News is a rather large exception. And even in the news, the image must be newsworthy.
Show me the law that says that. If it's done in public, it's fair game, regardless of whether it is "newsworthy" or not. I don't recall any newsworthiness standards, so I think that you're completely wrong.
If they're going to publish it, then they should publish it as it is, not censor it. The real tragedy is that the game got published at all, by anyone. Nudity doesn't bother me. Horrible games do.
How does not being able to kill somebody for taking your television consitute not being able to legally defend yourself?
Maybe on your planet nobody ever does any harm to the occupants of the home they break into, but that's not what it's like here on earth. Between burglars who would rather kill you than get caught, angry ex-spouses/lovers, and the average rapist, there are plenty of situations in which you would want to have an effective means of self-defense. Non-lethal weapons just don't cut it. They are not as reliable or effective as guns, and they don't have the simple ability to scare the hell out of someone so that you don't have to actually use them. Guns do that.
There weren't many electronic voting machines in Flordia in 2000 --> would this make a huge difference in a House race? and I can see the response now... yes yes - the 512 votes or whatever for Bush... "every vote counts"
So what was the point of your post? That it wouldn't have made a difference in some races, or that it would have made a difference in the biggest race? Or both?
The stuttering bug is not fixed. I'm still getting it just like always. It may have fixed it for some people, but not for me. I've noticed quite a few threads on various HL2 forums by others who are still experiencing the problem as well.
Besides, you can't gauge the snowball effect. If he sent it to 10 people. 5 of them sent it to 10 people.
You charge the first guy with 10 counts and then you charge the other people for however many times they uploaded it. Those would be separate offenses committed by other people. You can't tag a person for what others do.
The problem, is that all to often, one license per machine turns into "meh, I'll just install it on every machine I own... oh, and my friend wants to play too.".
I agree that that's a problem, but it's not the only one, and the problems are not limited to copyright violations of the would-be customers. Perhaps if software vendors would create realistic licenses they would be enforceable. Right now they try to do everything but take your first born, don't let you read them before purchase, make it all but impossible to get your money back in many cases, and cause you headaches whenever something goes wrong with their authorization systems. As far as I'm concerned, the vendors are as badly behaved as the customers. Maybe things can get worked out, but both sides will have to be at the table. Otherwise we just end up with both sides pursuing vigilante justice, as we've been seeing.
If I didn't agree to the EULA, and how could I since I can't read it and the box doesn't even mention that it exists, then I'm not bound by it. It's that simple. I can say that by reading this post you agree to give me all your money. That doesn't make it enforceable.
Why dont companys just put ultra fine print on the box that says.
Why should it be ultra-fine print? What do they have to hide? Aside from that, I wouldn't have a problem with them making it available online. Just as long as they understand that some or all of their EULA may not even be valid where I live, and they should not be allowed to take action against me by removing my right to play the game if I violate unenforceable portions of the EULA. Now they could refuse to sell the game to people that live in places that won't enforce parts of the EULA, but that's up to them.
If you did make a duplicate, you're reducing the value of mine. You don't have any right to make a copy of it either.
This was exactly my point. In fact, by distributing 1 song to 1 person, you are doing about $1 in damage, judging by the going rate for music online. So, as is common in cases where you want punishment in addition to damages, you triple the damages. Thus $3 per download.
No one has to respond. No one has to do anything except say this is how this is going to go down. You don't like it, tough shit. That is a valid form of negotiation. I've done it myself in the past...
Ok, so he sends it back with some stuff crossed out and they don't respond. That's his answer I guess. So no deal. What's the argument now? Oh yeah, all the other points he made that you forgot to address. It takes more than one trait to make a valid contract.
You admit your own antiquated notion that buying software is like buying a dishwasher. This path of thinking is exactly what allows bad copyright and software laws to keep being created.
While there is some truth to the statement that using poor metaphors for intellectual property can lead to bad laws, it is equally true that throwing out all the years of progress in making contract-law work well would be at least as bad. The problem is that you need both intellectual property law and contract law in this case, and you need to make them work together. The problem with most software is that it completely disregards contract law and tries to reinvent it on its own, very very poorly. Until such time as some balance is struck, I expect to continue to see a lot of turmoil over EULAs and IP law in general.
Then again, if you looked at the packaging, it would tell you that right on it. You can't possibly claim "I didn't know there would be an agreement" since it says so right on the box!!
No, you can't read the EULA before you buy in most circumstances, and maybe that is a problem, but it doesn't change the fact that you still have a full and legal recourse to have your funds returned to you if you do not agree to the license terms.
Tell that to all the people who couldn't get their money back when they tried to return a copy of Windows. You make it seem like it's a clear-cut legal right to get a refund if you don't agree to the EULA. It is anything but clear-cut.
So, to say "I am NOT "told the terms and conditions of usage by the company" until after the sale transaction is completed." is actually true, because there is -no- sale transaction for the software itself. It's a licensing transaction, and in that case, you do indeed get an opportunity to read the EULA before you invoke the license.
In the case of half-life2, you are not even told that there is a license before you buy it. Nowhere on the box does it say that you are licensing rather than buying a copy of the game. It says it requires internet connectivity, but mentions nothing about activation.
If you really have a problem with the activation scheme, you're either irrational or you've stolen the product.
There's another option here too. You're pissed because their activation requirement, which is not mentioned anywhere on the box, took 4 hours to authorize you to play the damn game in the first place. I don't think it's irrational to be upset about having your time wasted.
If you need to re-install, it generally works. If it doesn't, call them and they'll sort you out. 99% of people don't re-install Windows every week, so 99% of people won't notice any inconvenience with the activation system... unless they've stolen their copy of Windows.
What about that 1% that does have problems? What's their recourse?
In closing, I'd just like to say that any contract that you can't read prior to making a financial transaction is not a valid contract.
But you can do what you like to the physical media, just like you can do with a book.
A book is not just physical media, it is also the information printed on that media. So, by that logic, it should be perfectly ok for me to install the software, download a crack to make it playable, and then play all I want. I bought the game, just like I bought the book. I should be able to make normal use of both, as long as I'm not distributing copies.
Appearantly your spending money but have no idea what you're buying...
Actually, it depends on where you live and what the EULA says. Some or all of the EULA may not even be enforceable. Thus you end up with copyright law protecting the software, which is as it should be IMHO.
I don't have my HL2 box in front of me, but I'm guessing it says somewhere on the outside "By using this software you agree to the license contained within" or something like that. If that does exist on the box, then "average joe" has no right to complain.
First of all, I half-expected you to be right about them putting some kind of disclaimer on the box, but I just checked my box. Nothing on it mentions anything about a EULA. Not even in the itty-bitty print at the bottom.
Second, it goes completely counter to traditional contract-law that you can assume that a person agrees to a contract that they haven't had the opportunity to read. There's no "well you should have known the terms ahead of time". That doesn't fly. How can I know the terms if I can't read the EULA?
If you can't read the license in the box, then don't buy the product if you don't think you'd agree with it in the first place. What is so hard about that?
Again, if you haven't had the opportunity to read the EULA, then there's no way to know whether you would agree to it or not. This isn't Vegas. We're not playing roulette. This is about law, and that's something that you shouldn't have to guess about. It's either written there for you to read, and thus enforceable, or it's not, and thus not enforceable. That's the bottom line.
Slashdot Mirror
News is a rather large exception. And even in the news, the image must be newsworthy.
Show me the law that says that. If it's done in public, it's fair game, regardless of whether it is "newsworthy" or not. I don't recall any newsworthiness standards, so I think that you're completely wrong.
If they're going to publish it, then they should publish it as it is, not censor it. The real tragedy is that the game got published at all, by anyone. Nudity doesn't bother me. Horrible games do.
How does not being able to kill somebody for taking your television consitute not being able to legally defend yourself?
Maybe on your planet nobody ever does any harm to the occupants of the home they break into, but that's not what it's like here on earth. Between burglars who would rather kill you than get caught, angry ex-spouses/lovers, and the average rapist, there are plenty of situations in which you would want to have an effective means of self-defense. Non-lethal weapons just don't cut it. They are not as reliable or effective as guns, and they don't have the simple ability to scare the hell out of someone so that you don't have to actually use them. Guns do that.
There weren't many electronic voting machines in Flordia in 2000 --> would this make a huge difference in a House race? and I can see the response now... yes yes - the 512 votes or whatever for Bush... "every vote counts"
So what was the point of your post? That it wouldn't have made a difference in some races, or that it would have made a difference in the biggest race? Or both?
Can I make a deal with Smith & Wesson to legally shoot the people who made those laws?
I doubt violation of this law would be considered a felony. Verizon probably just agreed not to make a stink about Philadelphia's network.
If the law is actually written to prevent competition with Verizon specifically, how can PA citizens not be rebelling?
Sheep don't rebel.
I much prefer CS:S. I hadn't played CS in over 2 years, but it's all coming back now, and it's just as much fun as ever :)
I generally only browse at -1 when i'm modding.. otherwise I usually have it set at 0.
No, I think "+1 Evil" is much more appropriate :) I wouldn't want to miss a good evil scheme by having it go under my view boundary.
The stuttering bug is not fixed. I'm still getting it just like always. It may have fixed it for some people, but not for me. I've noticed quite a few threads on various HL2 forums by others who are still experiencing the problem as well.
Faith.... it's an interesting thing.
It can also be a dangerous thing, which is why many people are wary of it. Faith can be abused fairly easily and turned into an enemy of reason.
When people pray, they are telling god, "this person's sickness also affects me", this forces a reevaluation if the punishment fits whatever crime.
Umm.. isn't God supposed to be omniscient and perfect? Wouldn't that preclude him having to "reevaluate" anything he does?
Do they also "credit the power of prayer" that she got infected with rabies and nearly died?
No no no. Don't be silly. That was just The Lord testing them. He works in mysterious ways you know.
Besides, you can't gauge the snowball effect. If he sent it to 10 people. 5 of them sent it to 10 people.
You charge the first guy with 10 counts and then you charge the other people for however many times they uploaded it. Those would be separate offenses committed by other people. You can't tag a person for what others do.
The problem, is that all to often, one license per machine turns into "meh, I'll just install it on every machine I own... oh, and my friend wants to play too.".
I agree that that's a problem, but it's not the only one, and the problems are not limited to copyright violations of the would-be customers. Perhaps if software vendors would create realistic licenses they would be enforceable. Right now they try to do everything but take your first born, don't let you read them before purchase, make it all but impossible to get your money back in many cases, and cause you headaches whenever something goes wrong with their authorization systems. As far as I'm concerned, the vendors are as badly behaved as the customers. Maybe things can get worked out, but both sides will have to be at the table. Otherwise we just end up with both sides pursuing vigilante justice, as we've been seeing.
If I didn't agree to the EULA, and how could I since I can't read it and the box doesn't even mention that it exists, then I'm not bound by it. It's that simple. I can say that by reading this post you agree to give me all your money. That doesn't make it enforceable.
Why dont companys just put ultra fine print on the box that says.
Why should it be ultra-fine print? What do they have to hide? Aside from that, I wouldn't have a problem with them making it available online. Just as long as they understand that some or all of their EULA may not even be valid where I live, and they should not be allowed to take action against me by removing my right to play the game if I violate unenforceable portions of the EULA. Now they could refuse to sell the game to people that live in places that won't enforce parts of the EULA, but that's up to them.
If you did make a duplicate, you're reducing the value of mine. You don't have any right to make a copy of it either.
This was exactly my point. In fact, by distributing 1 song to 1 person, you are doing about $1 in damage, judging by the going rate for music online. So, as is common in cases where you want punishment in addition to damages, you triple the damages. Thus $3 per download.
No one has to respond. No one has to do anything except say this is how this is going to go down. You don't like it, tough shit. That is a valid form of negotiation. I've done it myself in the past ...
Ok, so he sends it back with some stuff crossed out and they don't respond. That's his answer I guess. So no deal. What's the argument now? Oh yeah, all the other points he made that you forgot to address. It takes more than one trait to make a valid contract.
You admit your own antiquated notion that buying software is like buying a dishwasher. This path of thinking is exactly what allows bad copyright and software laws to keep being created.
While there is some truth to the statement that using poor metaphors for intellectual property can lead to bad laws, it is equally true that throwing out all the years of progress in making contract-law work well would be at least as bad. The problem is that you need both intellectual property law and contract law in this case, and you need to make them work together. The problem with most software is that it completely disregards contract law and tries to reinvent it on its own, very very poorly. Until such time as some balance is struck, I expect to continue to see a lot of turmoil over EULAs and IP law in general.
Stop trying to justify your warezing the game, you fucking faggot.
With such compelling arguments coming from the other side, this is surely going to be the intellectual debate of our generation.
Then again, if you looked at the packaging, it would tell you that right on it. You can't possibly claim "I didn't know there would be an agreement" since it says so right on the box!!
*/me looks at Half-Life2 box*
*/me checks again*
Umm... no it doesn't.
No, you can't read the EULA before you buy in most circumstances, and maybe that is a problem, but it doesn't change the fact that you still have a full and legal recourse to have your funds returned to you if you do not agree to the license terms.
Tell that to all the people who couldn't get their money back when they tried to return a copy of Windows. You make it seem like it's a clear-cut legal right to get a refund if you don't agree to the EULA. It is anything but clear-cut.
So, to say "I am NOT "told the terms and conditions of usage by the company" until after the sale transaction is completed." is actually true, because there is -no- sale transaction for the software itself. It's a licensing transaction, and in that case, you do indeed get an opportunity to read the EULA before you invoke the license.
In the case of half-life2, you are not even told that there is a license before you buy it. Nowhere on the box does it say that you are licensing rather than buying a copy of the game. It says it requires internet connectivity, but mentions nothing about activation.
If you really have a problem with the activation scheme, you're either irrational or you've stolen the product.
There's another option here too. You're pissed because their activation requirement, which is not mentioned anywhere on the box, took 4 hours to authorize you to play the damn game in the first place. I don't think it's irrational to be upset about having your time wasted.
If you need to re-install, it generally works. If it doesn't, call them and they'll sort you out. 99% of people don't re-install Windows every week, so 99% of people won't notice any inconvenience with the activation system... unless they've stolen their copy of Windows.
What about that 1% that does have problems? What's their recourse?
In closing, I'd just like to say that any contract that you can't read prior to making a financial transaction is not a valid contract.
But you can do what you like to the physical media, just like you can do with a book.
A book is not just physical media, it is also the information printed on that media. So, by that logic, it should be perfectly ok for me to install the software, download a crack to make it playable, and then play all I want. I bought the game, just like I bought the book. I should be able to make normal use of both, as long as I'm not distributing copies.
Appearantly your spending money but have no idea what you're buying...
Actually, it depends on where you live and what the EULA says. Some or all of the EULA may not even be enforceable. Thus you end up with copyright law protecting the software, which is as it should be IMHO.
I don't have my HL2 box in front of me, but I'm guessing it says somewhere on the outside "By using this software you agree to the license contained within" or something like that. If that does exist on the box, then "average joe" has no right to complain.
First of all, I half-expected you to be right about them putting some kind of disclaimer on the box, but I just checked my box. Nothing on it mentions anything about a EULA. Not even in the itty-bitty print at the bottom.
Second, it goes completely counter to traditional contract-law that you can assume that a person agrees to a contract that they haven't had the opportunity to read. There's no "well you should have known the terms ahead of time". That doesn't fly. How can I know the terms if I can't read the EULA?
If you can't read the license in the box, then don't buy the product if you don't think you'd agree with it in the first place. What is so hard about that?
Again, if you haven't had the opportunity to read the EULA, then there's no way to know whether you would agree to it or not. This isn't Vegas. We're not playing roulette. This is about law, and that's something that you shouldn't have to guess about. It's either written there for you to read, and thus enforceable, or it's not, and thus not enforceable. That's the bottom line.