They have. Selling, buying, possessing, and smoking pot are all crimes, at least in most parts of the United States. If one smokes pot, one has turned to crime.
The sleeping security guard is not responsible for the break in, the criminal breaking in is. The sleeping security guard is responsible for not detecting the breaking in, for not reporting the break in and calling for the police, for not stopping the criminal once the break in occurred, and probably for the criminal getting away.
But, the break in is still the responsibility of the criminal.
How many counts of stealing? Was he charged with first degree grand theft? And, not just stealing but also establishing a marketplace for stolen information, that could be one or more counts of facilitation, conspiracy, racketeering, etc.
Seeing as you don't know the number of charges nor what the actual charges were, your statement is foolish at best.
I'm not saying he's right, but it does highlight something interesting about finding work as an ex-con.
Yes, that one should not be convicted of a crime that involves abusing the trust and access one's employer has given one.
I really want to know what kind of position he was applying for. If it was computer related, say sys admin or security, it is not surprising he couldn't find a job because employers tend not to hire people with a record of abusing their access for sensitive, target-rich positions.
Really, would you hire an accountant that has been convicted for embezzlement?
It is funny that you say I am "stupid, ignorant, and proud of it" when it is you who first says "I can't sue" then when shown that you can sue, says "I won't win, so I can't sue". You don't know the difference between "can" and "will", and you aren't even willing to try about something you care so much about because you are so sure you will lose.
You are just another pathetic, selfish whiner who refuses to face reality. You are aggressively, willfully ignorant and not only proud of it but attempt to spread your ignorance. You are no better than a religious zealot.
No, not "obviously in context". You stated point blank you could not sue. In reality, you don't think it is worth the money and effort to sue, probably because you know in your heart that you are wrong and will lose.
You can't sue for someone violating your rights
Yes, you can. Happens all the time, especially if there are actually damages.
And again, I mean that you can file all you like, but the first time you get in front of a judge, it will be dismissed out of hand without any consideration of fact.
Either say what you mean the first time or shut the fuck up. And, as you have no proof that the case will be dismissed out of hand, you are just assuming you will lose. Instead of actually trying, you would rather try to justify your own bad acts with "I can't win" when you haven't even tried. Also, that is the classic "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
As an example, the ACLU (and others) wanted to challenge a variety of sex laws.
If they want to change the law, then they should change it the way laws are made and changed, via the legislature. They should start a campaign to get the laws removed. Maybe you and they should take a civics class one day.
. Someone would have had to have wronged someone (arrested them under the law) for it to be challenged.
You mean like what happened here in Florida, where a cop arrested two gay men for having sex after he entered their house without cause?
But "rights" have no value.
Wrong again. Try looking at any number of civil rights cases. Try looking at the copyright cases.
That's why the WGA was a win for Microsoft
No, it was a win for Microsoft because they would not have to spend money fighting a frivolous lawsuit.
When it was denied class action status, there was a settlement where it ended immediately because of that.
There was no settlement. You need to stop making things up. The judge dismissed the case. Microsoft won because they get to decide what a critical security update to their product actually is. They get to do this because of the EULA and copyRIGHT law, among other things.
Again and again, you make the same mistake. You assume that your opinion is absolutely correct and is the way things should be, regardless of what the majority of people believe. You go so far as to ascribe to everyone else your personal views on the subject, completely disregarding the evidence that is not the case. You are like a religious zealot, imposing your personal beliefs, no matter how foolish or contradictory to reality, on others.
You can't sue because someone violated your rights.
Tell you what you do: Go open a restaurant and hang out a sign that says "No black people will be served.", then tell me if you can be sued for violating someone's rights. You have the evidence in front of you, try looking at it.
No, you have been stating over and over you can't sue.
And, the case will not be dismissed if they offer you a refund because you are not suing for a refund but rather for their violating your rights, which is not remedied by merely offering you a refund.
My loss is no more than the loss of use of the software. That's the retail price. So, the cost to get this to the Supreme Court to get it decided once and for all, takes a few million dollars.
In other words, you can sue but won't because of the cost.
If DRM is illegal, and I'm harmed by DRM, I can't sue.
Maybe I wasn't clear: Explain why you can't sue if DRM is illegal and you are harmed by DRM. You keep saying you can't sue, but you never say why you can't sue.
DRM violates my rights. It removes the right of first sale. It blocks all possible Fair Use possibilities. It blocks my right to be secure in my person and possessions because my possession can turn itself off against my will.
Ok, we can dispense with the first sale rights because you are not buying the software, but rather a license to use the software and that is settled case law.
The "all fair use possibilities" has been tried in court concerning a movie, specifically obtaining a clip of the movie for inclusion in a report on the movie. The decision was that one could make use of a video camera and record the video playing on the screen to get the clip and that the clip would then be fair use.
The "it turns off against my will" argument, specifically the argument that third party DRM denies one the use of one's property could be effective. I seem to recall something concerning DRM that caused people to be unable to play CDs and DVDs after DRM and it's associated software was removed. Let's use a scenario where the DRM causes that issue on installation. You can file suit then you need the following: First, one would have to have an actual incident in which DRM caused one to be unable to use one's property in a manner that was not infringing on copyright, preferably shutting down the entire device. Then, one would have to be able duplicated the effect and show that the effect only occurs after the DRM is installed and that it is due to the DRM. Preferably, this will be happening to many people causing a possible class action suit.
The result, assuming that you win, would be that particular form of DRM would be deemed illegal.
You are still confused as to what you are buying when you "buy" software. The creator of the software sells you a copy of the software and a limited use license which spells out how you can use and what you can do with the software. You do not own complete rights to the software.
You still haven't provided any evidence of the "kill aftermarket sales" claim you made earlier.
And, if you have noticed, you do not have unlimited rights when you buy a book. You do not have the right to make copies and sell or give them away, among other things. That is why in the front of a book there is a copyright statement. The biggest difference between the copyright statement of books and those of software is that the software's copyright comes with a license spelling out what you can do concerning the software.
Rei(128717) makes a statement that is not just wrong but either deliberately misleading or just plain ignorant and gets modded +5 insightful. I make a response with factual information and get modded -1 troll for disagreeing with him and showing his falsehoods.
I love the hypocrisy of Slashdot. "Conform to our non-conformist believes or DIE!!!"
What you are asking is impossible if DRM was illegal.
Explain why it is impossible or shut the fuck up.
Assume DRM is illegal, then tell me how I would challenge illegal DRM in court.
OK, I will play. But, if you want me to give you a strategy, you have to tell me the reason it would be illegal. It must be a reasonable case, not something stupid like "It turns my dick black", but something that could actually be.
Now, if I could name *one* atheist, or let's say just moderately religious Republican...
Easy, me. I am fiscally conservative, socially moderate atheist republican. I hate the way the religious wackos have taken over the party. And, I hate the way current republicans are acting like no-tax-and-spend Democrats. If it keeps up, I am going to have to switch to independent or start my own party.
The powerful people conspiring to take away the rights of Republicans? * Labor Unions * Special interest groups who want funding by the federal government, such as ACORN, the group that helps pimps get houses and import underage prostitutes as well as falsify voter registration forms and violate other election laws. * Movie stars * Famous Rappers * Famous Musicians * Most of Hollywood for that matter. You know, people who lead the trends and most of the American idiot class around by the nose. Of course, those people have feet of clay. After all, how many said they would leave the country if Bush won election and re-election?
You also seem to forget that: * Illegal aliens don't belong in the country and have no say in the government. People like you use the terms "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented immigrant" so you can say about people against illegal aliens "They are against immigration" thus muddying the waters and painting them with false colors. * Homosexuals are on average, much more successful and richer than heterosexuals * There are atheist Republicans * There are black Republicans ("African American" is a term that should only apply to immigrants and their children.) * There are homosexual Republicans * College professors get to preach their doctrine to a captive audience and have been known to punish students who do not slavishly follow the professors' political agenda. I have seen it happen and have read about it in the newspaper and on news sites.
How about if I paint Democrats as crime-loving, drug-abusing apologist for brain-washers, drug-dealers, child-molesters, corrupt unions, organized crime, and illegal aliens who drive down the wages of working Americans by taking jobs under the table that pay less than minimum wage?
Because creationists are inherently hostile to the planet and science?
As creationism generally denies and suppresses any scientific evidence against creationism, the answer to your first question is "yes".
Judeo-Christian creationists believe that humankind has been granted stewardship of Earth, and that it's supposed to be kept in good shape.
No, Judeo-Christian creationists believe the world was created by an invisible man in the sky exactly as it is now. Many of them believe that the alleged creation happened about 6,000 years ago regardless of the fact that Earth is over 4 billion years old and that human civilization is over 10,000 years old.
If one's core beliefs fly in the face of science, then one is inherently hostile to science.
Books and software are not the same, because the terms of sale are not the same. That is where your failure lies. One buys a license to use a copy of the software. The terms of the sale are limited by the license. It is no different that selling someone a limited license to use a picture or painting. That you don't acknowledge the existence of the license shows you are completely ignoring reality.
It can't be tested because of the system, not because it isn't illegal.
Explain in detail which "system" prevents you for testing the legality of DRM in court. Then explain in detail how that "system" prevents you from testing the legality of DRM in court.
an admission that you know you are asking the impossible,
What I am asking is not impossible IF DRM is illegal. The only way it is impossible is if DRM is legal. Thanks for playing, you lose.
The only problem is you have no right to take the copy and as you have a copy you did not pay for and took, they have lost money from the lost sale. The theft lies in you getting the game and not paying for it. It is not "they didn't lose anything because I wouldn't have bought it", it is literally that you got something you were supposed to pay for and didn't. You are playing the game, yet you did not pay the creators of the game for the right to play the game.
By your logic, every time that you walk past something in the store and don't buy it, you are causing them to "lose a sale" and are "stealing".
No, because you are not deriving the benefits of the purchased item when you "walk past" the item. You are, however, deriving the benefits of the game without purchasing the game, thus depriving the game creators of their due.
You are NOT willing to pay the price which includes using/installing the DRM, asshole. By the way, you don't buy the software, asshole. You buy a license to use the software, asshole. Got it, asshole? YOU DO NOT OWN THE SOFTWARE, ONLY A LICENSE TO USE IT.
DRM is not about stopping piracy - many companies have essentially admitted it. It's about killing used game sales.
Then you will have no problem providing reputable references for that statement, specifically where companies have admitted such a thing. Or, you can shut the fuck up.
You are a parasite who thinks that everyone should be forced to have no rights and that it's ok for companies to rape their customers.
You have a right not to be a customer. And, you have rights as set out by law. You don't have a right to steal. Here is a neat idea: If you think a company is or is going to rape you, don't be a customer. Oh, wait, that wouldn't justify you being a asshole and getting something for nothing, which is also known as stealing.
That's why you lie and claim that when the company makes the same amount of money from me ($0) due to using DRM, that it's "stealing" for me to download a copy of it (they still make $0 because I won't buy DRM infested shit like you do).
It is stealing, just like tapping into someone else's cable service is stealing and cloning cell phones is stealing. You are still getting the benefit of the goods without paying for them. That is what theft is. You are focusing on "They don't lose nothing" when in fact you should be focusing on the fact that you are getting something that you should be paying for and aren't because you are a selfish asshole.
It would be ok to deprive the dealership of the use of their car to see if you like it. They call those "test drives."
But, when you download software illegally, you are not test driving it. You are not going to make the purchase because you already have what you want. You stole pure and simple.
Please name the cases where someone has stolen things he did not want and would never buy for his personal use, which is the case we are talking about.
1) Most teenage shoplifting.
Support that with reputable facts and studies. Specifically, provide a reputable study that shows that teenagers shoplift things they do not want and do not plan to use in some way. That is what you said isn't it? That people steal what they don't want and don't plan to use?
Many creators have the impression that they "own" the work. At best, they have a temporary $0 lease on it. You were using the absolutes that are 100% wrong.
What they have is an exclusive monopoly on the work for a limited amount of time as specified by law. And, it is 100% wrong 100% of the time to make an illegal copy of a copyrighted work.
A copyright is not a right.
Oh, really? Then why is it called copyright? Why does the law use the words "right" and "rights" repeatedly. A right does not cease to be a right just because you don't want it to be a right.
That's just insane. You are telling me that if I buy a book and read the ending first, that I violated copyright by using a work in a manner they didn't like?
When you buy a book, you buy a book. You don't buy software. You buy a license to use the software. Maybe if you understood that, you would see that I am not insane but you are ignorant.
I can't. I can't go to court and sue because DRM inconvenienced me.
But, you think that inconvenience entitles you to violate other people's rights and break the law? That is what and the other dumbass are saying.
There is no ban on unauthorized use of a properly licensed copy, and there is no allowance in copyright laws or principles that would make it illegal to read a book backwards.
The license says you will install the DRM. If you fail to install the DRM, then it is not "properly licensed". That makes the rest of your argument moot.
So, you tell me, since you know everything about law and are giving me legal advice, how would I go about proving DRM to be illegal
I can't because it is not illegal. You think it is illegal, then prove it or shut the fuck up. Thanks for playing.
Fair Use. Done, what do I win? Do I have to play again to win the big stuffed animal?
Fair use does not violate copyright. Never has. Fair use is part of the copyright law which provides for legal copying, thus it is not a violation of the copyright holders rights. So, try again, dumbass.
No, shithead, I actually went out and found out what the expected sales were for the game.
"While in the short-term the Xbox 360 version of Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 may surpass New Super Mario Bros, in the long-term New Super Mario Bros will easily become the best selling title released in 2009 with expected lifetime sales exceeding 15 million units worldwide."
Please note that the numbers were made by research firm, and an independent one at that.
Your experience means nothing as it is based on nothing. And, your numbers and guesses mean nothing because they are based on nothing but your own ignorance. Go out and find some numbers by a research firm and get back to me, dumbass.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Democracy: 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
I think you mean liberty.
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
The result of democracy is rule by majority, which can be, but does not have to be, liberty and freedom. In fact, majority rule will always result in liberty and freedom being limited to what the majority finds acceptable. If the majority finds slavery acceptable, then a democratic state can have slavery. If the majority finds that a religious group has unacceptable practices (child sex, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice,etc), then that religion or practice may be outlawed in a democratic society.
So, it would be OK for me to steal your car or money to see if I like it, right? More importantly, who do you know you will like any particular restaurant meal, food stuff, movie, etc. until you try it? Does that make it OK to walk out on bills, eat food in the grocery with out paying for it, sneak into a movie, etc.? Do you believe you have a right to steal underwear to see if you like it, and then go back and pay for the shirt later? That is why there are reviews, game previews, etc., so you can see if you might like it. You take your chances. Ever heard the phrase "Let the buyer beware"? It means do your research before you buy. Stealing, or illegal copying, is not doing research.
And there have been people that have stolen things they do not want and would never buy, it's been that way forever too.
Please name the cases where someone has stolen things he did not want and would never buy for his personal use, which is the case we are talking about.
Sure he does. That's what copyright is. The creator gives the work away to the Public Domain, so everyone has a right to it. For someone so opinionated and vocal on this, I'm surprised you aren't familiar with the basic premise of copyright.
I am but apparently you are not, or at least you are not able to use basic reading comprehension to ascertain the context. Here, let me spell it out for you as you seem incapable of understanding the conversation:
You do not have a right to someone else's work while said someone still has legally granted copyright control of said work.
There, happy now?
That doesn't seem to be an argument dealing with the subject at hand. It isn't about what you think someone else should or shouldn't do. It's about what they would or wouldn't do. You are apparently projecting your personal beliefs onto others, then determining that they are wrong, without ever listening or understanding what they are saying. You are telling them what they think, in direct contradiction to what they are saying they are thinking. You must think everyone who doesn't say they think like you actually does think like you and lies about it.
No, I am using what he actually said. He said violating copyright is wrong. He then said that he violates copyrights when he does not want to use software that installs DRM, but installing the DRM is part of the price of using the software.
And what if they think DRM is illegal because it infringes on their consumer rights, and they do no more than necessary to restore their legally granted rights?
Then, if you really think something is illegal, you go to court and prove it. You don't buy or use the software. DRM is not illegal, as it has not be declared such by law or court. You do not have a right to the software. No one is forcing you to use it. If you don't like the conditions of use of the software, you don't use the software. Those are your consumer rights. You don't have any legally granted "consumer rights" to violate other people's copyright, which is what this whole thread is about. Please, show me legislation or legal judicial opinion that states you have a legally granted right to violate someone copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
They have. Selling, buying, possessing, and smoking pot are all crimes, at least in most parts of the United States. If one smokes pot, one has turned to crime.
The sleeping security guard is not responsible for the break in, the criminal breaking in is. The sleeping security guard is responsible for not detecting the breaking in, for not reporting the break in and calling for the police, for not stopping the criminal once the break in occurred, and probably for the criminal getting away.
But, the break in is still the responsibility of the criminal.
How many counts of stealing? Was he charged with first degree grand theft? And, not just stealing but also establishing a marketplace for stolen information, that could be one or more counts of facilitation, conspiracy, racketeering, etc.
Seeing as you don't know the number of charges nor what the actual charges were, your statement is foolish at best.
Yes, that one should not be convicted of a crime that involves abusing the trust and access one's employer has given one.
I really want to know what kind of position he was applying for. If it was computer related, say sys admin or security, it is not surprising he couldn't find a job because employers tend not to hire people with a record of abusing their access for sensitive, target-rich positions.
Really, would you hire an accountant that has been convicted for embezzlement?
Turns to crime? He turned to crime at "Then he starts hacking into government computers".
It is funny that you say I am "stupid, ignorant, and proud of it" when it is you who first says "I can't sue" then when shown that you can sue, says "I won't win, so I can't sue". You don't know the difference between "can" and "will", and you aren't even willing to try about something you care so much about because you are so sure you will lose.
You are just another pathetic, selfish whiner who refuses to face reality. You are aggressively, willfully ignorant and not only proud of it but attempt to spread your ignorance. You are no better than a religious zealot.
Then don't fly Southwest. Problem solved.
No, not "obviously in context". You stated point blank you could not sue. In reality, you don't think it is worth the money and effort to sue, probably because you know in your heart that you are wrong and will lose.
Yes, you can. Happens all the time, especially if there are actually damages.
Either say what you mean the first time or shut the fuck up. And, as you have no proof that the case will be dismissed out of hand, you are just assuming you will lose. Instead of actually trying, you would rather try to justify your own bad acts with "I can't win" when you haven't even tried. Also, that is the classic "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
If they want to change the law, then they should change it the way laws are made and changed, via the legislature. They should start a campaign to get the laws removed. Maybe you and they should take a civics class one day.
You mean like what happened here in Florida, where a cop arrested two gay men for having sex after he entered their house without cause?
Wrong again. Try looking at any number of civil rights cases. Try looking at the copyright cases.
No, it was a win for Microsoft because they would not have to spend money fighting a frivolous lawsuit.
There was no settlement. You need to stop making things up. The judge dismissed the case. Microsoft won because they get to decide what a critical security update to their product actually is. They get to do this because of the EULA and copyRIGHT law, among other things.
Again and again, you make the same mistake. You assume that your opinion is absolutely correct and is the way things should be, regardless of what the majority of people believe. You go so far as to ascribe to everyone else your personal views on the subject, completely disregarding the evidence that is not the case. You are like a religious zealot, imposing your personal beliefs, no matter how foolish or contradictory to reality, on others.
Tell you what you do: Go open a restaurant and hang out a sign that says "No black people will be served.", then tell me if you can be sued for violating someone's rights. You have the evidence in front of you, try looking at it.
No, you have been stating over and over you can't sue.
And, the case will not be dismissed if they offer you a refund because you are not suing for a refund but rather for their violating your rights, which is not remedied by merely offering you a refund.
In other words, you can sue but won't because of the cost.
Maybe I wasn't clear: Explain why you can't sue if DRM is illegal and you are harmed by DRM. You keep saying you can't sue, but you never say why you can't sue.
Ok, we can dispense with the first sale rights because you are not buying the software, but rather a license to use the software and that is settled case law.
The "all fair use possibilities" has been tried in court concerning a movie, specifically obtaining a clip of the movie for inclusion in a report on the movie. The decision was that one could make use of a video camera and record the video playing on the screen to get the clip and that the clip would then be fair use.
The "it turns off against my will" argument, specifically the argument that third party DRM denies one the use of one's property could be effective. I seem to recall something concerning DRM that caused people to be unable to play CDs and DVDs after DRM and it's associated software was removed. Let's use a scenario where the DRM causes that issue on installation.
You can file suit then you need the following:
First, one would have to have an actual incident in which DRM caused one to be unable to use one's property in a manner that was not infringing on copyright, preferably shutting down the entire device.
Then, one would have to be able duplicated the effect and show that the effect only occurs after the DRM is installed and that it is due to the DRM.
Preferably, this will be happening to many people causing a possible class action suit.
The result, assuming that you win, would be that particular form of DRM would be deemed illegal.
You are still confused as to what you are buying when you "buy" software. The creator of the software sells you a copy of the software and a limited use license which spells out how you can use and what you can do with the software. You do not own complete rights to the software.
You still haven't provided any evidence of the "kill aftermarket sales" claim you made earlier.
And, if you have noticed, you do not have unlimited rights when you buy a book. You do not have the right to make copies and sell or give them away, among other things. That is why in the front of a book there is a copyright statement. The biggest difference between the copyright statement of books and those of software is that the software's copyright comes with a license spelling out what you can do concerning the software.
Rei(128717) makes a statement that is not just wrong but either deliberately misleading or just plain ignorant and gets modded +5 insightful. I make a response with factual information and get modded -1 troll for disagreeing with him and showing his falsehoods.
I love the hypocrisy of Slashdot. "Conform to our non-conformist believes or DIE!!!"
Explain why it is impossible or shut the fuck up.
OK, I will play. But, if you want me to give you a strategy, you have to tell me the reason it would be illegal. It must be a reasonable case, not something stupid like "It turns my dick black", but something that could actually be.
I think you need to look up the definition of "creationist" and intelligent design.
Easy, me. I am fiscally conservative, socially moderate atheist republican. I hate the way the religious wackos have taken over the party. And, I hate the way current republicans are acting like no-tax-and-spend Democrats. If it keeps up, I am going to have to switch to independent or start my own party.
The powerful people conspiring to take away the rights of Republicans?
* Labor Unions
* Special interest groups who want funding by the federal government, such as ACORN, the group that helps pimps get houses and import underage prostitutes as well as falsify voter registration forms and violate other election laws.
* Movie stars
* Famous Rappers
* Famous Musicians
* Most of Hollywood for that matter. You know, people who lead the trends and most of the American idiot class around by the nose. Of course, those people have feet of clay. After all, how many said they would leave the country if Bush won election and re-election?
You also seem to forget that:
* Illegal aliens don't belong in the country and have no say in the government. People like you use the terms "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented immigrant" so you can say about people against illegal aliens "They are against immigration" thus muddying the waters and painting them with false colors.
* Homosexuals are on average, much more successful and richer than heterosexuals
* There are atheist Republicans
* There are black Republicans ("African American" is a term that should only apply to immigrants and their children.)
* There are homosexual Republicans
* College professors get to preach their doctrine to a captive audience and have been known to punish students who do not slavishly follow the professors' political agenda. I have seen it happen and have read about it in the newspaper and on news sites.
How about if I paint Democrats as crime-loving, drug-abusing apologist for brain-washers, drug-dealers, child-molesters, corrupt unions, organized crime, and illegal aliens who drive down the wages of working Americans by taking jobs under the table that pay less than minimum wage?
As creationism generally denies and suppresses any scientific evidence against creationism, the answer to your first question is "yes".
No, Judeo-Christian creationists believe the world was created by an invisible man in the sky exactly as it is now. Many of them believe that the alleged creation happened about 6,000 years ago regardless of the fact that Earth is over 4 billion years old and that human civilization is over 10,000 years old.
If one's core beliefs fly in the face of science, then one is inherently hostile to science.
If part of the selection criteria was "attract readers/attention", then the protocols of the experiment are junk, and thus the science is junk.
Books and software are not the same, because the terms of sale are not the same. That is where your failure lies. One buys a license to use a copy of the software. The terms of the sale are limited by the license. It is no different that selling someone a limited license to use a picture or painting. That you don't acknowledge the existence of the license shows you are completely ignoring reality.
Explain in detail which "system" prevents you for testing the legality of DRM in court. Then explain in detail how that "system" prevents you from testing the legality of DRM in court.
What I am asking is not impossible IF DRM is illegal. The only way it is impossible is if DRM is legal. Thanks for playing, you lose.
The only problem is you have no right to take the copy and as you have a copy you did not pay for and took, they have lost money from the lost sale. The theft lies in you getting the game and not paying for it. It is not "they didn't lose anything because I wouldn't have bought it", it is literally that you got something you were supposed to pay for and didn't. You are playing the game, yet you did not pay the creators of the game for the right to play the game.
No, because you are not deriving the benefits of the purchased item when you "walk past" the item. You are, however, deriving the benefits of the game without purchasing the game, thus depriving the game creators of their due.
You are NOT willing to pay the price which includes using/installing the DRM, asshole. By the way, you don't buy the software, asshole. You buy a license to use the software, asshole. Got it, asshole? YOU DO NOT OWN THE SOFTWARE, ONLY A LICENSE TO USE IT.
Then you will have no problem providing reputable references for that statement, specifically where companies have admitted such a thing. Or, you can shut the fuck up.
You have a right not to be a customer. And, you have rights as set out by law. You don't have a right to steal. Here is a neat idea: If you think a company is or is going to rape you, don't be a customer. Oh, wait, that wouldn't justify you being a asshole and getting something for nothing, which is also known as stealing.
It is stealing, just like tapping into someone else's cable service is stealing and cloning cell phones is stealing. You are still getting the benefit of the goods without paying for them. That is what theft is. You are focusing on "They don't lose nothing" when in fact you should be focusing on the fact that you are getting something that you should be paying for and aren't because you are a selfish asshole.
But, when you download software illegally, you are not test driving it. You are not going to make the purchase because you already have what you want. You stole pure and simple.
Support that with reputable facts and studies. Specifically, provide a reputable study that shows that teenagers shoplift things they do not want and do not plan to use in some way. That is what you said isn't it? That people steal what they don't want and don't plan to use?
What they have is an exclusive monopoly on the work for a limited amount of time as specified by law. And, it is 100% wrong 100% of the time to make an illegal copy of a copyrighted work.
Oh, really? Then why is it called copyright? Why does the law use the words "right" and "rights" repeatedly. A right does not cease to be a right just because you don't want it to be a right.
When you buy a book, you buy a book. You don't buy software. You buy a license to use the software. Maybe if you understood that, you would see that I am not insane but you are ignorant.
But, you think that inconvenience entitles you to violate other people's rights and break the law? That is what and the other dumbass are saying.
The license says you will install the DRM. If you fail to install the DRM, then it is not "properly licensed". That makes the rest of your argument moot.
I can't because it is not illegal. You think it is illegal, then prove it or shut the fuck up. Thanks for playing.
Fair use does not violate copyright. Never has. Fair use is part of the copyright law which provides for legal copying, thus it is not a violation of the copyright holders rights. So, try again, dumbass.
No, shithead, I actually went out and found out what the expected sales were for the game.
Please note that the numbers were made by research firm, and an independent one at that.
Your experience means nothing as it is based on nothing. And, your numbers and guesses mean nothing because they are based on nothing but your own ignorance. Go out and find some numbers by a research firm and get back to me, dumbass.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think you mean liberty.
The result of democracy is rule by majority, which can be, but does not have to be, liberty and freedom. In fact, majority rule will always result in liberty and freedom being limited to what the majority finds acceptable. If the majority finds slavery acceptable, then a democratic state can have slavery. If the majority finds that a religious group has unacceptable practices (child sex, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice,etc), then that religion or practice may be outlawed in a democratic society.
So, it would be OK for me to steal your car or money to see if I like it, right? More importantly, who do you know you will like any particular restaurant meal, food stuff, movie, etc. until you try it? Does that make it OK to walk out on bills, eat food in the grocery with out paying for it, sneak into a movie, etc.? Do you believe you have a right to steal underwear to see if you like it, and then go back and pay for the shirt later? That is why there are reviews, game previews, etc., so you can see if you might like it. You take your chances. Ever heard the phrase "Let the buyer beware"? It means do your research before you buy. Stealing, or illegal copying, is not doing research.
Please name the cases where someone has stolen things he did not want and would never buy for his personal use, which is the case we are talking about.
I am but apparently you are not, or at least you are not able to use basic reading comprehension to ascertain the context. Here, let me spell it out for you as you seem incapable of understanding the conversation:
There, happy now?
No, I am using what he actually said. He said violating copyright is wrong. He then said that he violates copyrights when he does not want to use software that installs DRM, but installing the DRM is part of the price of using the software.
Then, if you really think something is illegal, you go to court and prove it. You don't buy or use the software. DRM is not illegal, as it has not be declared such by law or court. You do not have a right to the software. No one is forcing you to use it. If you don't like the conditions of use of the software, you don't use the software. Those are your consumer rights. You don't have any legally granted "consumer rights" to violate other people's copyright, which is what this whole thread is about. Please, show me legislation or legal judicial opinion that states you have a legally granted right to violate someone copyright.
How about we use the numbers provided in another article, which stated the estimated sales were 15 million and the actual sales were 10 million?
Now we have firm numbers on my side. Provide firm numbers on your or shut the fuck up.