IIRC (and IANAL), one of the few holes punched in EULA's is that they *can't* prevent you from selling your copy of the software, provided you destroy all local copies of the code, documentation, etc. How this applies to a "service" like Steam, I'm not sure.
OTOH, if Valve sued you for selling your legally purchased copy, I wonder if you could counter-sue for libel... after all, it is damaging to your reputation to have people claim you are trafficing in stolen goods or credit cards.
Re:Question isn't just "Enforcable?", but "Provabl
on
The Basics of EULAs
·
· Score: 1
What happens when Blizzard takes Joe Schmoe to court over eula violations and Joe simply says "Never saw the eula. It wasn't presented. I'm not bound by those restrictions."
Then Blizzard sues them for copyright infringement. By default, you don't actually have the right to run Blizzard's software. It's copyrighted, which means you can't copy it (for example, to your hard drive during install), without their permission. So if Joe never read or agreed to the EULA, then he "copied" the software without permission.
Hmm... if you're going to refute broadcasting monopolies, bring up "NFL Sunday Ticket" might not be the best tactic. "NFL Sunday Ticket" is exclusively licensed to DirectTV. No amount of money will get you Sunday Ticket on cable or broadcast.
Yes, you are correct. However, it's my belief that an established digital distribution system will encourage other companies to start making digital distributions available. It is also my belief that the only way a digital distribution system will become established is by being used. Additionally, the more it's used the more userfriendly it is likely to become. And as long as it took for Steam to authenticate my download, it was still significantly shorter and easier than a trip to the store.
To me, Steam is a lot like iTunes, except that it only has one artist. Luckily, it's quite a popular artist.
Hmm... Steam saved me an hour of driving and having to deal with the crowds at the somewhat local EB. It saved the environment from having to deal with 5 unnecessary disks of metal and plastic and a useless cardboard box.
All in all, I found it to be extremely convenient and I wish other games were available through it.
That was my experience as well. In fact, before giving Valve any money, I went and tested the 'Get Lost Password' process to make sure I wouldn't be locked out if I switched computers. Granted, I tested the day *before* the release of HL2, but everything worked simply and quickly.
That's not how I read it. As I read it, the Republicans who felt they should get the job were "members of the Republican party". There are several million of them, just as there are several million Democrats. I don't think he was talking about the actual politicians.
I'm not sure what part of this is corruption... the MPAA is, partially, a lobbying group for the motion picture industry. Why should they not consider the makeup of the government to which they will lobby when deciding who should head their organization?
I'm not trying to flame, I think this is a valid discussion. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.
Why should the EB employees try to prevent their purchase? Is there a law that regulates video game sales?
A 12-year-old cannot hold a job. Any money that kid gets to purchase video games comes from parents (or friends and relatives on gift-giving occasions). If the parents of these kids don't care where the kids spend their money, why should the clerk at the game store?
On the other hand, if EB decided to post a policy of not selling M rated games to people under 18, and not selling games rated T to kids under 13, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And if they did have that posted policy, then they should enforce it. I'm guessing there are two reasons they don't do this. First, they make money on kids with lazy parents, and two, they don't want to open themselves up to liability from litigious parents.
though for some reason I don't feel like jacking everybody.
I noticed that as well. I attribute it to the fact that you start the game in your own neighborhood. I kinda would feel bad about stealing cars from my next door neighbors.
reminds me of my high-school calculus exam... I did all the work correctly on my scratch paper, then incorrectly transcribed the answer onto the answer sheet.
1) putting a music file up for graps on a P2P network is not "a private conversation". You are explicitly making that file publicly available, ie distributing copyrighted material without permission. Distributing copyrighted material without permission is against the law. Whether it's the RIAA or the police, someone is going to find out who you are.
2) comparing the casual sharing of mix tapes to sharing a file on Kazaa is silly. Putting a file on Kazaa is like standing in the middle of a shopping mall and handing out a CD to everyone who walks by.
Although this might improve accountability, this would drive the small investor right out of the stock market.
There is no entitlement to double-digit gains in the market. If you want to achieve gains in the market, you'd have to do 2 things:
1. Take the risk that you'd lose the money, just as you do today.
2. Pay attention to what your money is doing. If the corporation is behaving badly, PULL YOUR MONEY OUT. Nothing motivates corporate types like investors running the other way.
While there is risk, the current maximum risk (on long positions, at least), is limited to the amount of money you put into the market. I didn't hear any mention of a limit to the liability of the stockholders under the Libertarian system. If the company gets sued, not only will you lose your investment (because the stock price would tank), but you'd lose whatever (unknown, unlimited) amount you were being sued for.
Second, even if you put your money invested in a historically safe company, you have no control over the actions of that company (assuming you're an outside investor). If OrganicGreenGardens, Inc (OGG) suddenly starts dumping dangerous chemicals into its watermelon patch, you're not going to know about it until the company starts being sued by the relatives of the people that die from eating the contaminated watermelons. And by then it's too late to pull your money out.
The region isn't disputed by India and Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan "know" that the territory belongs to them. It's just a matter of convincing everyone else that they are right.
I'm suddenly reminded of the mid-80's when radio stations were all trumpeting the fact that they were moving to '100% CD Quality Music' instead of those noisy tapes and records. Between the reception issues and the road noise (in the car, where most people listen to music), there's no way anyone could tell the difference.
No. We live in a surveillance nation. Everyone has video capture devices on everythign from phones to regular cameras. I would rather have PUBLIC places made as difficult as possible for the bad guys blend in with everyone else (those who are living in a civil society AND being civil.)
The phrase you're looking for is "police state". Examples include East Germany, the former Soviet Union, China, Argentina under military rule several years ago, Cuba, etc.
Or were you expecting those magic surveillance cameras to be able to pick out only those people who were actually on their way to blow up a building, ignoring the non-violent protesters, political opponents, loitering teenagers wearing black...
Umm, not to be a jerk or anything, but the OP wasn't talking about "in your house". I believe the specific phrase, right there in the title of the message, was "when you're out in public".
I can easily find at least 3 places where I can buy a gun within a 20 minute drive of my house. Since I'm not actually in the market for a firearm, I haven't been keeping up very well with the limits placed on purchasing/owning one. Here's what I do know: convicted felons can't buy a gun (or perhaps just convicted violent felons, I'm not sure), in some locales, you can't carry a concealed weapon, and there are certain classes of weapons (assault rifles, fully automatic weapons) that you can't legally purchase. Additionally, there are background checks and waiting periods.
Do you consider these limits unreasonable? Are there other limits in place that you consider unreasonable?
The article also says that they know of no active volcanoes. Therefore, there are no currently "known" ways of producing ammonia. Of course, they haven't discovered Life yet either.
Re:You want to talk chilling free speech...
on
Testing ISP Censorship
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sure, I'll speak to this.
Brigitte Bardot is apparently an ignorant bigot.
Ignorant bigots have a right to spout their ignorant bigotry, just as I have a right to tell them they sound like ignorant bigots.
I can't speak for all of them, but this member of "the MoveOn Crowd" would be opposed to this fine if it occurred in the US. MoveOn is not an international organization, however. Call Amnesty International.
(I will, however, take issue with you calling a relatively small fine a "human rights abuse." I don't recall any jail time, torture, or loss of liberty being mentioned in the article.)
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC (and IANAL), one of the few holes punched in EULA's is that they *can't* prevent you from selling your copy of the software, provided you destroy all local copies of the code, documentation, etc. How this applies to a "service" like Steam, I'm not sure.
OTOH, if Valve sued you for selling your legally purchased copy, I wonder if you could counter-sue for libel... after all, it is damaging to your reputation to have people claim you are trafficing in stolen goods or credit cards.
Then Blizzard sues them for copyright infringement. By default, you don't actually have the right to run Blizzard's software. It's copyrighted, which means you can't copy it (for example, to your hard drive during install), without their permission. So if Joe never read or agreed to the EULA, then he "copied" the software without permission.
Personally, I only half agree. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But I don't believe that gives you the right to "steal" it.
Damnit! Now I'm hungry.
Hmm... if you're going to refute broadcasting monopolies, bring up "NFL Sunday Ticket" might not be the best tactic. "NFL Sunday Ticket" is exclusively licensed to DirectTV. No amount of money will get you Sunday Ticket on cable or broadcast.
That was an option before I bought it and spent my money and time on it. I did my part of the bargain, they didnt. I now deserve compensation.
Wait, didn't you say you returned the game? Did you not get a full refund? What other compensation do you think you deserve?
Yes, you are correct. However, it's my belief that an established digital distribution system will encourage other companies to start making digital distributions available. It is also my belief that the only way a digital distribution system will become established is by being used. Additionally, the more it's used the more userfriendly it is likely to become. And as long as it took for Steam to authenticate my download, it was still significantly shorter and easier than a trip to the store.
To me, Steam is a lot like iTunes, except that it only has one artist. Luckily, it's quite a popular artist.
Hmm... Steam saved me an hour of driving and having to deal with the crowds at the somewhat local EB. It saved the environment from having to deal with 5 unnecessary disks of metal and plastic and a useless cardboard box.
All in all, I found it to be extremely convenient and I wish other games were available through it.
That was my experience as well. In fact, before giving Valve any money, I went and tested the 'Get Lost Password' process to make sure I wouldn't be locked out if I switched computers. Granted, I tested the day *before* the release of HL2, but everything worked simply and quickly.
That's not how I read it. As I read it, the Republicans who felt they should get the job were "members of the Republican party". There are several million of them, just as there are several million Democrats. I don't think he was talking about the actual politicians.
I'm not sure what part of this is corruption... the MPAA is, partially, a lobbying group for the motion picture industry. Why should they not consider the makeup of the government to which they will lobby when deciding who should head their organization?
I'm not trying to flame, I think this is a valid discussion. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.
Why should the EB employees try to prevent their purchase? Is there a law that regulates video game sales?
A 12-year-old cannot hold a job. Any money that kid gets to purchase video games comes from parents (or friends and relatives on gift-giving occasions). If the parents of these kids don't care where the kids spend their money, why should the clerk at the game store?
On the other hand, if EB decided to post a policy of not selling M rated games to people under 18, and not selling games rated T to kids under 13, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And if they did have that posted policy, then they should enforce it. I'm guessing there are two reasons they don't do this. First, they make money on kids with lazy parents, and two, they don't want to open themselves up to liability from litigious parents.
though for some reason I don't feel like jacking everybody.
I noticed that as well. I attribute it to the fact that you start the game in your own neighborhood. I kinda would feel bad about stealing cars from my next door neighbors.
as in the previous games, it looks like the entire police department is made up of the homicide division... no traffic rules enforcement at all.
reminds me of my high-school calculus exam... I did all the work correctly on my scratch paper, then incorrectly transcribed the answer onto the answer sheet.
Two things:
1) putting a music file up for graps on a P2P network is not "a private conversation". You are explicitly making that file publicly available, ie distributing copyrighted material without permission. Distributing copyrighted material without permission is against the law. Whether it's the RIAA or the police, someone is going to find out who you are.
2) comparing the casual sharing of mix tapes to sharing a file on Kazaa is silly. Putting a file on Kazaa is like standing in the middle of a shopping mall and handing out a CD to everyone who walks by.
Although this might improve accountability, this would drive the small investor right out of the stock market.
There is no entitlement to double-digit gains in the market. If you want to achieve gains in the market, you'd have to do 2 things:
1. Take the risk that you'd lose the money, just as you do today.
2. Pay attention to what your money is doing. If the corporation is behaving badly, PULL YOUR MONEY OUT. Nothing motivates corporate types like investors running the other way.
While there is risk, the current maximum risk (on long positions, at least), is limited to the amount of money you put into the market. I didn't hear any mention of a limit to the liability of the stockholders under the Libertarian system. If the company gets sued, not only will you lose your investment (because the stock price would tank), but you'd lose whatever (unknown, unlimited) amount you were being sued for.
Second, even if you put your money invested in a historically safe company, you have no control over the actions of that company (assuming you're an outside investor). If OrganicGreenGardens, Inc (OGG) suddenly starts dumping dangerous chemicals into its watermelon patch, you're not going to know about it until the company starts being sued by the relatives of the people that die from eating the contaminated watermelons. And by then it's too late to pull your money out.
The region isn't disputed by India and Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan "know" that the territory belongs to them. It's just a matter of convincing everyone else that they are right.
I'm suddenly reminded of the mid-80's when radio stations were all trumpeting the fact that they were moving to '100% CD Quality Music' instead of those noisy tapes and records. Between the reception issues and the road noise (in the car, where most people listen to music), there's no way anyone could tell the difference.
No. We live in a surveillance nation. Everyone has video capture devices on everythign from phones to regular cameras. I would rather have PUBLIC places made as difficult as possible for the bad guys blend in with everyone else (those who are living in a civil society AND being civil.)
The phrase you're looking for is "police state". Examples include East Germany, the former Soviet Union, China, Argentina under military rule several years ago, Cuba, etc.
Or were you expecting those magic surveillance cameras to be able to pick out only those people who were actually on their way to blow up a building, ignoring the non-violent protesters, political opponents, loitering teenagers wearing black...
Umm, not to be a jerk or anything, but the OP wasn't talking about "in your house". I believe the specific phrase, right there in the title of the message, was "when you're out in public".
oh hell, what am I doing...
I can easily find at least 3 places where I can buy a gun within a 20 minute drive of my house. Since I'm not actually in the market for a firearm, I haven't been keeping up very well with the limits placed on purchasing/owning one. Here's what I do know: convicted felons can't buy a gun (or perhaps just convicted violent felons, I'm not sure), in some locales, you can't carry a concealed weapon, and there are certain classes of weapons (assault rifles, fully automatic weapons) that you can't legally purchase. Additionally, there are background checks and waiting periods.
Do you consider these limits unreasonable? Are there other limits in place that you consider unreasonable?
What is this "reduced price" I'm reading about? It looks like an iPod with more space than I need will still cost $299.
The article also says that they know of no active volcanoes. Therefore, there are no currently "known" ways of producing ammonia. Of course, they haven't discovered Life yet either.
Sure, I'll speak to this.
Brigitte Bardot is apparently an ignorant bigot.
Ignorant bigots have a right to spout their ignorant bigotry, just as I have a right to tell them they sound like ignorant bigots.
I can't speak for all of them, but this member of "the MoveOn Crowd" would be opposed to this fine if it occurred in the US. MoveOn is not an international organization, however. Call Amnesty International.
(I will, however, take issue with you calling a relatively small fine a "human rights abuse." I don't recall any jail time, torture, or loss of liberty being mentioned in the article.)