when in fact I wouldn't and would use an alternative product.

Multi-media companies have developed a delusion that everyone owes them money, even if the people do not use their product.

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 03:29
@ Marcus
I have a free (legit, but I was not the one who paid for it) copy of Office 2007 that I use. I would never pay the excessive cost of Office - if I wasn't given the free copy, I would have continued to use OpenOffice.org (which is 100% free to anyone and everyone) because it does the same exact things and uses the same file formats. So, again, MS would claim that normally I would pay, when in fact I wouldn't and would use an alternative product.

Oh, you're so hilarious, Toten. You've got a "legit" copy that somebody else paid for. Yeah, I believe that. I'm just SO sure that it's not a spawned copy. And I'm completely convinced you'd be using OpenOffice, like the five other people in the world who use it, if you didn't have the free "legit" copy of the Microsoft software. Oh, puleeze.

You've hit, point by point, every justification that pirates use to justify piracy. Greedy game companies, pirates wouldn't buy anyway, get the same thing free elsewhere, everybody's doing it, etc., etc.

There's a saying in the business world: if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

You quack like a pirate.

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 03:55
Ok idiot, I have a friend who owns his own business and pays for corporate licensing. He gives me a copy that's on his payroll (because he's not paying any more for it). I had used OpenOffice for the last 2 years before he gave it to me. Why? Because I went Linux only for a couple of years. I didn't start using Windows again until I got a beta copy of Windows 7 (which I'm using now).

I know you don't want to hear the truth because it shatters your dream world where everyone who doesn't throw money at you is a criminal.

There's a saying on the internet "if it posts like a troll, it's probably a troll".

You post like a troll.

SolidSnake_123
15th Sep 2009, 04:00
You PC guys really like to argue and complain about how Eido's threw their fans out the window, and blah blah blah... just stop arguing guys, it makes me laugh sometimes.

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 04:10
Ok idiot, I have a friend who owns his own business and pays for corporate licensing. He gives me a copy that's on his payroll (because he's not paying any more for it)
If he has a corporate license and you do not work for him and you are using a copy that he gave you, you are using a pirated copy. You are convicted by your own words. You are a pirate. End of story.

Kettels
15th Sep 2009, 04:33
You PC guys really like to argue and complain about how Eido's threw their fans out the window, and blah blah blah... just stop arguing guys, it makes me laugh sometimes.

But if we stop what will we do :nut:, its like console people arguing about which console is better.

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 05:36
If he has a corporate license and you do not work for him and you are using a copy that he gave you, you are using a pirated copy. You are convicted by your own words. You are a pirate. End of story.

No, I'm in violation of the license agreement. NOT the same as pirating. The product was fully paid for. It's no different than buying a mattress and removing the "do not remove this tag" tag. You still legally paid for the mattress, but you violated their stupid use policy that means nothing and no one cares about because you paid for the product.

Do you ever go over the speed-limit at all? That makes you a criminal in the same sense that I'm a pirate for violating a EULA. In other words - it doesn't.

My friend who downloads seasons of tv shows (the same ones that I go out and buy copies of from the store instead of just copying them over from his hard drive) is a pirate. A person who uses a product that's paid for but doesn't give a crap what the stupid EULA says is not a pirate.

jaywalker2309
15th Sep 2009, 08:40
Totenglocke quit with the name calling.. running the risk of having this thread closed off again if you keep it up okay?

Theres an expression, pot calling the kettle black :)

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 13:34
Totenglocke quit with the name calling.. running the risk of having this thread closed off again if you keep it up okay?

Theres an expression, pot calling the kettle black :)

Do you actually bothered to read the crap he writes? Probably not.

If you don't want someone to point out someone's lack of intelligence,why not ban the trolls like Choronzonon? But you know, having childish rules about commenting on the inanity of someone's statements is much more important than getting rid of trolls *note sarcasm*.

jaywalker2309
15th Sep 2009, 13:48
I try to read everything on here, however after a while unfortunately it all becomes just a blur as people resort to bickering. Which means sometimes a great bit of genuine debate no matter how dubious the topic can be lost due to a careless throwaway comment

You calling people an idiot started me on that blur am afraid.. Its not needed regardless of how you feel.

Not everyone is the same level of education or written skills, me for example never got past GCSE (16) for education cos i wanted to work, does that make me less intelligent then someone who got a masters? i am the one doing the job i want to whilst some languish at home unemployed.

The topic in question is HIGHLY controversial when you consider this is the official forum for us, and therefore we are going to defend it a lot more then a 3rd party forum from people openly saying they pirate stuff and dont believe in following laws etc.

BatmanReloaded
15th Sep 2009, 15:06
I try to read everything on here, however after a while unfortunately it all becomes just a blur as people resort to bickering. Which means sometimes a great bit of genuine debate no matter how dubious the topic can be lost due to a careless throwaway comment

You calling people an idiot started me on that blur am afraid.. Its not needed regardless of how you feel.

Not everyone is the same level of education or written skills, me for example never got past GCSE (16) for education cos i wanted to work, does that make me less intelligent then someone who got a masters? i am the one doing the job i want to whilst some languish at home unemployed.

The topic in question is HIGHLY controversial when you consider this is the official forum for us, and therefore we are going to defend it a lot more then a 3rd party forum from people openly saying they pirate stuff and dont believe in following laws etc.

We can tell.

However, you are making false statements.

It is not illegal to circumvent copyright protection. At least not in the United States.

jaywalker2309
15th Sep 2009, 15:57
We can tell.

However, you are making false statements.

It is not illegal to circumvent copyright protection. At least not in the United States.

Aside from you being cheeky whippersnapper ;), am not making false statements, since i am based in the UK and would therefore be talking about laws here.

Also i am pretty sure US copyright laws arent THAT dissimilar and have the same `circumventing` restrictions in place.

Pbrad08
15th Sep 2009, 16:01
You know its bad when: "An Edios forum Mod argues with a regular forum Joe."

jaywalker2309
15th Sep 2009, 16:05
You know its bad when: "An Edios forum Mod argues with a regular forum Joe."

Who is arguing? :) he seems to think its worth highlighting that i went to work in the games industry after finishing school and now work in a job i love, and he thinks thats a bad thing? I aint fussed if people think they are more intellectual, or more intelligent or have more letters after their name etc.

As for copyright law this comes under the digital millienum copyright act, the exception to the law being:
Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (A renewed exemption, first approved in 2003.)

Well since the PC isnt obsolete, the format isnt deemed valid for circumvention therefore is illegal to do so..

BatmanReloaded
15th Sep 2009, 16:21
Aside from you being cheeky whippersnapper ;), am not making false statements, since i am based in the UK and would therefore be talking about laws here.

Also i am pretty sure US copyright laws arent THAT dissimilar and have the same `circumventing` restrictions in place.

You are making a false statement. Even in the UK, it is not illegal to circumvent copyright protection, ie DRM. Quote me one provision in British law that suggests anything of the sort, or even US law for that matter.

It is only illegal if it is your intention to illegally distribute the software.

There is a huge difference between buying your game, and circumventing SecuROM... versus circumventing SecuROM and then SELLING the copied software.


Who is arguing? :) he seems to think its worth highlighting that i went to work in the games industry after finishing school and now work in a job i love, and he thinks thats a bad thing? I aint fussed if people think they are more intellectual, or more intelligent or have more letters after their name etc.

Let's be clear. You highlighted your educational background as a retort to the previous poster. I'm simply further exemplifying your own excuse for responding with irrational responses to legitimate concerns.

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 16:21
Who is arguing? :) he seems to think its worth highlighting that i went to work in the games industry after finishing school and now work in a job i love, and he thinks thats a bad thing? I aint fussed if people think they are more intellectual, or more intelligent or have more letters after their name etc.

I never said anything about education or your job. I was talking about the blatantly intentionally unintelligent posts that someone was making. There's a difference between "finished X years of school / has X degrees" and dumb. You can have no formal education and be brilliant, just as you can have a college degree and not have basic reasoning skills.

Oh, and ain't has an apostrophe in it ;) Just because it's technically not a real word doesn't mean it doesn't have an official spelling (I love the irony of that)!:)

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 16:23
I think BatmanReloaded just took my place as #1 Most Wanted on JayCW's list!

Wow, and I just noticed that the mods altered the title of the thread. Tsk Tsk. The Ministry of Truth is out in force! ;)

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 16:27
No, I'm in violation of the license agreement. NOT the same as pirating. The product was fully paid for. It's no different than buying a mattress and removing the "do not remove this tag" tag. You still legally paid for the mattress, but you violated their stupid use policy that means nothing and no one cares about because you paid for the product.
Well, you're dead wrong about this. If your friend had bought, say, 10 individual licenses, and paid full price for them, he would be free to distribute them however he likes. But if he has a corporate license, he purchased the use of the software at a discount for use within his company. So his license is a contract between Microsoft and his company. When he gave you a copy and told you that you could use it, he was breaking his contract. So your copy is a pirated version.

Microsoft has a variety of reasons for providing corporate licensees with lower-cost versions. One of them most emphatically isn't to provide friends with discounted versions.

As a general rule, you might want to do some research before expressing opinions on the legality of your actions. A good place to start would be The Software Industry Association (http://http://www.siia.net/) website.

By the way, your friend could get in big trouble for letting you use a copy purchased with his corporate license. Microsoft has come down very hard on some companies for doing this sort of thing, in order to make an example.



Do you ever go over the speed-limit at all? That makes you a criminal in the same sense that I'm a pirate for violating a EULA. In other words - it doesn't.

No, I don't normally exceed the speed limit.



My friend who downloads seasons of tv shows (the same ones that I go out and buy copies of from the store instead of just copying them over from his hard drive) is a pirate. A person who uses a product that's paid for but doesn't give a crap what the stupid EULA says is not a pirate.

Actually, you are a pirate, because you're using a pirated copy of Office, but let's put that aside for a moment. What you are definitely doing is providing what's known as "intellectual cover" for piracy. By complaining about "greedy game companies" and so forth, you're explicitly approving of the attitude that piracy is justified. That's why I say you're part of the problem, regardless of whether you are knowingly pirating or not.

jaywalker2309
15th Sep 2009, 16:29
You are making a false statement. Even in the UK, it is not illegal to circumvent copyright protection, ie DRM. Quote me one provision in British law that suggests anything of the sort, or even US law for that matter.

It is only illegal if it is your intention to illegally distribute the software.

There is a huge difference between buying your game, and circumventing SecuROM, versus circumventing SecuROM, and then selling the copy to others.

Let's be clear. You highlighted your educational background as a retort to the previous poster. I'm simply further exemplifying your own excuse for responding with irrational responses to legitimate concerns.


I never said anything about education or your job. I was talking about the blatantly intentionally unintelligent posts that someone was making. There's a difference between "finished X years of school / has X degrees" and dumb. You can have no formal education and be brilliant, just as you can have a college degree and not have basic reasoning skills.

Oh, and ain't has an apostrophe in it ;) Just because it's technically not a real word doesn't mean it doesn't have an official spelling (I love the irony of that)!:)

Seriously you guys take things way too seriously.. :) i am a yorkshireman and anyone who knows me will tell you i aint (ain't - am not) one for being so high and mighty about me speech or writing style (i prefer to write how i talk which means yes when i say me i do mean my but its how i SAY it etc).. i dont care if i dont write perfect english.

Your definition of `unintelligent` is based on your perception of the person, they disagree with your views so you call them an idiot.. how is that helping a debate?

Believe me based on what people have written on this thread so far it could have been closed a long time ago for possible breach of forum rules etc however since the debate is actually a good one and when people aren't resorting to name calling etc, actually interesting to read why people on the other side of the fence have the views they do.

Yes if your intentions are to `distribute` then is highly illegal, HOWEVER to circumvent for personal archiving purposes how did you achieve it? by personally created written `tools`? i guessing not.. Anyone who creates a pirated exe and distributes it is obviously partaking in an illegal activity, so if you download this to use `personally` you are still partaking in the original illegal act.

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 16:33
I think BatmanReloaded just took my place as #1 Most Wanted on JayCW's list!

Wow, and I just noticed that the mods altered the title of the thread. Tsk Tsk. The Ministry of Truth is out in force! ;)
In fact, he changed the title to reflect the nature of the discussion, after I wrote him the following note, subsequent to the (temporary) closing of this thread:

========

I think you made a mistake in closing the thread entitled. " Why did Eidos toss their PC fans into the trash?" While it looked like a personal argument, I was actually working an issue that's of great interest to Eidos. [At this point, I provided by actual identity, which I see no need to share here, since I've already stated it in another thread.] The poster of that message was spreading those justifications, so I was taking the opportunity to rebut them, one by one. And I had just gotten him to admit that he was using pirated Microsoft software. Unfortunately, you closed the thread before I could point out that corporate licenses don't grant resale rights. Why should Eidos care? Simple. Even though Eidos has been very clever in its copy protection schemes, those schemes will eventually fail. It is therefore in Eidos's strategic interest to have a disinterested party (i.e. me) debunk the myths that justify piracy in their public forum.

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 16:36
Your definition of `unintelligent` is based on your perception of the person, they disagree with your views so you call them an idiot.. how is that helping a debate?

He has said that, even if you do not want a product, you should be forced to pay for it just so that the creator can get more money. I highly doubt you'll try to defend that as intelligent. I've tried using logic with him and he just spouts off the same garbage without a thought. That is why I'm now ignoring him, he is a troll and nothing more.

I do not condone piracy, but I understand why they do it. I also understand that companies (at least in the US) use it as an excuse to screw over paying customers, which then causes paying customers to stop using their product, which decreases sales, which companies then falsely blame on piracy so they screw their paying customers even more and the circle continues.

jaywalker2309
15th Sep 2009, 16:38
I think BatmanReloaded just took my place as #1 Most Wanted on JayCW's list!

Wow, and I just noticed that the mods altered the title of the thread. Tsk Tsk. The Ministry of Truth is out in force! ;)

Who says you even on my list? ;) altho when you sign up behind an IP anonymiser it kinda suggests you aint here as a totally legit consumer as you have things you want to remain hidden. ;):p

Theres 2 sides of piracy to me, casual and hardcore.. Yes i know thats simplifiying a lot..

Hardcore are people who are never going to pay for something and will just happily download anything and everything and crack it, distribute it, using adverts etc to make any money where they can. We will never change those people, however the casual `pirates` are those who think they want to try before buy (thinking if no demo exists then they can do this) or have a opinion of copy protection systems and assume all are the same so `buy` the product but then go and download an illegal cracked exe. This is something i would LOVE to educate people as being wrong to assume all are the same, but again not only an uphill battle but almost a pointless one for some, who aren't quite hardcore but not far off.

As you rightly point out, its a vicious catch 22, on one side the makers of the products who have costs they HAVE to recoup to survive as a business. On the other a consumer who has paid for the right to play the game, which is all well and good but when they pirate it for no `valid` reason then they risk unbalancing the equation.. I mean a consumer isnt going to go bust because he hasnt played the game, they dont NEED to play it, whereas we NEED consumers to pay for the game. We have much more to lose in the long run. There are unfortunately some who dont approach copy protection with a thinking mans head on, they approach it with a hammer to smash a walnut approach which further alienates the 2 parties.. How does it get resolved? who knows..

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 16:41
We can tell.
It is not illegal to circumvent copyright protection. At least not in the United States.This statement is a bit misleading. In the United States, copyright infringement is against the law and can result in gigantic fines. You can also find yourself at the short end of a major lawsuit.

Circumventing copyright protection to make your own private copy of something is not (I believe) illegal, as long as you don't distribute the copy. If I understand the law correctly, you are allowed to make copies of content that you've purchased, as long as they are for your own use.

Any lawyers out there want to chime in?

jaywalker2309
15th Sep 2009, 16:43
This statement is a bit misleading. In the United States, copyright infringement is against the law and can result in gigantic fines. You can also find yourself at the short end of a major lawsuit.

Circumventing copyright protection to make your own private copy of something is not (I believe) illegal, as long as you don't distribute the copy. If I understand the law correctly, you are allowed to make copies of content that you've purchased, as long as they are for your own use.

Any lawyers out there want to chime in?

From what i quoted of the act its only legal to circumvent in the case of obsolete hardware preventing current usage, which in this case isnt valid as neither is obsolete.

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 16:44
He has said that, even if you do not want a product, you should be forced to pay for it just so that the creator can get more money..I defy you to find any place where I said anything resembling this. What I said was that you don't have a right to play a game without paying for it, even if you wouldn't play it if didn't get it for free. You play=You pay. That's a concept that you don't seem to understand.

BatmanReloaded
15th Sep 2009, 16:44
This statement is a bit misleading. In the United States, copyright infringement is against the law and can result in gigantic fines. You can also find yourself at the short end of a major lawsuit.

Circumventing copyright protection to make your own private copy of something is not (I believe) illegal, as long as you don't distribute the copy. If I understand the law correctly, you are allowed to make copies of content that you've purchased, as long as they are for your own use.

Any lawyers out there want to chime in?

Your clarification is correct. It would have been more accurate to say that circumventing DRM is not inherently illegal.

There is no need for lawyers, when the law is clearly defined on the matter. All it takes is accessing the provisioning online and reading what it says.

Rockatansky
15th Sep 2009, 16:45
This statement is a bit misleading. In the United States, copyright infringement is against the law and can result in gigantic fines. You can also find yourself at the short end of a major lawsuit.

Circumventing copyright protection to make your own private copy of something is not (I believe) illegal, as long as you don't distribute the copy. If I understand the law correctly, you are allowed to make copies of content that you've purchased, as long as they are for your own use.

Any lawyers out there want to chime in?

Lawyers don't have time to be on the forums or play video games, they're too busy getting as much cash out of the rest of us.

BatmanReloaded
15th Sep 2009, 16:45
From what i quoted of the act its only legal to circumvent in the case of obsolete hardware preventing current usage, which in this case isnt valid as neither is obsolete.

Where did you quote anything that came directly from British or US law? That statement is false.

Here is some help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_and_Performances_and_Phonograms_Treaties_Implementation_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directive

jaywalker2309
15th Sep 2009, 16:49
Where did you quote anything that came directly from British or US law? That statement is false.

Here is some help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_and_Performances_and_Phonograms_Treaties_Implementation_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directive

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1178328&postcount=70 here is where i posted the section about the video games directly from the digital millenium copy right act.. Thanks for the offer of links but i already had them open ta.

From the EU copyright directive

Unlike Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which only prohibits circumvention of access control measures, InfoSoc Directive also prohibits circumvention of copy protection measures, making it potentially more restrictive. In both DMCA and InfoSoc Directive, production, distribution etc. of equipment used to circumvent both access and copy-protection is prohibited. Under DMCA, a potential user who wants to avail herself of an alleged fair use privilege to crack copy protection (which is not prohibited) would have to do it herself since no equipment would lawfully be marketed for that purpose. Under InfoSoc Directive, this possibility would not be available since circumvention of copy protection is illegal.

This simply confirms what i stated earlier about fact its NOT illegal if you create the circumvention YOURSELF, but doing so with any help downloaded from the net kinda puts back in the illegal court..

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 16:51
Anyone who creates a pirated exe and distributes it is obviously partaking in an illegal activity, so if you download this to use `personally` you are still partaking in the original illegal act.

Not true. It may be true in most cases, but not all. Some people just really don't want to have to put a cd in (I don't know why, but I know people who buy plenty of games and whine about it). Others make cracks so that people don't have to jump through all the DRM hoops to use a product that they legally bought. Your blanket statement that anyone who creates a way to get around DRM is a pirate is part of WHY people are so angry with companies and don't trust them when they put DRM on.


Who says you even on my list? altho when you sign up behind an IP anonymiser it kinda suggests you aint here as a totally legit consumer as you have things you want to remain hidden.

I didn't sign up behind one. But thank you for letting me know that my systems security really is that good. I had no idea my security setup was good enough to hide my IP address too.


the casual `pirates` are those who think they want to try before buy (thinking if no demo exists then they can do this) or have a opinion of copy protection systems and assume all are the same so `buy` the product but then go and download an illegal cracked exe. This is something i would LOVE to educate people as being wrong to assume all are the same, but again not only an uphill battle but almost a pointless one for some, who aren't quite hardcore but not far off.

As I said in a previous post, I have a friend who downloads tons of TV shows. If it wasn't for me being at his house and seeing a show he pirated, there are several TV series that I've bought on DVD that I never would have watched if I hadn't seen it through him. That means that those companies actually INCREASED profits due to "try before you buy" piracy. If you eliminate the "try before you buy" piracy, you think you'll get more sales. You won't because people have been burned enough by crappy products (from various industries) that they just won't spend the money until they can find someone to borrow it from and see if it's good - if they don't know anyone who owns it to borrow from, they simply won't buy it. That will actually decrease profits for companies.

Nemesis296
15th Sep 2009, 16:52
Circumventing copyright protection to make your own private copy of something is not (I believe) illegal, as long as you don't distribute the copy. If I understand the law correctly, you are allowed to make copies of content that you've purchased, as long as they are for your own use.

I'm not flaming this point at all, but I fail to see how this can still be legal...

If you decide to circumvent the copyright protection, you have to (according to your post) own from a purchase the software in question that is having the copy protection circumvented. This however is not the same thing as downloading a hacked version of the game, right? That to me still sounds illegal. Plus, the other thing I want to know, is if you already bought the software and own a legitimate copy of it, why on earth would you want to own a hacked version of it as well?

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 16:55
I'm not flaming this point at all, but I fail to see how this can still be legal...

If you decide to circumvent the copyright protection, you have to (according to your post) own from a purchase the software in question that is having the copy protection circumvented. This however is not the same thing as downloading a hacked version of the game, right? That to me still sounds illegal. Plus, the other thing I want to know, is if you already bought the software and own a legitimate copy of it, why on earth would you want to own a hacked version of it as well?

To get around DRM activation BS that companies hamstring their products with these days. Products like that you pay money for the right to use the software, but in order to fully use your rights you have to get a crack.

Rockatansky
15th Sep 2009, 16:55
Seeing that this thread is about General Copy protection.

Has anyone reported any problems with B:AA yet?

jaywalker2309
15th Sep 2009, 16:56
Not true. It may be true in most cases, but not all. Some people just really don't want to have to put a cd in (I don't know why, but I know people who buy plenty of games and whine about it). Others make cracks so that people don't have to jump through all the DRM hoops to use a product that they legally bought. Your blanket statement that anyone who creates a way to get around DRM is a pirate is part of WHY people are so angry with companies and don't trust them when they put DRM on.


I didn't sign up behind one. But thank you for letting me know that my systems security really is that good. I had no idea my security setup was good enough to hide my IP address too.


As I said in a previous post, I have a friend who downloads tons of TV shows. If it wasn't for me being at his house and seeing a show he pirated, there are several TV series that I've bought on DVD that I never would have watched if I hadn't seen it through him. That means that those companies actually INCREASED profits due to "try before you buy" piracy. If you eliminate the "try before you buy" piracy, you think you'll get more sales. You won't because people have been burned enough by crappy products (from various industries) that they just won't spend the money until they can find someone to borrow it from and see if it's good - if they don't know anyone who owns it to borrow from, they simply won't buy it. That will actually decrease profits for companies.

Your IP address is a `registered` IP address for a known anonymiser.. interesting :)

I just posted the EU directive related to circumventing encryption. Its NOT illegal IF you do it yourself. Being lazy and downloading it is the problem, the law makes it clear that you have to do the work yourself.. The whole `i dont want to damage my cd` argument is truly well below this debate as a legitimate reason to download a cracked exe.

DRM hoops are only really visible to those who look for them, a vast majority of people play the game without probably even realising they've even been going thru `hoops` as you call them. i hate limited installs etc on disc based products etc and i dont use them.

As Rockatansky just stated as this is Batman forum, anyone on the PC version found any issues playing the game OUTSIDE of spec issues etc? ie anything in the copy protection stopping them exercising their right to play the game? i've not seen any `legal` users complain about the copy protection implementation.

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 17:02
DRM hoops are only really visible to those who look for them

Wrong. Activation limits and online activation are hoops that are readily visible.


Being lazy and downloading it is the problem, the law makes it clear that you have to do the work yourself

So there are laws to restrict people from being able to make a backup because they're not an experienced programmer? I love when companies pay off the government.

Nemesis296
15th Sep 2009, 17:03
Wrong. Activation limits and online activation are hoops that are readily visible.

I think he was talking about Batman: Arkham Asylum there ;)

jaywalker2309
15th Sep 2009, 17:08
Wrong. Activation limits and online activation are hoops that are readily visible.


So there are laws to restrict people from being able to make a backup because they're not an experienced programmer? I love when companies pay off the government.

erm do you pay taxes? then you pay the government too ;)

I was referring to hoops as a BAD thing as in like they have had some awful experience because they've had to type in a serial key for online activation

Activation limits are not present if you own a disc copy.

Online activation in this case is related to GFWL NOT batman per se, you can play the game offline without needing the internet.

I do think the fact there are genuine grey areas is one of the problems. Would be great if laws in different countries didnt differ or use jargon that can be misconstrued, and then the simple fact if there IS a law, then it should be acted on, currently for all the noise made about music download etc and the press behind the big `lawsuits against the little people` nothing really happens. As i keep saying its a truly catch 22 situation :( something has to give, and from a personal perspective i dont see companies who pay for everything first being happy to give so quickly and easily

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 17:32
erm do you pay taxes? then you pay the government too

I don't pay bribes to get special laws passed that benefit me and only me.


Activation limits are not present if you own a disc copy.

Online activation in this case is related to GFWL NOT batman per se, you can play the game offline without needing the internet.

I'll wait until I have third party verification before I buy the game. However, you could easily have provided all the same features and NOT used GFWL. But that's a whole different issue...


from a personal perspective i dont see companies who pay for everything first being happy to give so quickly and easily

Those "poor" companies also make more money in a year than the average person would make in 100 lifetimes. As I've said before, it all comes down to greed. That greed will come back to bite companies in the butt in the not so distant future.

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 18:15
Lawyers don't have time to be on the forums or play video games, they're too busy getting as much cash out of the rest of us.Quite the contrary. One of my best friends, a lawyer and veteran computer games, just sent me this email:

I am about a third of the way through it on the xbox. It is serious fun. Nothing like a silent takedown while hanging upside down from a gargoyle. Lots of fun exploration and detective puzzles too.

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 18:20
As I said in a previous post, I have a friend who downloads tons of TV shows. If it wasn't for me being at his house and seeing a show he pirated, there are several TV series that I've bought on DVD that I never would have watched if I hadn't seen it through him.This isn't your decision to make. If the owners of the content wanted to market their products by giving away free copies, they have that right. They chose not to exercise that right. You might think they're stupid for not doing so, but it was their decision not yours.

What's more, by watching pirated copies at your friend's house, you are implicitly approving of the piracy, thereby making your friend more likely to pirate. You are therefore contributing to the piracy problem, thereby creating the conditions (i.e. a need for various kinds of DRM) that you're complaining about.

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 18:25
Those "poor" companies also make more money in a year than the average person would make in 100 lifetimes. As I've said before, it all comes down to greed. That greed will come back to bite companies in the butt in the not so distant future.I guess you've never looked at the pay packages -- and lack of job security -- of people who work in gaming firms. What if a game sells marginally? Piracy might make all the difference between profitability -- and continued employment -- and the company going belly up.

If we're going to talk about greed, how about the greed that's inherent in being too cheap to pay for your own copy of Microsoft office? And, while we're at it, I notice that you don't have the balls to admit that you're wrong about that but instead decide to wimp out and pretend that I'm a "troll" -- just because I've easily destroyed every silly comment you've made.

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 18:41
Troll, this is the only thing I'm saying, because you get off on saying stupid things to get reactions out of people.


If we're going to talk about greed, how about the greed that's inherent in being too cheap to pay for your own copy of Microsoft office?

So accepting a gift is greed? I guess you never get christmas presents or birthday presents then. My friend paid for it - he gave it to me. That is not greed. I was perfectly fine with the free product I was using (Open Office, which btw, IBM is changing all of their systems over from MS Office to a version of Open Office). I was given a free product that I use. Though, I actually DO have a 100% irrefutably legit license for Office 2007 (I bought a discounted student copy while I was finishing up college) but since I switched from Windows XP to Windows 7, I'm out of activations and it's easier to use the copy my friend gave me than to call up MS and beg them to let me install the product I pay for. Identical feature sets on both copies.

I'm actually considering getting rid of MS Office and going back to Open Office once the new version of Open Office is released. Not only do I get regular updates with Open Office, but I don't have to worry about jumping through hoops to install it merely because I changed what OS I use.

So shucks, once again your bogus attempts to frame me for piracy are foiled. Too bad that I pay for products / someone gives me software as a gift. The problem for people like you is, fewer and fewer products are worth paying for these days. However, Windows 7 actually IS worth paying for and I will actually buy a copy of it once it comes out. See, that's the brilliance behind MS doing an open beta of Win 7. They knew people like me would be hesitant to buy it after the horror that was Vista, so they let people TRY BEFORE THEY BUY and guess what? Everyone I know who's used the Win 7 beta has loved it and planned on buying it. They INCREASED sales by letting people TRY BEFORE THEY BUY. A novel concept that we USED to have. Too bad most companies think it's "old fashioned".

I was pleasantly surprised that Eidos did a demo of B:AA. If the copy protection is as jaycw says, then by having a demo, they earned themselves a sale from me. If I hadn't played the demo I would have assumed the game was as crappy as most video games based on a movie / comic franchise and never thought twice about it. See the reason why it's smart to let people TRY BEFORE THEY BUY?

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 18:46
I was given a free product that I use. It was not his to give. It's a pirated copy because it was purchased under a corporate license. Unless you work for him, you are using pirated software. You are therefore a pirate.

I'll give you credit for perhaps not knowing that you're a pirate. But now that you know, if you continue to use that copy of Office, you're officially a pirate.

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 18:51
It was not his to give. It's a pirated copy because it was purchased under a corporate license. Unless you work for him, you are using pirated software. You are therefore a pirate.

I'll give you credit for perhaps not knowing that you're a pirate. But now that you know, if you continue to use that copy of Office, you're officially a pirate.

He paid MS the money for it. It's his to do as he please. I know, consumers have rights, a horrible notion! You do realize that he could call me once and ask for help doing something as simple as changing the background on his computer and use that to label me an employee and everything would be fine, right? That's how stupid EULA's are.

Also, you're ignoring the part about how I actually DO own an identical copy but since my activations are up due to changing what OS I use, I use the copy he gave me instead. So once again we're back to "MS got the money for it". NOT piracy when it's paid for.

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 19:16
He paid MS the money for it. It's his to do as he please. I realize that you may truly believe that this is true, but it isn't. He bought a corporate license, which allows him to use the software within his own business. Corporate licenses cannot be distributed (or sold or given) to people who are not employed inside that company. The copy that you have is not being used by an employee. It is therefore pirated, and if you use it, you are using pirated software.

What you describe is, quite incidentally, one of the most common types of software piracy, even more common than game piracy. The SIIA, an industry trade group, offers up to $1 million for whistleblowers who report this kind of piracy. Check it out. (http://joomlatest.siia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=173:corporate&catid=162:anti-piracy-articles&Itemid=131)


Also, you're ignoring the part about how I actually DO own an identical copy but since my activations are up due to changing what OS I use, I use the copy he gave me instead. So once again we're back to "MS got the money for it". NOT piracy when it's paid for. Actually, I'm not ignoring it; I just haven't responded to it because it's irrelevant. You bought the software to run on one operating system; if Microsoft wants to charge you to run it on another operating system, that's their right. It's their software, not your software. You're using the pirated copy to avoid paying twice. I understand, but it's still not legal.

If I were to characterize your general problem, it's that you have an inability to differentiate between what you THINK is ethical and what is actually legal. In a weird way, your heart is in the right place, but your head can't seem to get around the idea that the real world doesn't run according to the rules that you've got in your head.

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 19:25
Actually, I'm not ignoring it; I just haven't responded to it because it's irrelevant. You bought the software to run on one operating system; if Microsoft wants to charge you to run it on another operating system, that's their right. It's their software, not your software. You're using the pirated copy to avoid paying twice. I understand, but it's still not legal.


No. I bought the copy to use on whatever OS that it will run on. There is NOTHING about not being able to reformat. I'm 100% allowed to call MS and haggle with them and they'll give me the activations. However, why should I waste the time doing that when I have an identical copy that doesn't require the hassle? I paid for it. It is MY software. They own the rights to SELL the software. They have no control over how many times I re-install it (and it's actually very easy to get MS to give you more activations, I've done it with Windows XP before - but again, why should I waste the time with that when I don't have to?). That fact that you think it's ok to charge someone again just because they changed to a new version of Windows is proof of what I'm talking about when I mention greed.


If I were to characterize your general problem, it's that you have an inability to differentiate between what you THINK is ethical and what is actually legal. In a weird way, your heart is in the right place, but your head can't seem to get around the idea that the real world doesn't run according to the rules that you've got in your head.

No,it's that what IS ethical and generally accepted as moral is illegal because of greedy corporations paying off politicians to get unjust laws passed. Unjust laws should not be followed.

Laws are not always right. I guess you never paid attention to Zorro. "When justice is outlawed, the just become outlaws".

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 19:51
They own the rights to SELL the software.[/B]".Sorry, but you're wrong again. They own the rights to sell the use of the software. You -- meaning you personally -- have never bought any software. You just think you have. What you are buying is the right to use the software.

Unless you created it yourself (or specifically bought the software programming code along with ownership of the intellectual property), you don't own a single bit of software on your computer.

What you own is the right to use that software. Or, in the case of your pirated copy of Microsoft Office, what you don't own is the right to use that software.

I realize that this concept is difficult for you to get your head around, but that's the case.

I also realize that you're not mature enough to understand that stating that you don't believe that laws that are unjust (in your opinion) don't have to be followed undercuts your credibility as a "not a pirate."

ASIDE: Quotes from Zorro now. What next? Long John Silver?

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 19:56
Sorry, but you're wrong again. They own the rights to sell the use of the software. You -- meaning you personally -- have never bought any software. You just think you have. What you are buying is the right to use the software.

Unless you created it yourself (or specifically bought the software programming code along with ownership of the intellectual property), you don't own a single bit of software on your computer.

What you own is the right to use that software. Or, in the case of your pirated copy of Microsoft Office, what you don't own is the right to use that software.

I realize that this concept is difficult for you to get your head around, but that's the case.

I also realize that you're not mature enough to understand that stating that you don't believe that laws that are unjust (in your opinion) don't have to be followed undercuts your credibility as a "not a pirate."

ASIDE: Quotes from Zorro now. What next? Long John Silver?

Wrong. I buy the program. Just like the sofa over there - I bought the sofa not "the rights to use it". That is what is so ridiculous with the laws that software companies have paid politicians to pass. No other industry can get away with that crap. I suppose you'd be ok if the company that built your car showed up and took it away saying that "you only bought the rights to use it" and that they don't want you using it anymore? No? They why can software companies do that? Hm?

I realize it's difficult for you to understand the concept of ownership, but that's the case.

I also realize that you're not mature enough to understand ethics and that greed and money are NOT the be-all and end-all of existence. The fact that you think unjust laws should be followed undercuts your credibility as an intelligent being capable of rational thought.

So, just to get this straight, you would not have helped people freeing slaves (and in fact would have turned them in) because that's what the law said?

Only those who are not capable of thinking for themselves blindly follow the law.

People like me were the ones who fought the tyranny of the UK and created the US. People like you were the ones trying to stop them from being free because "it's the law".

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 20:12
To all:

As far as Totenglocke goes, I think I've flogged him enough.

He wants stuff for free and doesn't have the courage to admit that he's willing to steal to save a few bucks. Instead, he builds a value system that allows him to think he's not "really" stealing. That warped perspective then becomes so pervasive in his own mind that he logs onto public forums and complains about companies trying their best to maintain ownership of their own property.

Then, when confronted with legal facts, he questions the law. When proven wrong, he tries to change the argument. When his logic is destroyed (an absurdly easy task), he resorts to name calling and personal attacks.

This guy's attitude is EXACTLY why game companies MUST have DRM. Because this kind of individual recognizes neither laws nor logic, he forces companies to go to extraordinary measures to keep even a modicum of their rights as content creators.

I'll bet this guy would love to work in a game company and develop cool new games. But, frankly, somebody who can't afford a new copy of Office probably works at Taco Bell. So he's got no choice but to rail against "greedy" companies and politicians, and so forth.

Sad, really.

DigiChaos
15th Sep 2009, 20:29
Just so you know... the Steam version of Batman will NOT activate with provided keys because of SecuROM. THANKS!

SteMot
15th Sep 2009, 21:04
To all:

As far as Totenglocke goes, I think I've flogged him enough.

He wants stuff for free and doesn't have the courage to admit that he's willing to steal to save a few bucks. Instead, he builds a value system that allows him to think he's not "really" stealing. That warped perspective then becomes so pervasive in his own mind that he logs onto public forums and complains about companies trying their best to maintain ownership of their own property.

Then, when confronted with legal facts, he questions the law. When proven wrong, he tries to change the argument. When his logic is destroyed (an absurdly easy task), he resorts to name calling and personal attacks.

This guy's attitude is EXACTLY why game companies MUST have DRM. Because this kind of individual recognizes neither laws nor logic, he forces companies to go to extraordinary measures to keep even a modicum of their rights as content creators.

I'll bet this guy would love to work in a game company and develop cool new games. But, frankly, somebody who can't afford a new copy of Office probably works at Taco Bell. So he's got no choice but to rail against "greedy" companies and politicians, and so forth.

Sad, really.

TBH, your the one who has just failed to respond in a constructive manner to his last questions, then launched a ill-informed attack on his employment options.

Fact is this, there all kinds of laws trying to stop people from pirating games, but where are the equivalent laws governing the publishers. What if my game is so full of bugs I cannot play, who do they answer to then? Nobody, becuase there is no law against releasing a buggy PC game. Ethically it's wrong, but not lawfully, and the continue to be allowed to get away with this. If someone wants to try a game first and there is no demo, they can't and have to spend £30-£40 before they realise they have been ripped off.

Just because something is described right by the law, does not mean that it is right morally. As far as I'm concerned, companies like Atari who load up their games with DRM, then refuse to continue support for their bug fest games deserve all the copies that will be pirated.

There is no black and white in law, only someone with no experience of it would believe so.

Choronzonon
15th Sep 2009, 21:21
Just so you know... the Steam version of Batman will NOT activate with provided keys because of SecuROM. THANKS!Installed fine on my computer. Won't be posting for a while...guess why.

Oh, you need to copy the serial number that's displayed when you first try to launch the game and paste it into the verification window. That's different than the long code that's displayed at the bottom of the verification window.

tenth8sphere
15th Sep 2009, 21:23
I'd just like to note that there are exceptionally well thought out arguments on both sides of the copyright argument. Especially in regards to copyright expiration and fair use. I don't think its fair to treat either Chromo or Toten as insane extremes. Polls continually show that we have major disconnects in the US between the laws and whether people would feel bad about breaking them or not. Name calling and demonizing opponents is akin to the RIAA lawsuits. They accomplish nothing and just divide the sides further. The fact is that both sides are losing the way things are now.

Software companies have to deal with rampant and blatant piracy of their products. Consumers are denied rights to backup, alter, or even OWN the programs they purchase. As a result of piracy prices go up, and DRM is added. As a result of DRM and prices, piracy goes up.

The goal should be to debate the underlying NORMATIVE laws and make changes. Much like prohibition, its becoming obvious that the average person doesn't respect existing IP law.

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 21:31
To all:

As far as Totenglocke goes, I think I've flogged him enough.

He wants stuff for free and doesn't have the courage to admit that he's willing to steal to save a few bucks. Instead, he builds a value system that allows him to think he's not "really" stealing. That warped perspective then becomes so pervasive in his own mind that he logs onto public forums and complains about companies trying their best to maintain ownership of their own property.

Then, when confronted with legal facts, he questions the law. When proven wrong, he tries to change the argument. When his logic is destroyed (an absurdly easy task), he resorts to name calling and personal attacks.

This guy's attitude is EXACTLY why game companies MUST have DRM. Because this kind of individual recognizes neither laws nor logic, he forces companies to go to extraordinary measures to keep even a modicum of their rights as content creators.

I'll bet this guy would love to work in a game company and develop cool new games. But, frankly, somebody who can't afford a new copy of Office probably works at Taco Bell. So he's got no choice but to rail against "greedy" companies and politicians, and so forth.

Sad, really.

I do not want things for free. What I want is value for my money. As such, I will not pay again for something that I have already paid for just because politicians have been bribed to allow that loophole for companies to remove your right to use the product that you paid for. If the best product is free (such as Firefox) then I use Firefox. If the best OS for my needs is Windows 7, then I buy Windows 7. If you do not provide me with a way of evaluating your product before purchasing it, then I will not use your product.

I question the law on lots of things. Gay marriage, health care, loopholes given to software companies that no other inudstry is allowed to do, etc. You've yet to prove me wrong. I have never said anything about "X is legal" - I said you have a RIGHT to do X. The law frequently violates peoples rights. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, Hate Speech laws, etc. The law is not always right and only a fool thinks it always is. An informed and intelligent person questions WHY a law is in existence. Many laws have no real purpose and only exist so that a few (who bribed politicians) can profit at the expense of everyone else.

My attitude of buying games and not pirating them is why comapnies must have DRM? That's funny, since I've said multiple times that I won't buy (or pirate) from a company that uses DRM. According to your lack of logic, paying customers like me should be punished until we just stop buying the product and the company goes out of business. Wonderful advice! Companies pretend to use DRM to "protect their rights" but they use it so that they can charge customers multiple times for the same product. Buy a CD? Pay $15. Want to use that same CD but want to listen to it on an iPod instead of a Discman? That's another $20. Want to listen to it on your computer as well? That's yet another $20. THAT is what DRM exists for. They know that they won't stop pirates, nor do they care to. They, like you Choron, think that they are obligated to everyone's money. I pointed out to you before that just because you make a product doesn't mean that people are obligated to purchase your product. You insisted that no, if the product exists then people MUST buy it, regardless of if they want it or not.

I used to want to work in a game company, then half-way through getting a degree in Computer Science I realized that I didn't want to deal with all the crap involved in it. I got a degree in Economics instead and now work for an IT consulting firm (oh sweet irony) until I can take some Actuary exams in the spring and pursue a different career. I rant about people who want to violate someones rights, because it's the right thing to do. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". If you had anything resembling morals, you would understand that.

It's sad really that I've spent as much time trying to reason you into not being a troll. I guess just as a tiger never changes it's stripes, a troll never changes either.

Nemesis296
15th Sep 2009, 22:18
FYI:


8. Ownership
You only own the media on which the Software Product is recorded. Eidos and/or its licensors shall at all times retain ownership of the Software Product as recorded on the media and all subsequent copies regardless of form.

If you don't agree with this, I suggest you don't buy the game...

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 22:37
FYI:
If you don't agree with this, I suggest you don't buy the game...

I'm not going to let a corrupt companies EULA stop me from doing what I please with the product I purchase for my own use.

SteMot
15th Sep 2009, 23:15
FYI:



If you don't agree with this, I suggest you don't buy the game...

Hmm, so where's the law stating that when a company takes back ownership of a full price game they need to give a refund? What? There isn't one? Typical one sided EULA which companies seem to think gives them the right to rip off their customers with no comeback.

Totenglocke
15th Sep 2009, 23:27
So Nemesis got me thinking and I'll go ahead and post on it.

EULA's are not always held up in court and along with holding hearings on whether or not to ban DRM, the FTC is also going to be looking into whether or not to allow EULA's.

Every store I've ever heard of has the same policy when it comes to software - no returns on open boxes. That is part of what creates the problem with EULA's. You don't see the EULA until after you have already opened the box and put the disc in your computer. Sure, you can click "no" / "disagree", but then you're out whatever amount you paid for the program since you cannot take it back to the store and get a refund now that the box is opened. This, combined with the fact that EULA's are needlessly long and worded in legal jargon to confuse most people, virtually no one reads the EULA and just about everyone automatically clicks "accept" so that they can install the software.

"In an attempt to prove that no one reads end user license agreements (EULAs), anti-spyware firm PC Pitstop buried a note in its own EULA, saying they would give $1,000 to the first person who emailed them at a certain address. It only took four months and over 3,000 downloads before someone noticed it and sent an email (and got the $1,000)." (source here http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050223/1745244.shtml)

If publishers sold software directly and presented the EULA before purchase of the software, then you could say it is binding. However, customers don't buy directly. They buy from Best Buy, Wal-mart, Amazon, etc. When they buy from 3rd parties, they are NOT presented with the EULA and since they cannot return opened software, unless they want to simply be out $50, $60, $100 or more (depending on the software), they simply install it regardless of the EULA.

This is why courts do not always uphold EULA's and why the FTC is considering banning the use of EULA's.

jaywalker2309
16th Sep 2009, 09:27
Toten - you do seem to believe that as YOU personally dont like a law that gives you the right to ignore it, unfortunately they are many laws i dont like and would love to ignore but cannot. You cannot hand pick the laws you like and follow them. Regardless of reasons of how they became laws, they are laws of the land, and therefore potentially going to bite you in the ass if you fall foul of them.

To say you fought tyranny to get rid of the UK to make the US as it is, is a really bizarre thing to suddenly say. cos am sure theres a lot of afghan and iraqi and iranian and well most of the middle east who would have a very similar attitude to the US.. I dont think we should have gone to war like we did, but i will always support our troops as they are just doing their job. Its the governments who put them there, not the soliders on the ground. Freedom has a cost. altho you seem to think you shouldnt ever have to pay

For every person doing good and the right thing anywhere in the world theres someone who disagrees and will fight for it. What is it they say one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Going into an argument/debate without the ability to look at it from the other persons perspective basically means you've not come to debate things but to just voice your opinions regardless of whatever else is said to you rightly or wrongly.

Choronzonon
16th Sep 2009, 10:43
So, just to get this straight, you would not have helped people freeing slaves (and in fact would have turned them in) because that's what the law said?

Only those who are not capable of thinking for themselves blindly follow the law.

People like me were the ones who fought the tyranny of the UK and created the US. People like you were the ones trying to stop them from being free because "it's the law".Yeah, like you're Zorro, Patrick Henry and Abraham Lincoln bundled up into one person because don't want to pay for software. Your inability to play Batman without DRM is an injustice comparable to slavery. Right.

Totenglocke
16th Sep 2009, 15:25
Toten - you do seem to believe that as YOU personally dont like a law that gives you the right to ignore it, unfortunately they are many laws i dont like and would love to ignore but cannot. You cannot hand pick the laws you like and follow them. Regardless of reasons of how they became laws, they are laws of the land, and therefore potentially going to bite you in the ass if you fall foul of them.

To say you fought tyranny to get rid of the UK to make the US as it is, is a really bizarre thing to suddenly say. cos am sure theres a lot of afghan and iraqi and iranian and well most of the middle east who would have a very similar attitude to the US.. I dont think we should have gone to war like we did, but i will always support our troops as they are just doing their job. Its the governments who put them there, not the soliders on the ground. Freedom has a cost. altho you seem to think you shouldnt ever have to pay

For every person doing good and the right thing anywhere in the world theres someone who disagrees and will fight for it. What is it they say one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Going into an argument/debate without the ability to look at it from the other persons perspective basically means you've not come to debate things but to just voice your opinions regardless of whatever else is said to you rightly or wrongly.

It's not a matter of "not liking" a law. It's a matter of if the law is unjust. If a law exists for no reason but to harm one person for the benefit of someone who bribed a politician to pass the law, then it is unjust. If I remember correctly (though it's been a couple of years since I've read it) it's even in the US Declaration of Independence that when the law becomes unjust it is the duty of the people to stand up and fight the government.

I said it was people like me, who refuse to follow unjust laws, that caused the US to break off from the UK. There were people living in the colonies who were like you and Choron and didn't believe that people had a right to run their own lives and be free because "it was against the law". That blind subservience never leads to anything good. Hate the fact that you're watched all the time by CCTV's in the UK? That happened because people like you say "well it's the government, they can do whatever they want and we have to follow it". That mentality always leads to tyranny, which is where both the US and UK are headed (though sadly the UK is farther down that road than the US).


altho you seem to think you shouldnt ever have to pay

Seriously? How many times do I have to say it before you'll actually LISTEN and stop making cop-outs. I pay for QUALITY and I will go to whoever provides that quality. I currently own two Eidos games. Two. Why? Not because I have anything against the company, but because the vast majority of the games made by Eidos give me no reason to purchase them (and no, I've never pirated them either, so seriously, quit trying to avoid the topic by lying and claiming I'm a pirate). That's where the entertainment industry is out of whack with their idea that everyone is obligated to give them money. In any other industry, if people don't want your product, you say to them "Ok, what can we do to make our product more appealing to you? How can we make it better so that you would want to buy it?". In the Entertainment industry, you say "If you don't like our product, you must be stealing it - everything we make is perfect!".

I will not buy a game unless it has good reviews from sources I trust. I will not buy a game with activation limits or online activation, regardless of who makes it. Only in the entertainment industry are the companies arrogant enough to think that they still own something after they sell it. An author / publisher doesn't try to claim that they own the copy of Harry Potter you just bought. They know that that book is YOURS. A car company doesn't try to claim that they still own the car you bought because it is YOURS - that's what BUYING something means. It means that you own it. The entertainment industry is the most greedy of all though and thinks that they have the "right" to take away what you've legally bought at any moment and if you want to keep using it, they can charge you for it all over again. That is plain and simple theft (in the point of taking what someone legally owns) and extortion (in saying that they have to pay you again to get it back). It's a crime when any citizen or industry BUT the entertainment industry does it.

Why are you so wonderful that you should be allowed to steal from your paying customers and then sell them the stolen goods back?

On the note of B:AA - IF the game is as you claim, I'll probably buy it. However, I've already seen posters having problems with the online activations from GWFL. Instead of putting online activations in, you force people to use GFWL which requires an online activation and say "Oh the game doesn't have online activation, but if you want to use all of it's features you HAVE to use GFWL which has online activation".


Going into an argument/debate without the ability to look at it from the other persons perspective basically means you've not come to debate things but to just voice your opinions regardless of whatever else is said to you rightly or wrongly

Take your own advice. You're the one who doesn't bother actually reading what I say and keeps claiming that, if I don't want to buy a product crippled with DRM, that I must be a pirate. Try actually coming up with a believable argument for why software companies should be allowed to keep ownership of something that they've already sold. As I said before, software companies have the right to sell and distribute software. Once it is sold,it belongs solely to the person who bought it. No, they don't have the right to give copies away for free because the company has the distribution rights. However the owner does have the right to sell his copy to someone else (meaning that new person now owns it) or to give it to someone else for free (and again, the new person now owns it).

Laokin
22nd Sep 2009, 03:59
When you pay money for a game you are paying for the disc/digital download which gives you the right to play the game you are not paying for the IP itself (that costs millions). The version a preorderer is buying is ONLY legal when they get it from the source they PAID for it from.

As for the legal `backing` up of a disc yes its technically true you can make a backup, however its pretty clear in that you cannot use this for anything but personal use OR make any changes to the files supplied. Any circumventing of copy protection is illegal, and since most copy protection systems try and stop copying it means to back up you have to do something that could be deemed illegal.

Its like ordering a car from a ford garage, but then taking one from the next ford garage and saying `tis alright mines coming soon`.

AND.... your wrong.

Your right, I'm not paying for the IP. The intellectual property that IS Batman isn't even owned by Eidos. Playing Batman before release has nothing to do with me and the IP... AT ALL. I Purchased the GAME. You know that thing with levels that goes from beginning to end that finishes with the Joker ending up back in shackles... yeah that thing. Since that is WHAT I PAID FOR, that is what I PLAYED. The IP has NOTHING to do with this. If the IP was relevant and I paid for the IP that wouldn't even give me the privilege to play the game.... EVEN IF I OWNED BATMAN OUTRIGHT. What the IP would allow me to do is create new stories using Batman. Guess What, Arkham Asylum isn't an IP either. Just BATMAN is. Arkham Asylum is part of the IP that IS Batman which has nothing to do with Eidos other than the fact that the real owner of the IP Detective Comics lease you the RIGHTS to use the character Batman in a new work of art.

This is not theft, since I haven't stolen anything. That is like saying I stole my N64, I got it 4 days before it came out... How? I preordered it, and it came in.... and Toys 'R Us gave it to me before the official release.... (Which is ILLEGAL, but the person who obtained it didn't break the law.)

I haven't broken any law. I didn't hack into Eidos and steal a pre-released version of the game. I bought the game, somebody at Eidos leaked it. The only thing that matters is I paid Eidos in full... and I obtained the game AFTER release but not on my platform. I didn't break any law or I'm sure the ban hammer would of fallen on me. Furthermore, I admitted it... so send the crack legal team to sue me. You won't. Why? Because I paid for the product I played.... before I played it. It doesn't matter what day you say it's released.....

Say I order a Ferrari and I paid for it. If I pick up the model that is there without waiting for mine to ship into the show room... I didn't break the law. NOW, had I broken into the dealership and took the car... it wouldn't be Theft, but it would be Breaking and entering.

There was no Theft, there is no such thing as "Limited Supply" of a digital product, I didn't leak it... nor was I involved in the leak. I didn't PIRATE anything. The definition of Pirate is to steal, it's an analogy used to describe the act of not paying for software.

pi⋅rate
  /ˈpaɪrət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pahy-ruht] Show IPA noun, verb, -rat⋅ed, -rat⋅ing.
Use Pirate in a Sentence
See web results for Pirate
See images of Pirate
–noun
1. a person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea.

I didn't rob Eidos of anything. If the game is completed and I paid for it and it's floating around on the internet, it doesn't matter if I have a "Retail" Disc, I have what we call a "Receipt" for a transaction of money. If you took me to court and I presented a receipt the case would be dismissed. There is NO law that says you cannot obtain a digital piece of software that you have a receipt as a proof of purchase, early. NONE, WHAT-SO ever.

Also, buying the game... EIDOS taking my money and putting it in their accounts is what gives me the right to play the game... not the stupid disc. If I paid for the game and received a broken disc... downloading this software wouldn't be illegal. Since this is true, the DISC isn't what gives me the right to play the game.... it's the FACT that you are holding money that used to belong to me. I AM PAYING for the right to play. You CANNOT take my money and then tell me I illegally played the game too early, since there is no law in effect anywhere in the world that states this.

I challenge ALL OF YOU, find ONE country that states this..... Even if you manage to find one... it won't be in the country I live so it doesn't apply to me.

PERIOD.

I downloaded Batman after paying in full. I did not PIRATE this game. By definition the term "Pirate" is associated with THEFT. Theft never OCCURRED.


Not a matter of opinion, no matter of legal red tape, just out right FACT.

Thank you, and I want my apology.

Laokin
22nd Sep 2009, 04:25
Not really. What you bought was a license to use the software, which is a legal contract. If the license says you can install on one machine, then only one machine is legal. Your analogies about other objects that aren't intellectual property are meaningless.

I'm pretty sure you heard wrong, since install limits are pretty common. Can you supply a link to the law or an article citing that law?

Actually, your statement reveals your own ignorance. I hate to break this to you, but your opinion about what a justifiable profit on a creative endeavor is completely and totally irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of their business model, nor are you the owner of the content and intellectual property.

You are incorrect. The collapse of CD sales -- which were not, by the way, replaced by online sales -- is ample evidence that piracy can cause massive financial damage to a content-producing industry. As for your protestations of "greediness", the only greediness I see is people who want content but aren't willing to pay for it. If they don't want to pay, then they should go do something else.

There is absolutely no such law. A game company could charge $1m for each copy of a game if they wanted, and sell it only to billionaires. And they would if that were a viable business model, and you'd still be a thief if you pirated it.

Once again, you completely miss the point. It's not about what you think game companies SHOULD be charging for anything. You're nobody. Your opinion is meaningless. Content owners created something new, so they own it. They can charge whatever they want. If you were capable of creating something other than ramblings on a forum -- and got paid for doing so -- you'd feel exactly the same way.

Oh, yes, I believe you. Totally. No question about this. Take it to the bank!

I stopped reading at there is "absolutely no such law."

Your wrong.

FAIR TRADE LAW
Agreement between a supplier, usually a manufacturer or wholesaler, and a retailer not to sell a product below a specific price. The idea behind this type of agreement is to maintain profits and to discourage competition. If a manufacturer signs an RPM agreement with all the retailers they supply they can, to a certain degree, guarantee their profit margins.

Ever wonder how industry analysts are so accurate at prediction profit margins? This is why.

If you don't want to believe an encyclopedia, then by all means look up the "Federal Trade Commission."

It's sole purpose is to enforce TRADE laws. Fair Trade being the most common.

www.FTC.gov

When the FTC was created in 1914, its purpose was to prevent unfair methods of competition in commerce as part of the battle to “bust the trusts.” Over the years, Congress passed additional laws giving the agency greater authority to police anticompetitive practices. In 1938, Congress passed a broad prohibition against “unfair and deceptive acts or practices.” Since then, the Commission also has been directed to administer a wide variety of other consumer protection laws, including the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Pay-Per-Call Rule and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. In 1975, Congress gave the FTC the authority to adopt industry-wide trade regulation rules. The FTC’s work is performed by the Bureaus of Consumer Protection, Competition and Economics. That work is aided by the Office of General Counsel and seven regional offices.


its purpose was to prevent unfair methods of competition in commerce as part of the battle to bust the trusts.

This alone mean no matter who you are you could never sell just a game for $1M. There is a certain amount of profit you are ALLOWED to make. If something costs you 10cents to make, you cannot sell if for $1,000. The costs to make the item would have to exceed a certain % of what your selling it for, or you are just a scam or rip off artist. It's called Consumer Protection... get an education.

Wow, really these people are just so Naive. Also, It matter NONE who holds the Intellectual Property, what matters are facts.... not opinions that defend your belief of the system. Actual knowledge of the systems in place are a pre-requisite to having conversations over what parts of the systems are legal and which parts of the systems aren't.


And you miss the point that I paid for Batman. I said it numerous times. I'm not condoning piracy or even defending it, all I'm doing is proving how the argument that piracy is as fault for lower game sales just isn't true. I'm not saying what is right or wrong, just what is fact and what is not. Fact is, piracy doesn't hurt overall figures in the software department. Likewise, DRM doesn't actually stop people from downloading full and working games. I beat Batman before the 15th. Case & Point.

Does it hurt musicians? Absolutely. It turned a complete market of people paying into non payers. Piracy didn't always exist in music. Piracy has ALWAYS existed since the days of a software consumer market.... yes, all the way back to the commodore 64 and earlier. Piracy was MUCH easier than it is today. It was as simple as essentially right clicking a file and then selecting "Copy."

Oh but the industry was complaining then?

Lastly, did I disclose my profession? No, so put your foot in your mouth please, since you have NO clue what I do for a living. I could be a carpet installer or a painter...... A body mechanic or a programmer myself. The latter is what I actually am, so I don't make games I make desktop applications. My stuff gets pirated too but the sales figures remain at our target level without even factoring in Piracy.

This is also why I know the law on "Fair Trade" since it applies to my profession. Oh but you thought I was just making that stuff up right?

Just like I made up that press statement from the head of EA that admitted Spore (despite being the most pirated piece of software that year) has EXCEEDED sales expectations?

Be naive if you wish... but there is truth to what I'm saying, I've seen posts deleted for mentioning piracy on these boards... but my posts stand valiantly.

Wonder why that is?

Maybe I work for Eidos.


But you can't OWN it unless it's been released. Therefore the copy he has, he doesn't own, and therefore it's piracy. I'm not stupid, and I'm not about to be believing that this is any different than it is.

Not true, You own anything once the transaction of funds is complete... not when the company that took your money says you can use the product.

It's one thing if it's unfinished, It's another if it's finished and purposefully delayed. Especially when they had my money since BEFORE it was even delayed.

If I pay a million dollars for a home even if it's not built yet, but I paid for it to be built... I own IT the moment I paid the money for it..... LEGALLY. I can claim the home on my taxes... why? Because I OWN it.

It seems to me that the only discrepancy here is that people don't know what the word OWN means.

Own means it's your to do what ever you wish. If I buy Red Faction, I have the right to give it away if I want to. Something DRM restricts by limits.

Oh and activation limits are totally illegal if they don't issue a way to revoke installs. Name one game that doesn't allow you to revoke installs?

Even older games that had it were forced to either remove it or create a revoke tool.

Bio Shock = Securom Free, Mass Effect = Securom Free, Spore = Revoke tool, The Witcher = Removed Tages DRM....Rid****: Dark Athena = Revoke tool. etc. etc. Every game that has ever had DRM Activation Limits released in the states, has had a revoke tool implemented or removed the DRM entirely. Why? Because of the numerous class action suits brought against the companies that try to get away with this.... and the courts knowing what the word "Own" means.


Anybody challenging this argument, present a counter argument... don't just say "Oh yeah show me the law." Because I don't have to, you can't show me a game.


Just for clarification.

own
  /oʊn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ohn] Show IPA
—Idioms
a. to take possession of that which is due or owed one.

When I paid Eidos, they OWED me the game. Not at any date they see fit, but when ever I can get it... because they OWE it to me. They OWED it to me because I OWNED the game. I OWNED the game because I gave them the capital asking price, and by them taking it they are admitting that they OWE me a game in return. Once again, not at their speed..... I didn't leak it, they did. In a world of piracy you would imaging that you would have private and secure fabricators. If my game was leaked, I would know who took it by security measures. I would know who was in the building and what terminal the game was copied off of. I would also run a count of the boxes to make sure none are missing. All by machine. You better believe it was leaked on purpose by somebody with the power to do so. It's this guy who is solely responsible for all pre-release downloads. Not the people who download them. After the game is released, it is the people who make copies, and then make the copies available to public. The crackers aren't even violating the law, cracking the game isn't illegal, distributing the game without a license to distribute it IS illegal. It's the people who originally put it up there that are breaking the law.

At this point in time I must state that End User Liscense Agreements can be broken, as there is NO contract that will stand up legally that a user doesn't have to sign to agree to, ESPECIALLY on anything your purchasing... which means you OWN it. When you lease something your purchase the Interest and Debt. Interest and Debt are paid the lease becomes YOURS. Only Verbal contracts if you can prove that the other person actually accepted the agreement. There is no proof that it was even ME who accepted the licensing agreement.

Guess what? It's just a disclaimer made to scare you into thinking certain things are against the law.... to provoke you NOT to do it. A skatepark has signs posted "Skate at your own risk." You even have to sign a Waiver that states you cannot sue if you break your arm. Guess what, if you break your arm because of a loose screw in the wood, they are still responsible and you absolutely can sue even though you signed a waiver that "Took" away your right to sue.

Also, Crackers are not backward engineering the software. This is the only law that applies to them. They are allowed to modify anything that they own as they see fit.

That's like saying if Ford said by purchasing this car your agree that you lose the right to modify this car. And then you bought that car and you put a turbo charger on that car that somehow you violated the law.

This is totally false. Why? Because once you OWN something you no longer have to follow the manufacturers requests. They no longer own the piece of equipment you purchased from them. You do. Can they refuse to service your car at official Ford Service Centers. Sure, short from that... there is nothing they can do.

Why do you think mod chips exist for consoles? Why wouldn't the hardware maker just stipulate by using this products you give up all your rights to mod said product? Because they can't, all they can do is refuse service.

All these EULA's really do is cover the company that sold you the game, so they are no longer liable for changes made to the game. That's it.

If piracy is so bad, why is it the only crime that is widely ignored?

Why is it the only crime that multiple industries fail over and over again in court?

Where are all the criminals getting arrested?

It's simple.... 99.9% of all piracy is on purpose. Create a problem to narrow the market. Piracy is the sole reason the is no Gears of War 2 on pc. Gears of War 1 for pc came out only 6 months before Gears of War 2. Also, there was no marketing campaign for the PC release. They received poor sales. Oh it must be piracy! It has nothing to do with delaying a game almost 2 whole years, re-releasing an outdated product (when the sequel is due in a few months) that nearly everyone who was interested in already played and then doing so without any marketing of any kind. I'm sure it was piracy. Only a moron could believe that. Especially when games in the same market are selling with simultaneous releases. It just all drivel.

Remember when Half-Life 2 and the Source Engine were leaked early? What did valve do? They prosecuted and incarcerated those responsible. Do they hold the people who downloaded it responsible? No. They used the tools created for security and they worked. Where is Eidos taking action for the leak?

Exactly.

Plain and simple.


Going into an argument/debate without the ability to look at it from the other persons perspective basically means you've not come to debate things but to just voice your opinions regardless of whatever else is said to you rightly or wrongly

Awesome advice... too bad your giving it to people who are actively following that advice.

Me and Totenglocke seem to be the only two rational level headed people in here. We have demonstrated numerous times that NEITHER of us are software pirates... I myself work for a software company. All we have done is shown valid and factual explanations of why the "popular" opinion just simply carries NO merit. There are no facts to back up anything that anybody else has said. We came into this argument to educate people, not to spew random nonsensical opinions.

I have provided proof with sources that confirms everything I have said as a FACT. Not a matter of opinion. All REAL events, ALL really documented, ALL really in your face. And you still choose to say that we are wrong?

You guys have been on this crusade saying that since we don't agree with you guys we must be pirates. I explained I purchased the software which give me the right to use it. I have posted the definition of the word pirate... which doesn't apply to ANYBODY who pays for the service they are so called "Stealing." You cannot steal what you OWN, and Eidos OWES me something the minute they take my money. If they didn't OWE me anything than they would be thieves themselves. They took my money, so I have to wait? Doesn't it work the other way around? Don't people wait when they don't have the money?

*Sigh*

Some of you are children, so it's fine. Others, full grown adults would you believe it? Only in America.

Laokin
22nd Sep 2009, 06:12
If he has a corporate license and you do not work for him and you are using a copy that he gave you, you are using a pirated copy. You are convicted by your own words. You are a pirate. End of story.

Wrong. The licensed copy is being paid for. No matter who uses it.

If I own a company and license the use of 3D Studio Max, and I have 32 computers and I get 33 licenses and give the 33rd license to my son, is he using it illegally? No.

Furthermore, If I invite someone off the street who doesn't work for me, and he says he wants to show me something on max and I let him use it... is it Illegal? No.

What this proves is it matters none how many computers or if the computer is located at the place of business that bought the license. It's the fact that the License was bought and paid for, so who ever I designate the license to is in fact a law abiding citizen. All that matters is that the copy in use was paid for, so therefor it cannot be stolen.

Now if someone used a license I paid for WITHOUT my permission, that becomes theft bud.

Laokin
22nd Sep 2009, 06:17
I try to read everything on here, however after a while unfortunately it all becomes just a blur as people resort to bickering. Which means sometimes a great bit of genuine debate no matter how dubious the topic can be lost due to a careless throwaway comment

You calling people an idiot started me on that blur am afraid.. Its not needed regardless of how you feel.

Not everyone is the same level of education or written skills, me for example never got past GCSE (16) for education cos i wanted to work, does that make me less intelligent then someone who got a masters? i am the one doing the job i want to whilst some languish at home unemployed.

The topic in question is HIGHLY controversial when you consider this is the official forum for us, and therefore we are going to defend it a lot more then a 3rd party forum from people openly saying they pirate stuff and dont believe in following laws etc.


Yes, that does make you less intelligent. You getting off the couch and going to work only means you have ambition. Evidently this is one of those moments that proves you didn't finish school.

That's like saying some one who can't even read is just as intelligent as some one who got their masters. Simply untrue, you didn't finish your training, so the person who holds the certification of completion proves that he is at that intelligence level.

I understand you dropped out 1 year early (possibly two depending on when you dropped out in the 16th year) but you are implying then that the last year is useless. That there isn't something the guy who finished his last year learned that you didn't.

Of course in that last year he learned things that you didn't. This proves that he is more intelligent as he knows things you do not.

A person who can't read can still want to make money.... They do things that don't require advanced intelligence, like mowing peoples lawns.

This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever read, and yes..... I could call you a name, and I wouldn't be wrong... it would just hurt your feelings and you would ban me. So I will keep it to myself.

jaywalker2309
22nd Sep 2009, 07:59
Yes, that does make you less intelligent. You getting off the couch and going to work only means you have ambition. Evidently this is one of those moments that proves you didn't finish school.

That's like saying some one who can't even read is just as intelligent as some one who got their masters. Simply untrue, you didn't finish your training, so the person who holds the certification of completion proves that he is at that intelligence level.

I understand you dropped out 1 year early (possibly two depending on when you dropped out in the 16th year) but you are implying then that the last year is useless. That there isn't something the guy who finished his last year learned that you didn't.

Of course in that last year he learned things that you didn't. This proves that he is more intelligent as he knows things you do not.

A person who can't read can still want to make money.... They do things that don't require advanced intelligence, like mowing peoples lawns.

This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever read, and yes..... I could call you a name, and I wouldn't be wrong... it would just hurt your feelings and you would ban me. So I will keep it to myself.

I wouldnt ban someone just for calling me a name.. Intelligence is a relative thing. I know things that you dont, you know things i dont. What i know gets me paid in a job i love, what you know gets whatever u do.. Is there a problem? no.. is it relevant to this thread? no

i was simply saying calling someone an idiot because they disagree is not on.. simple as.. maybe my example wasnt the best in some peoples eyes, but i am not fussed, i was trying to get a simple point across. Failed to some of you it seems. again am i bothered? no.. i know people who have got masters who still try and fix a toaster, whilst plugged in, with a metal fork and wonder they get funny looks from people screaming at them to stop.. Intelligent? YES, common sense? lacking :)

This is NOT the topic of this thread however so lets stick to that.

I havent closed this as wanting the debate to continue.

jonthecelt
22nd Sep 2009, 12:09
Ok, I've just read through the full length of this forum, and I think there are some interesting points being raised on all sides. There are, though, a couple of points that have come up that I wanted to comment on.

1) Toten, Choron is right that when you purchase a piece of software, you are purchasing the rights to use that software, NOT the software itself. When you tick that box on the EULA, you are saying that you have read and agred to the agreement. If you tick it without reading it, you have no legal defence if you break the license restrictions - unless you want to set precedent on a (likely) very long and drawn out battle over the legality of EULAs. This means that the copy of Office you are using IS an illegal copy. Yes, you may have purchased a license yourself, but that is not the same license that you are operating under now. A personal or single-use license will have different terms to the corporate license your friend has with MS. So if you want to remain legal, you have two choices: either phone MS and go through the hassle of setting up further activations for your own legal copy, or go back to Open Office.

Now, whether or not you think it's right that software companies only give you the right to use their software, and not ownership of the software itself, that is what the law states. You cannot dismiss it because other consumer items operate differently. Whilst there is an argument to be made about the use of EULAs that can only be viewed after making a non-refundable purchase, the fact is that this is where we are at the moment regarding the law. If you want to fight that law, go ahead; but piracy is not going to change the law, only actively campaigning for a change will do that.

2)
The licensed copy is being paid for. No matter who uses it.

If I own a company and license the use of 3D Studio Max, and I have 32 computers and I get 33 licenses and give the 33rd license to my son, is he using it illegally? No.

Furthermore, If I invite someone off the street who doesn't work for me, and he says he wants to show me something on max and I let him use it... is it Illegal? No.

What this proves is it matters none how many computers or if the computer is located at the place of business that bought the license. It's the fact that the License was bought and paid for, so who ever I designate the license to is in fact a law abiding citizen.

Actually, this is also fundamentally wrong. It depends on the type of license you have purchased. If you purchase a single-user license, then only one person can use it at a time - if you use the same copy on multiple machines, and two or more people work on it at once, then you're breaking the terms of the license, and thus the law. If you purchase a multi-user license, then you are buying a fixed number of 'copies' that may be used at one time - so you could give that 33rd copy to your son. But this is not what most companies do, since it restricts them on further growing their computer network or adding new machines and copies. So they tend to buy a site license or corporate license, which allows them to use it on any number of machines within the company. Some stipulate it can only be used on desktop hardware that remains on-site; others allow for usage on laptops and mobile hardware: it all depends on the exact terms of the license. So what is written in the license is exactly what matters when you work out who you can and cannot give copies to.

3) Laokin, you cut n pasted a copy of the Fair Trade law here, and then completely misread what it states. Fair Trade means that people cannot go below a certain profit margin, in order to allow for fair competition. Nowhere in the law does it state that there is a maximum profit margin that I am held to as a company. If I want to offer you an apple from my stall for $6million, and you are willing to pat for it, then that is our right as vendor and consumer; but I would not be allowed to sell it below a certain price in order to undercut my competitors and start a 'price war', because THAT would be against the terms of the Fair Trade act.

4) If you pay for something on pre-order, be it game, film, tv series, or music, then you are agreeing contractually to a sale. Within the terms of that sale is the understanding that this is a PRE-order - that you will get the product you have bought at the time agreed between you and the vendor. It does not give you carte blanche to find a copy from elsewhere and use this until the legally-purchased copy comes through, on the basic that you paid for it already, so it's not theft. At the point when the legitimate copy comes through, you would then have two copies - one of which you have not paid for. The only way this argument would hold water is if, having found a copy earlier, you then notified the company that the copy they were sending out to you was no longer required, as you had one already.

5) Toten, Choron has not once said in any of his posts, as you claim, that you must pay for something even if you do not want it. What he has said, and you continue to misquote/misread, is that if you wish to use something, then you should pay for it; no-one who doesn't want to own a game (or DVD, or music album, or whatever) should have to pay for the right to do so, and no-one is claiming that they should - not even the RIAA.

Finally, kudos to jaycw2309 for keeping this thread open - it's an instructive one, showing both sides of the argument (once you've stripped away the insults and the "I'm right/you're wrong" attitudes that, in fairness, have come from both sides of the fence). For the record, I'm a bit of a fence-sitter on this one: whilst I do see piracy as an illegal activity, I also think that some of the laws surrounding DRM and EULAs need to be re-examined and changed, and that the industries which complain about piracy (music, film and game) need to consider some of the arguments given by those who commit these acts, as well as find away to reward those who purchase their goods legally, instead of further restriction of rights to legal users (I like EA's latest scheme on Sims 3, for example).

Peace out.

Jonthecelt

Muroz
22nd Sep 2009, 13:11
When you pay money for a game you are paying for the disc/digital download which gives you the right to play the game you are not paying for the IP itself (that costs millions). The version a preorderer is buying is ONLY legal when they get it from the source they PAID for it from.

As for the legal `backing` up of a disc yes its technically true you can make a backup, however its pretty clear in that you cannot use this for anything but personal use OR make any changes to the files supplied. Any circumventing of copy protection is illegal, and since most copy protection systems try and stop copying it means to back up you have to do something that could be deemed illegal.

Its like ordering a car from a ford garage, but then taking one from the next ford garage and saying `tis alright mines coming soon`.
I have no objection to your argument, but I reject your analogy as false and invalid. It would be more like building your exact duplicate car using instructions downloaded from the internet. The instructions may be illegally obtained from Ford, and you may still be in the wrong for doing this, but you are not stealing someone elses property and directly depriving them of a sale.

jaywalker2309
22nd Sep 2009, 13:15
Muroz - if thats the case for your argument to be valid then the people would need to `write` their own batman game. The game IS ALWAYS our copyright property, regardless of depriving of a sale or not (as i know a lot pirates never intend to buy). There are times that games become freeware, or get made available under gpl license. Warzone 2100 being a project i worked on at Eidos years ago that was made available to the community to continue developing for years later, its now multiplatform, working on linux, mac and even mobile phones. So things DO become freely available. :)

Muroz
22nd Sep 2009, 13:43
Muroz - if thats the case for your argument to be valid then the people would need to `write` their own batman game. The game IS ALWAYS our copyright property, regardless of depriving of a sale or not (as i know a lot pirates never intend to buy). There are times that games become freeware, or get made available under gpl license. Warzone 2100 being a project i worked on at Eidos years ago that was made available to the community to continue developing for years later, its now multiplatform, working on linux, mac and even mobile phones. So things DO become freely available. :)

jaycw2309 - I know. I'm not trying to excuse software piracy, but I do feel that comparing it to theft/shoplifting is wrong and misleading. What it is is benefiting (but not profiting) from industrial espionage, which is also illegal, but the two can't really be compared.

jaywalker2309
22nd Sep 2009, 13:51
Thats the problem theres no easy direct comparison so have to come up with ones to try and explain :)

Gimpymoo
22nd Sep 2009, 14:06
jaycw2309 - I know. I'm not trying to excuse software piracy, but I do feel that comparing it to theft/shoplifting is wrong and misleading. What it is is benefiting (but not profiting) from industrial espionage, which is also illegal, but the two can't really be compared.

Why is it wrong to compare it so?

I think it is more of cultural thing as to why it is considered "Ok" in some circles. Is it because our parents never told us it was wrong? Im going to tell my kids that piracy is wrong.

Maybe it is that intellectual copyright although violated in past years (Floppy Disks, Cassettes, VHS etc) although it has not been worth as much as it is now and now it is starting to encroach on profit/loss margin for a lot of companies.

Computers have made piracy VERY easy.

Fact is, this buisness we all love (the game industry) cannot continue with the current increased level of piracy.

People say that if they removed copy protection, piracy would decrease???

How about if piracy decreases then copy protection would be removed?

Laokin
23rd Sep 2009, 05:19
4) If you pay for something on pre-order, be it game, film, tv series, or music, then you are agreeing contractually to a sale. Within the terms of that sale is the understanding that this is a PRE-order - that you will get the product you have bought at the time agreed between you and the vendor. It does not give you carte blanche to find a copy from elsewhere and use this until the legally-purchased copy comes through, on the basic that you paid for it already, so it's not theft. At the point when the legitimate copy comes through, you would then have two copies - one of which you have not paid for. The only way this argument would hold water is if, having found a copy earlier, you then notified the company that the copy they were sending out to you was no longer required, as you had one already.

It's not against the "Law." Period. This is a matter of infinite bits. Software isn't physical. I wouldn't have 2 copies. I'd have the same copy in two places. It's impossible with a physical object.

Furthermore, I paid for it. So how does where I obtain it from have anything to do with it? If I was in court and I told a judge I paid for the game and I downloaded a copy before release.... but I paid for it. If it's not theft I didn't break the law. What I'm saying is, would I be in violation of one of Eidos' requests....? Sure, but it's not against legal law. If it's not theft, than please explain to me what "law" it's broken, explain what they would charge me with? Since it's clearly illegal and all. It's like copying a movie off of Cable TV. You paid for the movie, so your allowed to have infinite copies since it's data and not a physical object. If you buy a dvd, you are allowed to make copies of it. I didn't circumnavigate any copy protection laws... I just downloaded a game off the internet. How did I know some one else circumvented them? I mean it doesn't matter anyway since I own my own copy of the game. If I gave the copy to somebody though... THEN you got me.

The answer is no law, so even though I'm instructed not to.... it's more like a polite request as it's totally legal. This is like me asking you to not step on the part of my driveway that's in between the sidewalk. You can tell me sure... but if you do it you can't go to jail. No law is broken.

And the part about the FTC, the FTC expanded upon the fair trade act numerous times. Go browse the FTC website if you must. The guy just said the law never existed and I used that as proof that it has existed since 1930's. The other part of fair trade is handled by Consumer Protections, an extension of the FTC. What I posted was a summarize point of what fair trade is, not all that it is. Unless you want to read 20 pages...... I was just providing proof to the person who absolutely stated that the law didn't exist.

I didn't even read the rest. I'm so sick of arguing with 1 dimensional people.

jaywalker2309
23rd Sep 2009, 07:41
Laokin - actually if u went to a judge and said u paid for it from X but downloaded from Y he would say you were wrong, as your paid contract is with X not Y..

You seem to think that things without having physical presence cant be copywritten, believe me they are and the law protects them the same as physical items.

Unfortunately you then go and and belittle your statements by throwing a little insult at the end.

Its clear there are many on here who simply think that the laws are not to be followed or apply to them because they dont like them, and that, until they get prosecuted for it, means they are right. Which is totally their right to think that, however i would be doing a huge Nelson `HA HA` if these people were to be caught and prosecuted.

They may be right in that there are so few prosecutions that it appears a punishless crime so justifies it in their minds to carry on, but its still damaging somewhere along the line to the people who pay or get paid to make the games that they play and dont pay for, even on the most basic of ethical moral standing its wrong.

Totenglocke
24th Sep 2009, 04:31
Just to play Devil's Advocate here.....

jaycw, you realize that copyright (as it is today) is a VERY new concept. If it was so important, how come we didn't have these laws long before? I mean think of it, someone with a printing press could purchase a book and make a thousand copies of it!

Also, copyright was originally created to secure the creators rights "for a limited time". Now copyright is, essentially, indefinite. Great art doesn't last when it's never released into the public domain. Just take a look around the classic literature section the next time you're in a book store.

I'm not arguing against copyright at all, but copyright shouldn't be more than 10 years after the last new uses of the copyrighted material (so for Harry Potter the copyright would end 10 years after the last movie in the HP series is finished, assuming no more books are made - which JK doesn't plan on doing, not 10 years after the first book was copyrighted). The public domain is very important for society and the greed of companies in the last few decades is putting the public domain at risk.

jaywalker2309
24th Sep 2009, 08:00
Guess up til now to print a thousand copies wasnt something everyone had hardware to do, so it was more a logistic thing that kept it from happening, but the internet and computers have made it very easy to do things now.

Oh i LOVE public domain stuff, as i said i worked on a game that went public after a few years and its been expanded on by the community.. it has its place..

Obviously Batman has a name/license behind it which is owned by a company thats not us, and am guessing in a decade they'll still be making products based on that name/license so may not want products uncontrolled out there if u see what i mean.

TheOracle
24th Sep 2009, 15:22
The way I look at it is, were damned lucky to be getting this on the PC period, let alone a largely superior version at least on the graphics front. .

I have a problem with this statement.

We are not 'lucky' to get this game on the pc, we deserve to be able to play this game just as much as anybody else. The PC is a real platform with real hardware, and not only is it just as popular or maybe more so than any console, it is well deserving of decent games without bugs. Saying we are lucky to get a decent port of batman makes it sounds like we're some kind of leper colony that nobody wants to associate with.

tenth8sphere
24th Sep 2009, 16:30
Laokin - actually if u went to a judge and said u paid for it from X but downloaded from Y he would say you were wrong, as your paid contract is with X not Y..

Its clear there are many on here who simply think that the laws are not to be followed or apply to them because they dont like them, and that, until they get prosecuted for it, means they are right. Which is totally their right to think that, however i would be doing a huge Nelson `HA HA` if these people were to be caught and prosecuted.

They may be right in that there are so few prosecutions that it appears a punishless crime so justifies it in their minds to carry on, but its still damaging somewhere along the line to the people who pay or get paid to make the games that they play and dont pay for, even on the most basic of ethical moral standing its wrong.

Those that the law favors always support them. Many have compared the rapidly expansive copyright laws to laws on prohibition. Does not following a law make someone a "bad person"? It depends on the law. Many today look at those who fought prohibition as an integral part in its repeal. The same can be said for many pro marijuana users today. If the laws were not so blatantly violated, it is arguable how long it would take, or if at all, until they were repealed or changed.

When arguing about the *justness* of a law, the key is not to get caught up in whether a particular act is, or is not, illegal. But rather, whether it *should be* illegal. In those regards consider a purchaser who buys a copy from steam, but chooses to pirate it to avoid DRM. Should this act be illegal?

Just because a law exists does not make those that choose to oppose it automatically wrong. Copyright law has become insanely restrictive on consumers. We now have limited licenses instead of products. We have limited installs and requirements for online verification. We are blocked by the DMCA from making copies valid under the actual copyright law. Yes, there are many people that pirate "because they can". But that doesn't change the valid arguments for paring back copyright law in general.

Further, I disagree that in all instances it is wrong. Is it wrong to download a pirate copy of a game you own so that you can install it anytime you want without restrictions? Is it wrong to download a copy so your friend can play a multiplayer game with you when the devs made it impossible with a single copy? Maybe, maybe not. But illegal does not equal moral/ethical "wrongness". A brief history of laws show this to be absolutely obvious.

Constitutionally copyright and patent have been narrowly read because it is a restriction of information. Often intangible. They are meant to be allocated insomuch as necessary to spur innovation, not further. What exists as copyright today is a twisted parody of its earliest incarnations from the statute of Anne and early US copyright law as well.

Has company XXX made a profit that made its innovation worthwhile? Then they are entitled to no more beyond it. To view it otherwise has led to an age where medicine, machines, entertainment, and even genetics are held by corporations for whatever price they want to charge, and where consumer rights exist only to the extent the companies wish to allow them.

Certainly the law favors such a reading. Copyright terms have expanded to UNHEARD of levels in terms of time to extent of protection. But one needs only look at piracy numbers and opinions to see that most people do not view the laws as "fair". Change needs to take place, fair use needs to come to the forefront again. To suggest so many people will steal simply because it is easier is wrong. Many pirates do so because they sense an obvious unfairness in the system. As companies choose to push harder DRM I am reminded of the star wars quote: The harder you tighten your grasp, the more systems will slip through your fingers.

Piracy is rising while legitimate purchasers become more and more upset with insane DRM protection schemes and the limited rights they have for faulty software. Similar to massive expansion in "drug crackdowns", both sides are wasting time and effort and not getting what they want. Until companies are ready to recognize that current laws are not evenly balanced, and that working in information technology means the public has an inherent right to your creation, both will just continue to alienate each other (as in your Nelson "ha ha" comment).

jaywalker2309
24th Sep 2009, 16:37
BUT the problem is whilst it IS law then people who pirate games and the like are breaking the law.. as i keep saying its a vicious circle that isnt going to be broken/changed easily for the simple fact that companies who protect their content have PAID for the product to exist in the first place, therefore are always going to be wanting to get money to repay for that expenditure.

Companies are not going quickly just say `you know what lets just stop protecting our games and hope peoples good faith comes thru` because if it DOESN'T they've just opened themselves up for potential ruin and no company is going to be wanting to put themselves on the line first.

Thats not to say in the future something may come along and totally change things, but in current environment i dont see it happening.

tenth8sphere
24th Sep 2009, 16:41
BUT the problem is whilst it IS law then people who pirate games and the like are breaking the law.. as i keep saying its a vicious circle that isnt going to be broken/changed easily for the simple fact that companies who protect their content have PAID for the product to exist in the first place, therefore are always going to be wanting to get money to repay for that expenditure. Companies are not going quickly just say `you know what lets just stop protecting our games and hope peoples good faith comes thru` because if it DOESN'T they've just opened themselves up for potential ruin and no company is going to quickly put themselves on the line first. Thats not to say in the future something may come along and totally change things, but in current environment i dont see it happening.

I agree. I suspect the change will occur elsewhere in the world before it does in the US. My point is that people breaking the law on a massive scale usually signals a problem with the law vs the public's opinion of it. Whether its a major social issue like voting for women, or a minor one like alcohol prohibition.

jaywalker2309
24th Sep 2009, 17:02
yeh i expect something will break the ice in probably a totally different market, and then people will work out how to translate that into a generic marketplace and then people will slowly get on board.

TheOracle
24th Sep 2009, 17:23
Problem is that most of the fifteen year olds pirating games on the internet aren't doing it to further their political views on copyright reform.

They're doing it because they are greedy little ****s who like free games.

And prohibition was a law enacted to make something legal(selling alcohol) illegal. Which then all the people that had been making a living off of it suddenly couldn't do it anymore, hence doing it illegally and breaking the law.

In order for the parallel to be the same, copyright infringment would have had to have been legal. And Copyright infringement was never legal to begin with. And it didn't get outlawed yesterday either. It has ALWAYS been against the law. And just because a bunch of people do it isn't going to make it legal.

Now do I think that you should be able to make your own backups? Yes. Do I think that restrictive and annoying DRM should be abolished. Yes.

The problem now is that game developers and the music industry are making their products available on a media that has become easily copyable. And it's their own fault for not seeing this coming or seeing it and not taking steps to move away from it. If people rip and burn CD's and give them to their friends its because the videogame and the music industry failed to protect their product at the hardware and the media level. And now that media has become entrenched to the point where the average consumer will not give it up no matter how hard the industry campaigns.

Microsoft, Eidos, the RIAA, Warner Bros., all of them failed and now they pay the price for that failure.

matches81
25th Sep 2009, 07:48
Why is it wrong to compare it so?
Because, as Muroz said, it's misleading. Comparing software piracy to theft / shoplifting implies that the software pirate actually removes something from anyone... which he doesn't. The immediate damage caused by software piracy is non-existant, while with shoplifting there is an immediate damage to the shop owner.
Perhaps, as a result of him pirating the software, that person is not buying the software, therefore "damaging" the company. (in quotes because it's still not damage. Not making a sale is not actually damaging the company, they're not losing anything, it's "just" that they're not gaining as much as they would have)
So: Comparing software piracy to theft / shoplifting is misleading and well... wrong for that reason.


Computers have made piracy VERY easy.

Fact is, this buisness we all love (the game industry) cannot continue with the current increased level of piracy.
Well... making a copy of a tape I bought wasn't exactly hard to pull off back then, either. Sorry, piracy hasn't become that much easier. The only thing that changed is the scale of it. Before broadband internet was widespread, someone could spread copies of something he owned (music, software etc) to people he actually, physically met or a few selected people over the net. Now, one guy can spread copies of his stuff all over the web, to a potential audience of millions.


People say that if they removed copy protection, piracy would decrease???

How about if piracy decreases then copy protection would be removed?
Well, one thing can actually be controlled in an effective way, the other one cannot. It's a lot easier not to use over-zealous copy protection methods than it is to decrease piracy.
Also, the current copy protection measures have had zero success reducing piracy.
On top of that, there are enough people that don't buy a game if the used copy protection for that title oversteps the boundaries they've set. It's not too far-fetched to assume that some of those guys then revert to piracy to get the game anyway, is it? So, the assumption that removing copy protection altogether or at least going back to a less annoying level could lead to a decrease in piracy could be true, especially when you consider that everyone who knows where to get pirated software can do so now, despite copy protection being in place. In the end it comes down to: Copy protection measures scare some customers away. Do they actually help to gain new customers in return? Which group is bigger?


Companies are not going quickly just say `you know what lets just stop protecting our games and hope peoples good faith comes thru` because if it DOESN'T they've just opened themselves up for potential ruin and no company is going to be wanting to put themselves on the line first.

Thats not to say in the future something may come along and totally change things, but in current environment i dont see it happening.
Why not?
Let's be honest here: People who buy your game, either really don't know how to get it for free or are already buying your product based on their good will. That is one of the issues I have a lot of times when discussing these things: It's often ignored that almost everybody who owns a computer and plays games knows how to get those games for free. Still, they're buying games. Companies act as if the knowledge of file-sharing software was restricted to a small part of the gaming community as if they're trying to avoid the idea that, in fact, they're reliant on the good will of people to buy their games already.
I'm not talking about legal issues here, btw, I'm talking about the fact that almost every gamer could get your game for free easily without really having to fear any repercussions for doing so. You are already relying on people's good will. SecuROM or any other copy protection you slap onto your game doesn't change that one bit.
Copy protections itself have run into a vicious circle: Whenever the last method gets cracked, a new, even more restrictive and annoying one comes around, just to get cracked in a matter of days, weeks or, at best, months, simply because a few copy protection programmers are up against hundreds of thousands of crackers. They can't win, at least not without leaving the boundary that the product should still be usable for legit customers in a semi-comfortable way. I wonder why gaming companies continue to support this idiocy.


Problem is that most of the fifteen year olds pirating games on the internet aren't doing it to further their political views on copyright reform.

They're doing it because they are greedy little ****s who like free games.
Actually, they're doing it because, mostly, fifteen year olds can't afford that many games per year anyway and if they actually want to continue gaming they have to get their "fix" somewhere for free. Perhaps they buy as many games as they can afford... but for most of them that wouldn't be enough to keep them gaming (definitely something the gaming industry wants and needs).
Sorry, but I doubt that there would be half as many gamers now if every teenager in the 80s and 90s would have had to buy every single game he played. I also doubt that there's a lot of "damage" incurred by that kind of pirates.
IMO, piracy definitely was and still is a helping factor in "growing" gamers. Just as it helped growing music lovers and fans for bands... people that now pay for their entertainment because they can afford to do so.

I'm not trying to justify piracy by this. I'm merely stating that the damage incurred by those guys is probably not that big to begin with and, legal or not, shouldn't be a game companies primary concern. If it is, also include the idea that those younglings might be your future, well-paying customers.

jaywalker2309
25th Sep 2009, 07:54
I've had that whole `cant afford` debate before and it got quite interesting.. There was a total split of `if cant afford why should u get free` vs `i cant afford but HAVE to play` and literally neither could even say anything without it resorting to name calling and really `childish` behaviour (yes it was kids involved but am talking from both sides). I do agree its a double edged sword, if they hadnt played the games early on would they play them now they CAN afford, theres no way to prove it either way.

It IS a point that if u cannot afford something but really want it doesnt make it right to take, i mean i REALLY want a Bugatti Veyron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_veyron), can i have one, erm no :) I just have to look at the one that drives thru Wimbledon every so often :)

matches81
25th Sep 2009, 08:14
I've had that whole `cant afford` debate before and it got quite interesting.. There was a total split of `if cant afford why should u get free` vs `i cant afford but HAVE to play` and literally neither could even say anything without it resorting to name calling and really `childish` behaviour (yes it was kids involved but am talking from both sides). I do agree its a double edged sword, if they hadnt played the games early on would they play them now they CAN afford, theres no way to prove it either way.
True about the "can't afford" debate. I didn't want to go in that direction anyway... but it's a simple fact that normal young teenagers can't afford to buy a game or two each month. That doesn't make it their "right" to get the games for free, of course, but the side-effect of them becoming grown-up gamers, who, in all likelihood, will buy games regularly, is definitely desirable for the industry. To put it differently: Teenagers don't HAVE to play video games, but it's definitely in the best interest of the industry if they do. ;)

Laokin
25th Sep 2009, 22:59
Laokin - actually if u went to a judge and said u paid for it from X but downloaded from Y he would say you were wrong, as your paid contract is with X not Y..

You seem to think that things without having physical presence cant be copywritten, believe me they are and the law protects them the same as physical items.

Unfortunately you then go and and belittle your statements by throwing a little insult at the end.

Its clear there are many on here who simply think that the laws are not to be followed or apply to them because they dont like them, and that, until they get prosecuted for it, means they are right. Which is totally their right to think that, however i would be doing a huge Nelson `HA HA` if these people were to be caught and prosecuted.

They may be right in that there are so few prosecutions that it appears a punishless crime so justifies it in their minds to carry on, but its still damaging somewhere along the line to the people who pay or get paid to make the games that they play and dont pay for, even on the most basic of ethical moral standing its wrong.

Wow, what is wrong with you people. Every one who has refuted has also put words in me and Totenglockes mouth. I never said copyrights don't exist, nor was I defending piracy. I don't know why this is a hard concept to grasp. I never even said copyrights don't apply to non physical formats. What I did say is it's not a violation of copyright when you own the right to play the software. It doesn't matter where the software comes from, retailer or not.... but if I have a valid license for the software I have a valid license for the software. One copy is no different than another. Now I'm not saying that if I bought a game on Xbox that downloading the PC version is legal, since I'd be holding a license for the Xbox version and not the PC version. What I am saying, one more time in plain English, is that if I own a PC license than I have the right to play the game I own the license for.... Retailers don't matter any since you have to pay a retailer to purchase a license so both companies received my money for the product, no matter what copy I have they are ALL ABSOLUTELY identical in terms of content in the software, in which I OWN a license to play.

What I WAS doing, is pointing out the reasons in which the laws exists and proving that the actions of others don't fit in with the reasoning.

In short, it doesn't matter if crossing the street at the corner is the only "legal" way to cross the street, because the only people who get tickets for this kind of thing are the people who do it at un-safe times or give the police a hard time... meaning the law only applies to a certain context, one of which is an illegal premise to begin with.

The REASON for copyrights is so that people don't generate money off of your ideas and to stop people from dwindling your deserved profit margins.

If neither of these things occur then nobody should care if it's "legal" or not, since this means that nobody is causing harm to anybody else, thus leading to a dictatorship that's only merit is because "I said so." Exactly like a bad parent. It is us as a people to apply logic to the law and see if it's just or not. If it's not just and you follow it you yourself are wrong. This is written in the constitution.

This itself is the reason that you people need not do the police's job, nor care about people who act in a way you deem inappropriate.

I'd start up the argument of marijuana, but I'm positive it'll bring in the same two crowds.

Pro with logic.
Con because the government said so.


As of today 87% of all people in America have smoked or currently DO smoke marijuana. Almost 100% of the population of the country including NUMEROUS past presidents of the country it is in fact illegal in. The people of the country are supposed to reflect the rules of society.... so why is it contrary in this connotation?

Because they said so. They even go as far to ignore any information that isn't a government study. So out of all the studies on marijuana, 1% of them are on the side of the government. They ignore studies done in other countries all together... once again, the only situation this occurs in. Hadron Colliders in europe, we'll except all the facts from those, why not studies on marijauna?

Because the government makes money off of the innocent people they incarcerate. If they made Marijuana legal they would single handedly shut down virtually all the privately owned prisons in this country. Something that shouldn't exist in the first place. It's the same reason we bailed out the people who paid themselves amazingly gross figures and bankrupted their businesses all at the same time which would result in an economic depression. Lets not forget the overstaffed police departments that wouldn't be able to afford nearly half it's roster.

Yet, the people who sit there and follow the law just because it's a law (being the majority) allow the people in congress to sit there and continue to enforce new restricting laws that violate our rights as Americans and completely throw the constitution aside.

The point being, most of the people who speculate on piracy or what a "pirate" is are clueless, yet they mass together in their cluelessness to make sure that people they deem as pirates who haven't broken any law are banned from forums or make the topic just out right taboo.

Also, really the judge would say I was wrong? Well he's entitled to his opinion but unless he can state a law that is broken I'm an innocent member of society and my case will be dropped. The judge can't just rule the way he "wants" to, that just not how it works. Not to mention, there would be no jury in the world that would convict me of anything with a punishment, since I didn't deprive anybody of any money, harm any person or persons, nor did I do anything "illegal" in the sense of breaking a stated "law."

So once again I say ANYBODY who refutes logic, must come up with a logical counter argument. If you believe that I just merely believe I'm not breaking the law, than you must find said law to prove me wrong. If you don't your argument has been defeated and I'm right and have been from the beginning.

It's literally that simple.

Lofi
30th Sep 2009, 09:39
i didn't remove the disc from the drive ever since i bought the game 2 weeks ago. it worked without problems so far until recently, this is what just came up on my retail when i tried to play the game:

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb316/Lofi007/arkham-insult.jpg

meaning "Please insert the original disc into the drive instead of a backup."

thanks a lot for calling me a pirate instead of saying that your copy protection $#!T is flawed! :mad2:

Totenglocke
1st Oct 2009, 21:35
i didn't remove the disc from the drive ever since i bought the game 2 weeks ago. it worked without problems so far until recently, this is what just came up on my retail when i tried to play the game:

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb316/Lofi007/arkham-insult.jpg

meaning "Please insert the original disc into the drive instead of a backup."

thanks a lot for calling me a pirate instead of saying that your copy protection $#!T is flawed! :mad2:

Really? Guess that means I'm not buying this game then. Too bad, it looked like a fun game.