[quote]I'm just not willing to demand 'rights' that some believe to be 'mine' when they adversely impact on the rights of others. Copyright, TOU, EULA, et al is to protect the owner. Purchasers/users can vote with their feet if they feel the owners' rights fuck them over and simply avoid it/them. That's this whole issue in a nutshell. If Blizzard wants your balls if you do not abide by whatever rules they apply...then they should be entitled to them. They will never get mine...as I will eithe
[quote]Meh - if I can get a few gamers to realize they not only have rights, but that you can actually prove it in a court of law, I will name the calluses on my index fingers in honor of Willythemailman and consider it time well spent - .[/quote] Good luck, people seem all to willing to give up their rights now and it extends well beyond games and copyright.
[quote]@ProzacMannIn Toronto, we can take out game software from the library. I am not sure how up to date the list is from our local library. And why don't students take out books from the library. Well..they do. But as far as textbook goes, you can only take a book out 2 weeks at a time, and you need the book for the entire semester and at times the entire year. And every other student in your course needs to use the book too. Soo everyone figured it is cheaper to just xerox the entire text
[quote]It's bloody *easy* to see where it contradicts the law, it's *easy* to find the relevant law and lay it out, and I went to trouble bordering on obsessive compulsive to reference it all in the posting. [/quote] I for one am glad you are borderline obssesive compulsive cause I have been trying to get the to understand the same thing and gave up! ;)
[quote]Give it time...the 'law makers' will eventually get their heads out of their collective arses and legislate.[/quote] Sorry but I don't want ot give legislators any more time to bend me over. I don't like it! ;)
Psychoak a little vitriolic for my taste but I hear you and 100% agree with you. ;) I must admit Stardock is one of the few software companies that actually gets it, and there for earns every dollar I give them.
[quote]The solution we have now is geting a handful of judges to agree on what the law should have said. At this point, courts are very un-democratic versions of congress - they're getting lobbied (and that's exactly what an amicus brief is), passing laws (or interpretations of laws, which have the force of laws), and making decisions that affect our daily life - and they answer to absolutely no one.[/quote] I agree and this is one of the primary reasons that I am dubious of some court
[quote]Software is a separate copyright issue from more traditional materials. Previous cases have ruled the loading of a program into RAM constitutes copying. Thus the very use of the software requires a form of copying which must be adressed, while films, books, CDs, etc do not necessarily require such copying.[/quote] Well I think that is where everyone fundamentally agrees, software is for some reason treated differently, but that is also where I think the agreement breaks dow
[quote]Again patently false. The main reason Autodesk LOST that case is they didn't challenge the manner in which Vernor gained possession of the copies. They claimed non-transferable liscencing rights (a condition of the EULA, and legally enforcable), then tried to enforce those rights against someone who had never agreed to the EULA. IIRC part of the ruling questioned why Autodesk wasn't filing against the people who sold Vernor the used copies, as those were the people who had (presumably)
[quote]I can see why public rights activists are against this decision. I can see where this sets a powerful precedent. But having some public rights lawyers disagree with the desicion doesn't make it invalid or incorrect. Only one thing can do that. [/quote] Sorry I disagree again! There have been plenty of legal desicions in the past that were just blatently wrong but agreed with by a large amount of people including the government and judges. So my point is just bec
[quote]As for Corynne McSherry, she is a public rights activist. If she didn't oppose the judge's ruling, she wouldn't be doing her job. Unfortunately, IMO she objected to the wrong part of the ruling. Specifically, Section 117 doesn't apply, and she knows it. Any defense under Section 117 presupposes actual ownership, not a liscense.[/quote] Wow Crynne McSherry is not just a public rights activist, she just so happens to be and attorney that specialized in Intellectual property and co
[quote] And I adressed this quite some time ago. IMO blizzard should have known better than to even file that claim, it was obviously not going anywhere. What puzzles me is why you consider the technical reasoning behind this part of the ruling correct, and the technical reasoning behind the rest of the ruling invalid.[/quote] Simple it is a much bigger reach and scarier reach to claim copyright infringment based on an ELUA than it is to claim DMCA breach by circumventing a protection
[quote]A game CD takes a few minutes to copy. Thieves are lazy bastards by definition.... Have you ever tried to photocopy a book?....[/quote] I am not disagreeing that pirates may be lazy, but in regard to photocopying books, why would you waste you time when you can just go legally borrow one from the library? Last I checked I couldn't legally borrow a piece of software from anyware. :)
[quote]I think in any multiplayer game world cheating should be illegal. By illegal, I mean the punishment doesn't get past that game world. Suspend their account or whatever, but don't fine someone or throw them in jail in real life.[/quote] Exactly, I agree and have no issue with that at all.
[quote]The existence of farming bots is common knowledge in every WoW server I've visited - ways to mess with them, including exploiting their bot nature to get them into situations where they die horribly, are routine conversation in the various city general chat channels. It is essentially impossible to *AVOID* knowing about bots and still play WoW[/quote] That is not what I was saying, I am not saying people don't know about BOTS, I am strictly talking about Glider. That is al
[quote] Ummmm.. no. Are you seriously listening to YOUR self? It would be more like comparing it to a locksmith selling the thief a key to perform the robbery. Blizzard is not suing the end users, they sued the guy that created the software. sheesh... get a grip will ya [/quote] Have you even read anything that I have typed? Cause I have said all along that that is who Blizzard should be sueing if they want to collect damages, the case they have come up with is terrible and they
[quote]By your standard of proof, I wouldn't be able to prove my own name! Nowhere in law is absolute proof of anything required. Criminal courts hold the standard as "beyond reasonable doubt" while civil court rulings are based on "the preponderance of evidence". Expecting absolute proof is a fantasy. God, I hope there's no one this deluded on the jury I'm sitting on tomorrow. [/quote] Sorry it is quite easy to legally prove your name that is exactly why there are things called birth
[quote]no matter how much the point is argued, the company that made the bot will be put out of business. there were over 30 million in losses claimed, and the ones responsible aren't worth a tenth of that. they are completely screwed. [/quote] Well again there are others ( http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/you-bought-it-you-dont-own-it ) like myself that disagree with you and on appeal or even with
[quote]the argument that, because blizzard is still in business, anything that potential reduces their profits is OK is probably one of the most poorly thought out arguments on this entire forum. most people learn in elementary school that you can't do what ever you want whenever you want because either directly or indirectly you are hurting someone else or in some way violating their rights. that bot hurts every WOW user who doesn't use it as well as blizzard who has to combat it. aside from
Yep I am insane and crazy because I think Blizzard is wrong in this case and this is a bad precedent to set. Apparantly I am not the only crazy out their, http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/you-bought-it-you-dont-own-it oh yeah and public knowledge also thinks Blizzard is wrong. Whatever! I truly think all of you need the help, you can't seem to find the forest through the trees. Th
[quote]Thank you, I did. In 2002 (apparently the latest year such statistics are available), The 9th Circuit heard approximately 5100 cases, 24 of which the Supreme Court reviewed, and 18 were reversed. That's a 0.35% reversal rate - higher than other courts, but not reason enough to assume this ruling will get overturned.[/quote] You miss the point, I am only pointing out that even the 9th circuit court makes mistakes an frequently enough that the supreme court yearly hears and over t
Damn hit the wrong button! :) [quote]If yours had been even marginally relevant, you might have had an argument. Blizzard is not suing individual cheaters, it is suing the company that gives them the tools necessary to cheat.[/quote] Uhm my analogy was very relevant in what I was comparing and that was my comparison of Blizzards attempt at claiming damages. I was not refering to Blizzard sueing individuals. Again I am only talking about Blizzards attempt to claim dam
Stardock Forums