[quote]You assign morality based on a legal structure that creates something where nothing exists previously. To most of the world, copyright infringment is no different than shitting in the woods. No one owns them, you're not taking anything from anyone, and only if everyone took a dump out there, would there be any noticable effect.[/quote] No person owns the wood, but the state does. Even if something is only noticeable when more people would
Bodyless
Ok something messed up the quotes and when i try to edit it i cannot see the box where i could make the edit.
[quote]If it is mentioned on the box it is part of the purchase and not being able to transfer the multiplayer part of Demigod would be a deliberate reduction of the quality of the game which violates the German Civil Code and could get the german publisher for Demigod in some trouble if someone takes it to court and wants a test case. Wouldn't be very good publicity surely.[/quote] No court will care because the value of a copy is just to small. Else we would have seen
When you are asking what weapons will be used in a war you are asking which weapon is more cost effective. Even if we assume that manned fighters have its uses and are viable there is no way that the fighter could beat unmanned missles or drone in terms of being cost effective: Unmanned drones/missles can have just as much firepower, are probaly just as hard to hit without the need of an human operating inside it. Maybe there are countermessures to purely AI or remote controle
AI: In GalCiv2 i find it more annoying that the AI cannot handle their ships right before they filled each planet with X ships and you can wage wars against them while they have 3 time more ships and planets because they wont form any fleet. Movement System: Open Space is ok for me as long as your range is limited and your speed is not so fast that the defender cannot see an attack coming. So there is still only a limited amount of planets you hav
Or you could simply build ships with defenses which survive one shot.
The only bug i could see is that the replay gui is broken.
European retailers simply charge the same price no matter how the exchange rates are. Since the manufacturing costs are pobably no more than 1€ per box its simply about making the biggest profit by setting the price as high as possible but as low as the consumers expect it to be. It is still sad that even online sales are now effected by this. Also i am wondering how this works anyway. Do you cheack the ip? Since if i pay 10$ by paypal the seller cannot alter the exhange
[quote]#2. Contradict itself I don't grant, but the law in one statute may be more applicable to a case than law that was written in some other statute loosely touching on the case. But a general argument that "Well, there *might* be another applicable law!" isn't an argument - there might be an invisible omnipotent deity that created the universe 6,000 years ago with all the evidence that it existed longer built in. Or 5 minutes ago, with the exact same results. It's an "Well, anything could
[quote] You don't take it as a logical reason that, um, the law establishes that special protection for the consumer? Since it, actually explictly spells out special protections for consumers, I'm going to accept that as a logical reason for granting special protections for consumers.[/quote] It is certainly not logical to value every right that is not limited by the law as "garantued". Yes there are some laws for consumer protection. Buts thats not what i was talk
[quote]Yes, actually, to my mind it is. You're making a judgement about where the limits of everyone rights bumping up against each other here ought to be. Which is fair, I've also been fairly open about the fact that I think the consumers rights ought to be the priority - I'm a liberal, I will *always* be biased towards the smaller guy in a conflict of rights.[/quote] Maybe in your mind. But i actually argued that there is no logic reason why the border should be always shifted the w
Uhm, jonnan. Sometimes i wonder if we speak the same language. With "Well that sentences were more of an summary." i actually meant my sentences which you quoted before. [quote]That said - You're still making a value judgment Bodyless - you think you know 'what I want', and you're seeing it through that prism. [/quote] [quote] The flaw is that you want the user to have all the rights he/she may have. But any right one person has limit
Well that sentences were more of an summary. The flaw is that you want the user to have all the rights he/she may have. But any right one person has limits on the same time the rights of another person. And since Blizzards consists of person you limit the rights of them. But there is no reason why one side should enjoy all possible rights and the other be completely limited to what the law may garantue them as a minimum. Instead, we get licenses and terms of use
My problem is that i downloaded the beta and impulse is saying i got 1.99[rc] but when i start it the game still dipsplays 1.96 as version number and no new feature are available. EDIT: Even verifying my installationof TA(even when i displace the exe lol) gives the result that its installed correctly. While DA and DL semm to be installed incorrectly.
Well if you dont like to be banned because you cheated you either should not cheat in that game or not buy it.
[quote]Even the court granted that, with no law restricting the programs you can run on your computer, there was nothing intrinscally illegal about Glider. We don't require laws to make action legal. Laws are limitations on what you can do, not permission - even 'rights' like the Bill of rights are limitations on what the government can do - 'i.e.. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof . . .' is not something that magically
[quote]You can argue that the law is less than perfectly clear, you cannot argue that you have no right to cheat your own game.[/quote] I argue that the law does not give you the right to cheat in a game, thus it is legal to ban cheats from a game, aka bots. [quote]That does not say anything about playing a game. That you're not really playing WOW when you run a bot is irrelevant. If I want to turn mech commander into a program that spits out he
Installing issues usually ouccur only once per user. Also you dont download all the patches more than a few times. So if the new user has installing issues and downloads all the patches, SD has to pay for additional support. Also you have another one downloading and using impusle whitout paying aynthing. Not to mention that nothing stops you from keeping a fully patched copy of the game somewhere. Reselling of software simp
Sorry for the late answer. I had my head elsewhere ;) Thats exactly what i found. But there there is not a word about inofficial extensions and cheats. And thats what i was talking about. And i do not see how the paragraphs you posted have would garantee you the right to cheat in a computer game, ect.. You obviously misunderstood my post. To clarify: Since bots are neither _essential_ for the utilization of WoW(you dont eve
[quote]In the new update (the latest version of the postbox, in particular), the default behavior of the enter key seems now to insert a paragraph tag, rather than a line break. You can still do a line break via shift-enter, though.[/quote] And i already thought it was because i updated to firefox 3.
I got to agree that it is not fleshed out enough to be treatened as something like law. But it can serve to deliver some guidelines for the gaming industry. The unavailbility of broadband connections in some regions is more of a technology and development of infrastructure problem. Also, gamers are expecting the industry to always make better and larger games. You cannot at the same time expect them to make those games work with 56k modems.
[quote]The law does not give you the right to cheat in a game. (if you dont think that botting is cheating you should get a dose of morale values yourself instead of accusing other of having none) The law does not give you the right to use any _inofficial_ "extensions" to a program. So i do not see how you could get the right the use a bot from the law. Yeah, it actually does - IF you have "owner of a copy" protection under section 117. Which expla
[quote] Even if you are guaranteed certain rights under the law? Lets make this clear - do you believe anyone that owns any intellectual property has the right to deprive you of the rights to use that property that were granted under the law?[/quote] [quote] Well, yes there is something forcing them to give me some. The law. The law that this case says anyone with an EULA can ignore if they've written it properly.[/quote] The
[quote]You mean sir - that you've never taken a photograph of any item you own?[/quote] Who is doing the apple to oranges comparisons now? Thats NOT copying. You are making a photo not a copy. Code is intelectual property. They have the right to give you only the rights they want you to have. They do not restrict the usage of the program. But that does not include any rights to do anything with the code. Again, YOU
[quote]Given a simple acknowledgement of the EULA before downloading the software? Well, I would consider it insufficient, but I'm sure some courts would support it. Given a proper version of going over the EULA by paragraphs like you have to do with a lease or a cell contract? Even I would consider that sufficient, and it's not like the web couldn't do it.[/quote] In case of WoW, you dont sign the eula when downloading the client. You do it when buying an account. All bills the player