Anyone that ignorant of how every major operating system measures space shouldn't be manufacturing computer products.
Or, admit that they're lying trying to make it sound better. Yes, everyone is. Doesn't excuse it though. They know what consumers mean by 1GB, enough to put wording on the box explaining they're not using the standard meaning. Too bad this is only Seagate, the whole industry needs this.
Ditto CRT sizes. I'm glad we're all moving the LCDs because they aren't allowed to lie about the visible size like with monitors. (oh, not lie, just print one entirely misleading thing and the least noticable * mark to indicate that it doesn't really mean what it says. But no, not lie...)
You keep the insults coming, I think the title is yours, bridge god.
Okay, if my crimes are clear, have me arrested for it. Go for it. I'm not going to try to pretend I didn't say it. If Valve disables a product that they let me sold to me, I'll consider it similar to if they stole it from me. At that, I'm going to laugh at any thief who gets his car torched by someone he stole from. I'll consider it deserved. I wouldn't hold it against someone who did it. Go call those cops. End my crime wave!
And yes, my... panties... are full of sand. Very astute. I want companies to have to play by the laws they claim to support. I can understand how, because you're a fanboy, this doesn't sit well. However, I'd feel the same way about any company that stole from their customers. Imagine not being a Mac fanboy for a minute and listening to this criticism of Apple without screaming. Oh, replace HL2 and Valve. But otherwise you've got it.
You keep harping on about licenses. I highly doubt you've read anything about copyright law, like the exemption for copies required to make software work. That was done specifically because businesses sold software that they then turned around and claimed the user didn't have a right to - aha, you've got it but can't use it. That's what you're claiming. Well that exemption was added to combat that. Do you see why I don't think it's licensed? A whole section of a major law rewritten to include a very clear exemption for the express purpose of closing a loophole. That's not very accidental, it's hard to say it means something else.
Finally the doctrine of first sale means that they can't attach any further restrictions. None. Everything else is specified by copyright law, etc. You can't duplicate it, publicly perform it, kill someone with it, etc. None of those restrictions come from the publisher.
Please do at least a little research. Explain why a EULA for software would be binding, but not for a book. Explain how this is so, despite copyright law saying I don't need a license for software. Explain how I ended up licensing something, despite it being impossible to enter into a contract unwittingly, and why it's not a sale like everything else I bought in the same sale at the checkout.
Or keep trolling because you don't like my opinion.
Your copy of TF2 will keep working until Valve goes out of business. Or until they sell a new one and stop supporting the old one. My DVD of UT2004 will keep working (especially after copying to the HD) even if Epic goes out of business. And yeah, I've heard the lie that they're going to remove the key server code when they're tanking... Sure. Locked out of the building and not paid for two weeks, their coders are going to put in one last push to help the users. Not only that, but if they're going out of business Steam will belong to the company who buys them, even if they have no intention of supporting Steam games they certainly aren't going to take kindly to someone removing that future option.
Their peers are students - but their articles are being reviewed by a professor. So no, it's not peer review.
You act like this one, perhaps slightly low quality article, is going to break Wikipedia. This is how articles start. Sometimes people who don't know much about the subject write the structure to better entice an expert to stay and fix it up. Eventually other people will read it, and get this, they can edit the page too. It doesn't have to be perfect at the start, it's an iterative process. Collaborative too, people who take that student's work and expand upon it.
Maybe you should check out this Wikipedia thing. It's not quite as fragile as you think, it's already got a few articles.
Who cares what the box says!? They don't have the legal right to make that limitation.
Sale. You remember I mentioned that thing. That's when the rights transfer to the purchaser and they're allowed to use the software however they wish. They wish to use it outside of Thailand. It's that simple.
As for my crimes, I think it's a little hard to incite a riot while sitting calmly thousands of miles from you discussing what I feel are reasonable outcomes. Ditto on Vandalism, and I haven't bought a Valve product since Steam so I'm not personally motivated. It's not a conspiracy to commit a crime either because you aren't a confederate and we aren't planning. Maybe conspiracy to ruin their stock price? I'm sure you'll keep trying.
Really, it's just a statement of opinion. You know, "if Bob breaks something of Alice's, Alice should demand that Bob lose something of equal value". Unfortunately for you, you live in a country where those aren't illegal.
I'd prefer the statement be noticed by someone at Valve though. I'd prefer that one of them would have the guts to explain how they sold the rights to something but then sabotaged it later, and they thought this was a good idea. Then I'd like that person to explain why they don't think their foreign car should be taken away despite their anti-globalization stance.
I want to hear their rationale on why their property rights are more important than yours.
And this statement shows you where your true colors are. Anyone with an ounce of moral integrity knows that two wrongs don't make a right, but when you are percieved to be wronged by a company, you have no second thoughts about reacting violently through vandalism. It really undermines your position, and has sociopathic undertones, so I'm expecting you'll reply with "Oh come on, I didn't really mean that." which places you squarely with the rest of the internet tough-guy population.
Not at all. My only real problem with the flaming brick is logistics. There are a lot of gamers, few developers, fewer still cars, it's hard to tell which car belong to which person, etc. But over all, no. They had to intend to take $15 per gamer. They knew their actions would terminate a legal product and they didn't care about the results of that. No consequence to them, and even if they did get sued they'd just pay later. The only really fair thing for a thief is to lose their possessions.
If anything it's sociopathic to live in a society where offenses aren't punished, where people can behave anti-socially and not be corrected. You get a society of people who hate everyone around them because it feels that everyone is trying to screw them over.
Instead witness subtle correction. I've seen people shove their way onto transit to get a seat, I've also seen people become aware of this and stand like perfect walls blocking the offender from their seat. Technically it's probably assault or some crime to stand where someone wants to be and not let them through, but there's nothing funnier than seeing someone try to shove between an intentionally clueless wall of people who don't notice their discomfort. Especially as someone from the other end walks up and calmly takes the seat they've been shoving people to get to. Watching this makes everyone feel better because they know that there's a society of other people who expect polite behavior - they don't feel like they're suckers, being nice to everyone as they get shit on. So in the end it makes everyone nicer and only costs the villain their goal for the day.
I've seen people use the breaking your property tactic and it seems to work really well, but it's only legal on children because they don't own their things. But nothing says 'No' like grabbing the toy someone stole from someone else, returning it, and penalizing the offender a toy of their own.
If it was worth them stealing over, it seems that it must be important enough to punish them for. It's not like this was an accident, where unknown to them thousands of products started malfunctioning. This was a calculated business decision. This is the corporate version of someone shoving everyone away in their mad rush for a seat. Shooting them or beating them up seems beyond reasonable, but merely taking things equal in value to what they stole and breaking them to take away the benefits of their actions seems of a similar scope.
That a company can get together and plan something that should be illegal and then act on it, paying restitution only years later if everyone manages to band together... Sorry, not enough. People in the companies are shielded from the consequences of their actions and thus can be as unreasonable as they wish. Nobody has their home number, nobody knows where they live and can refuse to deal with them in their neighborhood. Like with a squad of executioners, some with blanks, nobody has to take real responsibility for what they're doing.
Sure, losing your game via Steam isn't a big deal, but letting you play wouldn't have been a big deal either. It was only $15, but if that wasn't a big deal, why did Valve have to step in and profit on it? (I notice they pocketed the money from the Thai copies they disabled.) Having their stuff be revoked would be the only punishment that fit the crime.
In theory I support the death penalty. No need for a murderer to live. But in practice I do not, because it's too hard judging that murderer properly and identifying them accura
Well, in Oblivion, the main quest does suck for a lot of reasons. Not terminally, but in little console-friendly ways. The levelling in the whole game means that the Soldiers are in front of Kvatch from the time you're level 2 until the time you're level 20, still at a standstill, but with bigger monsters.
And where do they get off having the main quest be one for the fate of the world, run, run, run, or go off and collect side quests for a while, do totally irrelevant things, then have the characters saying 'We need to hurry' just before you abandon them for another few months.
They picked a plot suited for a game on rails, ran your on rails through the intro, and then give you total freedom to make the demon hordes wait simply by not choosing to fight yet.
Maybe they should have picked slightly less apocalyptic things, or something that was central to the character so that it was obvious why it wasn't progressing when you weren't there.
Oh, and where did those bandits get their glass armor? I was off raiding ancient elven ruins, they never leave their camps...
Good luck. Though nothing you're going to get from this could come close to what they've cost. I'd like to see Vilana get the book thrown at him over the blatant lies re: notarized receipts, but it'll never happen. Even if you stood to make something from this they'd just fold that crooked shell company and found another. Now that, apparently, your suit against Andrew himself is dismissed, he seems to be free to lie and use his company's funds to fight a spiteful legal battle against you.
And you've done pretty much everything reasonable.
Anyways, congrats at hopefully getting a measure of safety from this litigious asshole.
Copyright law gives you the right to use software without a license.
Furthermore, it was sold. Cash for product swaps are sales. You'd know if you licensed something, you'd *have* to. You can't enter into a valid contract unless you know it. Nobody has *ever* told me when I've gone to buy software that it's a license. That means it's not.
You're just trolling. Nobody could honestly believe a piece of paper inside the box is going to have legal weight on the previous sale of that box, or the goods in it.
Who told you that you only bought the license? Seriously. Think way back. Any chance it was a software company? Have you ever looked at US copyright law for example where it specifically explains that copying which is required to use a work (from CD to HD, to RAM, etc) is allowed.
If that's legal, why would you bother signing an agreement to let you do it?
If the EULA isn't required and has no legal weight, skipping it or answering whatever you wish isn't 'assent'.
Show me what law makes a EULA valid. If you can do that without trolling I'll take you seriously and explain more about the damages you'd be liable for if you sold me something and then broke it as soon as I had taken possession.
I've got thousands of photos on my site, many of which have been used in Fark photoshops, a couple have even had elements borrowed in Worth1000 photoshops. Now you're teasing me because of my beard. Oh eek - I never noticed that I have one, or that non-beard wearers get jealous. Oh woe is me!
There's hundreds of years of precedent. It's obvious. Do you think we need new precedent anytime the box color changes?
Copyright law specifically gives you the right to use software without licensing it, even if the software purports to work differently.
If you think companies aren't in the business of getting sued you'd better look again. They'll do anything they can as long as the court case would be cheaper than not doing it. When it looks like they'll lose, they settle.
It's foolproof unless the customers have millions to fight back with.
That's why I suggested hucking a flaming brick through the windows of their foreign cars. Nobody at the company is going to notice a lawsuit, but if you revoked their foreign products something might happen. Fighting them in court is one way, but personally I think justice would be handled better if everyone who got screwed by them screwed them back - the court system doesn't penalize companies effectively.
Quake is a viable game even though everyone gets to use the same maps and weapons.
It's just a fact that anyone who plays CCG type games where the point is to have stuff the other people don't have, is a total prick.
The game would be more fun if they dropped this stupid expensive card shit and simply let people build decks out of everything that existed. What, they can't be money grubbing assholes that way? Well, damn. Breaks my heart.
Except that in Poker everyone plays from an identical deck. Imagine if poker started with the richest guy having a larger pocket of cards. That'd sure be a fun game.
Anyone who plays CCGs with friends and doesn't print out rare cards is an idiot. The game as all about stacking the deck so that the people who spend more have better odds - anyone who doesn't like you copying cards is a douche who's relying on his large stack of rares.
You bought a car with a system like OnStar. The dealer is trying to extort another $5000 out of you or they'll remotely disable your car and claim it was your fault for some clause in the manual about ISO-3818.45r3 sparkplugs. Which law are they breaking. Go! This is a test.
I don't know why you'd assume I'd region lock my consulting. That implies that I'd want the benefits I provide to go away when they move. Perhaps you mean like fingerprint their systems and make it break when they change something, like Microsoft does?
I actually provide the opposite service. You make the changes and break things, I come in and fix them. I have a hard time seeing how I'd make the ethical leap from there to sabotaging these clients in order for some captive sales. Even if this would pay off for me, I wouldn't do it to others.
I also provide software, both custom installs and whole custom applications. If I'd wanted to lock anything in any way I could have. I gave the clients full source code and unlimited usage rights. Why would I want to waste time writing legal restrictions, code to check for violations, and DRM to enforce these restrictions, when I could just charge as much as I want to make and be done with it?
I might be able to eke a little bit more money out of clients, but I'm proud of how I'm reducing the financial friction in society. Systems run smoother, cheaper, longer. I wouldn't crap on that with DRM (or I'd be just like you.)
But it was sold. That's the point. Software companies would like to license their software but they don't. It's too expensive because one of the parts of licensing is having a reasonable belief that the person you're contracting with understands the contract. Sales all work alike so it's much easier to just go with the generic sale model.
And that's what's so evil about EULAs. They're hidden contracts, often 20+ pages ones written for lawyers, that claim to dramatically change the nature of what appears to be a sale. Nobody reads them, it would take hours to do one justice as a legal document, and yet we pretend that putting this document in a box changes the legal nature of the transaction? Hah. The only parts of EULAs that have been held up are the most basic ones that people have ended up knowing about through other means (ProCD).
In most ways this is a normal sale. What elements are there that you think justify the seller remotely disabling the product? Just the EULA? That's far from untested actually. They used to have them in books to control resale - so as not to cut into new sales. You may have noticed that we don't have these anymore. And not out of a sense of goodness in the publishers. They were ruled unenforceable and the doctrine of first sale arouse out of this. The seller gives up all rights to the product at the point of first sale. If they don't like this they don't sell things, they license them. If you've ever been through a corporate software licensing you'd know that it's an event that's impossible to forget - you can be very sure than one is not going on in the checkout line at Best Buy. If you don't know you're licensing something then by the fundamental principles of contracts, you can not be a capable signer.
EULAs are a shaky principle, one worthy perhaps of steering something into arbitration before court, or limiting your privacy rights towards character data, etc. They certainly do not override fundamentals of ownership.
If I answer you, will you just ask yet another nitpicking question? It's obvious that if you remotely disable something I own that it would be actionable. This should be obvious to almost anyone. All I can figure is that you're trolling.
If the action is legal (such as Valve's running a key server) but injurious as it deprives someone of their product unlawfully, it would be 'Conversion'.
It could be fraud. They did sell something that is substantially different than what you'd expect. They purport to sell a game, you get the potential ability to install a game instead of a game itself. Very different things.
Look around for yourself. If you're not trolling you should be able to understand what they're doing here. They simply don't have a legal right to do these things - they sold those rights.
Under the not selling shit that doesn't do anything act.
They sold a full working copy of the Orange Box. They're trying to say that you can't use it because your serial number isn't authorized to. That's nonsense. You own it, you're authorized to use it.
They're trying to tack on a post-sale restriction which is 'this must be used in Thailand'. We get it. But there's no legal support for that. Their DRM is interference with the legal use of a legally owned product which Valve knowingly sold and thus gave up all rights to.
That's where it gets illegal. They can say whatever they want on the box, but when they include a remote-disable trigger then they didn't really sell the game. That would be fine if they had licensed it to the users, but they didn't. They sold it to someone who sold it to users. In a legal sense, the user hasn't dealt with Valve. Valve has no legal right to go disabling the user's property.
Many authors are unhappy with the use made of their works, but copyright only lets them stop counterfeiting not purchase or use by people they simply dislike or economically discriminate against.
Why does Valve deserve special legal protection that Coke and Nike don't get? When they sell products in the developing world they have to lower their prices to compete, as does Valve, but they have to do it carefully so as not to ruin their expensive markets. Nike can't just forbid the importation of a legitimately made shoe, so they have different styles and put localized text on them to make foreign versions unattractive. Sure, they'd love to get the government to mandate a bunch of special rules on who was allowed to import them to where and such, but that's corporate welfare. They get to play in the global pool, so they have to deal with middle-men whose entire goal in life is to minimize the difference in price between markets.
Valve deserves no special breaks just because Portal is a cool concept. Should we let id Software break a few laws just because Quake rocked?
Sigh. Selling something for different prices isn't illegal. Terminating those products because the wrong person ended up with them is.
If you sold a car for %20 less to a senior citizen he could turn around and sell it to me for %10 less. If you then sabotaged the car to prevent the sale, you'd have broken the law.
That's what Valve did. They made identical versions of the software and sold some for a high price, and some for a low. When the people who'd bought a low-price copy resold theirs Valve terminated it.
Oops. That's illegal - they don't own the rights to it anymore.
I will vote with my wallet. I haven't bought a Valve game in years and now I certainly won't. DRM is the kiss of death - those who use DRM are all scum.
That might not matter, but hopefully someone will realize for what I'm saying that Valve actions seem scummy because they're exactly what the MPAA would do. That these people are thieves. They might have fancy justifications about how their theft is supposed to support cheaper copies, but they're still remotely disabling legitimate products.
Microsoft would have spoken to their lawyers before writing an EULA - obviously the poor enforceability didn't stop them. They realized that some people could be bullied regardless of the legality.
As for illegality, if I buy a legit product and it's disable remotely, that's illegal.
The Thai version is a legit product. Valve sold it, the reseller resold it. Maybe the reseller violated a contract - Valve might choose not to deal with them again, but the customers have non-counterfeit copies of a game which they paid for. Disabling these remotely is criminal.
If it means 'SUGGESTED DONATION' then you're okay with people walking past and paying less. You made a suggestion, they decided otherwise. Maybe someone would look cheap, but that's not a crime. If you *need* money, don't use the word suggested.
I know what Valve is doing. (But I find it disingenious the Fanbois keep saying they're doing this to help the poor Thais and how everyone else understands that like every other company since the beginning of time they're simply trying to reach a larger market.) That doesn't mean that I have support them breaking the law to do it.
Once I buy something, for the full price or not, from an authorized reseller or not, I have full legal title to it. You don't have the right to disable the product simply because you don't like how I got it.
Valve broke the law when they tried to enforce their scheme.
If they really want to help the poor they wouldn't try a region locking system - what about the rich Thais and the poor North Americans. They'd introduce the 'welfare version' and simple put 'Welfare Version - PlayerName' in the player name field. Nobody would want to be seen using the welfare version (not donating the $10) unless they were poor. That would actually give poor people the ability to buy a poor copy, the rich the ability to buy the regular (even if they were in Thailand) and wouldn't do anything but apply a little social pressure to the cheapskates. That would achieve the goals they tell you they're going for. But they won't do that - a non-fanboy might wonder if that's because they're lying about their goals.
The side of the box is irrelevant. The product in it could work in North America except for DRM. Like a Region 2 movie.
We know where they want us to have it. We know where the MPAA wants us to watch Region 2 DVDs. But nobody cares because they don't have the right to tell us what we can watch and where.
The same with Valve. We all know why they want to differentiate products. We understand that they want more money. But there's no law on their side so nobody cares.
If I buy a DVD I watch it where I wish, North America or Japan, on whatever player I wish. I know the studios would prefer that I buy multiple versions of movies and watch them only on "legit" players that force me to watch previews, etc. Just like I know Valve would prefer that I buy the 'proper' version.
Yes, Valve is breaking the law. They sold the product - they can't interfere with its usage and using DRM to prevent its legal use is interference. Try similar analogies anywhere else - you bought a product and it's kept from being activated because the seller doesn't approve of your usage. Obviously a sale doesn't let the seller maintain those rights, so if they try to they're violating the implied contract of sale. A short form is that they are breaking the law.
It's funny how fanboys like yourself throw away all decency, leaning to insults, all common sense, supporting actions like the MPAA's, and all willingness to investigate something for yourself just because a company that makes a game you like is involved. Yay Valve - their programmers made Portal so their management can do no wrong. If this was any company other than your favorite gaming company we wouldn't be having this discussion - it's only your fanboy personality that can't admit you're on the wrong side.
That doesn't matter. That's what I was trying to say. No matter how you got it, as long as it's not counterfeit, it's totally legal to have. These weren't - they had legit keys, they just weren't the ones Valve wanted these people to have because they thought they could be forced to pay more.
If something is sold outside of a specific agreement (before release date, in the wrong area, etc) that's a contract dispute with the reseller, not a reason to remotely disable the product. The consumer isn't legally at fault - they're allowed to do everything they did.
This is an interesting case, DRM is preventing legal usage which means that cracks for this should now be legal, it's handy that they'll probably also crack everything Valve's ever made. Fitting punishment for a company that would make the customer eat the cost. Willingness to screw someone over for 'only' $15 is still willingness to screw people over. If they didn't want to be thieves instead of just blocking keys they could have refunded customers. (Before this blew up into a media scandal - whatever they do now they've already shown their true colors.)
You're so dumb it almost hurts watching the world assrape you.
Valve would still like them to be able to play too without spending half a weeks wages on the game...
Translation: "Like everyone else, Valve would prefer a wider market."
The only companies that got bit by this are ones that tried to take an identical product, slap two vastly different price-tags on them, and hope nobody noticed.
Legitimate software companies - you know, ones that don't break the law - differentiate the versions by, and here's just one way, making them in the localized language so that they become less attractive to people merely looking to save a dollar.
Ethically loose people like you are a real problem. Anything is okay as long as you like the people who do it. It doesn't matter that you'd be up in arms if Microsoft was remotely disabling software, it's Valve doing it so it must be okay. It doesn't matter that they're using DRM like movie studios, they made Portal so it must be okay.
Oh my. You saw a photo of me? Like, one of the thousands I put on my website. People can see those? How terrible. And I was doing something unconventional and you saw an opportunity to poke fun. How original. You truly are one of the comic greats.
Hey, even if I was as ugly as you make me out to be, at least I'd be proud I'm not you. Insulting instead of backing up his opinions with words. It wasn't even on topic, just a cheap shot because you had no point.
If I walk up to you on the street and give you software, you obviously didn't license it and as such have no obligations. If you purchase it from me the same rules apply. An implied contract of purchase does not allow for remote disabling. That's why if you buy some things you have to sign a contract that spells out the specifics. With this software you didn't, so none of those type of rules could apply.
That means that if you had a student copy of something you could do whatever you wanted with it. Supposedly they're meant to be licensed with special restrictions and if you try to purchase student copies of MS's software through the website they might detail this, but in campus stores student editions are simply another product to be sold to anyone with a student card. The store presumably licenses this with Microsoft. The students, having purchased yet another product are under no obligation to anyone.
Microsoft might not like the idea that a person who speaks Thai could buy a cheap copy of Windows and use it in the USA but they know they couldn't disable it. That's why they simply make it use the Thai language - it's enough of a deterrent for people who are just trying to save money and yet it doesn't hurt legitimate users.
Valve on the other hand took a product that was working and disabled it. They might not like that these customers legally purchased this and shipped it internationally but it's a legal (not counterfeit) copy so they have no right to complain. The law - not just a good idea.
We know why they're selling overseas, it's to reach a larger market. And we get why they want to have different prices. But none of that requires anyone else to play along. It's like razor companies with their famous loss-leader marketing model of overcharging for refills. Nothing stops a consumer from buying the cheap kit with handle every time. You take your chances in business, making products appeal to various people.
I run a computer consulting company and it'd be really handy if everyone would agree not to hire any overseas competitors. That'd keep me from having to compete on prices. Does this obligate you to please me? If not, why am I obligated to put up with their actually illegal actions to enforce their cushier profits?
The product as sold would run perfectly without Steam's DRM. It's perfectly legal to buy and to own the product, so Steam's DRM is preventing the use of something which is legal to own and use.
This is all too common. Someone gets an idea for how to make money that isn't supported by the law, but they expect everyone else to bend over backwards to protect them, usually while they do something underhanded like disable keys and force people to buy new copies. This is the idea that wanting to make a profit entitles you to pass your own laws, break existing ones, and defraud people.
How about them pursuing this in the proper fashion? If they think that importing the games is actionable (and they'll be sorely mistaken, but it's their dime) they should sue people who do it. Put the question to the courts. Get a court order before they try to remotely disable the software.
As is, they're simply refusing to provide the product they've advertised. It might be a 'for Thailand' version, but the law doesn't allow them to keep it there. They can't do this. They're breaking the law.
Do you understand?
This is simple. It's not about liking Valve, giving a shit about how long they spent working on the game or anything else. It's *all* about them illegally terminating a legal product.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone that ignorant of how every major operating system measures space shouldn't be manufacturing computer products.
Or, admit that they're lying trying to make it sound better. Yes, everyone is. Doesn't excuse it though. They know what consumers mean by 1GB, enough to put wording on the box explaining they're not using the standard meaning. Too bad this is only Seagate, the whole industry needs this.
Ditto CRT sizes. I'm glad we're all moving the LCDs because they aren't allowed to lie about the visible size like with monitors. (oh, not lie, just print one entirely misleading thing and the least noticable * mark to indicate that it doesn't really mean what it says. But no, not lie...)
You keep the insults coming, I think the title is yours, bridge god.
... panties... are full of sand. Very astute. I want companies to have to play by the laws they claim to support. I can understand how, because you're a fanboy, this doesn't sit well. However, I'd feel the same way about any company that stole from their customers. Imagine not being a Mac fanboy for a minute and listening to this criticism of Apple without screaming. Oh, replace HL2 and Valve. But otherwise you've got it.
Okay, if my crimes are clear, have me arrested for it. Go for it. I'm not going to try to pretend I didn't say it. If Valve disables a product that they let me sold to me, I'll consider it similar to if they stole it from me. At that, I'm going to laugh at any thief who gets his car torched by someone he stole from. I'll consider it deserved. I wouldn't hold it against someone who did it. Go call those cops. End my crime wave!
And yes, my
You keep harping on about licenses. I highly doubt you've read anything about copyright law, like the exemption for copies required to make software work. That was done specifically because businesses sold software that they then turned around and claimed the user didn't have a right to - aha, you've got it but can't use it. That's what you're claiming. Well that exemption was added to combat that. Do you see why I don't think it's licensed? A whole section of a major law rewritten to include a very clear exemption for the express purpose of closing a loophole. That's not very accidental, it's hard to say it means something else.
Finally the doctrine of first sale means that they can't attach any further restrictions. None. Everything else is specified by copyright law, etc. You can't duplicate it, publicly perform it, kill someone with it, etc. None of those restrictions come from the publisher.
Please do at least a little research. Explain why a EULA for software would be binding, but not for a book. Explain how this is so, despite copyright law saying I don't need a license for software. Explain how I ended up licensing something, despite it being impossible to enter into a contract unwittingly, and why it's not a sale like everything else I bought in the same sale at the checkout.
Or keep trolling because you don't like my opinion.
Your copy of TF2 will keep working until Valve goes out of business. Or until they sell a new one and stop supporting the old one. My DVD of UT2004 will keep working (especially after copying to the HD) even if Epic goes out of business. And yeah, I've heard the lie that they're going to remove the key server code when they're tanking... Sure. Locked out of the building and not paid for two weeks, their coders are going to put in one last push to help the users. Not only that, but if they're going out of business Steam will belong to the company who buys them, even if they have no intention of supporting Steam games they certainly aren't going to take kindly to someone removing that future option.
Their peers are students - but their articles are being reviewed by a professor. So no, it's not peer review.
You act like this one, perhaps slightly low quality article, is going to break Wikipedia. This is how articles start. Sometimes people who don't know much about the subject write the structure to better entice an expert to stay and fix it up. Eventually other people will read it, and get this, they can edit the page too. It doesn't have to be perfect at the start, it's an iterative process. Collaborative too, people who take that student's work and expand upon it.
Maybe you should check out this Wikipedia thing. It's not quite as fragile as you think, it's already got a few articles.
Who cares what the box says!? They don't have the legal right to make that limitation.
Sale. You remember I mentioned that thing. That's when the rights transfer to the purchaser and they're allowed to use the software however they wish. They wish to use it outside of Thailand. It's that simple.
As for my crimes, I think it's a little hard to incite a riot while sitting calmly thousands of miles from you discussing what I feel are reasonable outcomes. Ditto on Vandalism, and I haven't bought a Valve product since Steam so I'm not personally motivated. It's not a conspiracy to commit a crime either because you aren't a confederate and we aren't planning. Maybe conspiracy to ruin their stock price? I'm sure you'll keep trying.
Really, it's just a statement of opinion. You know, "if Bob breaks something of Alice's, Alice should demand that Bob lose something of equal value". Unfortunately for you, you live in a country where those aren't illegal.
I'd prefer the statement be noticed by someone at Valve though. I'd prefer that one of them would have the guts to explain how they sold the rights to something but then sabotaged it later, and they thought this was a good idea. Then I'd like that person to explain why they don't think their foreign car should be taken away despite their anti-globalization stance.
I want to hear their rationale on why their property rights are more important than yours.
And this statement shows you where your true colors are. Anyone with an ounce of moral integrity knows that two wrongs don't make a right, but when you are percieved to be wronged by a company, you have no second thoughts about reacting violently through vandalism. It really undermines your position, and has sociopathic undertones, so I'm expecting you'll reply with "Oh come on, I didn't really mean that." which places you squarely with the rest of the internet tough-guy population.
Not at all. My only real problem with the flaming brick is logistics. There are a lot of gamers, few developers, fewer still cars, it's hard to tell which car belong to which person, etc. But over all, no. They had to intend to take $15 per gamer. They knew their actions would terminate a legal product and they didn't care about the results of that. No consequence to them, and even if they did get sued they'd just pay later. The only really fair thing for a thief is to lose their possessions.
If anything it's sociopathic to live in a society where offenses aren't punished, where people can behave anti-socially and not be corrected. You get a society of people who hate everyone around them because it feels that everyone is trying to screw them over.
Instead witness subtle correction. I've seen people shove their way onto transit to get a seat, I've also seen people become aware of this and stand like perfect walls blocking the offender from their seat. Technically it's probably assault or some crime to stand where someone wants to be and not let them through, but there's nothing funnier than seeing someone try to shove between an intentionally clueless wall of people who don't notice their discomfort. Especially as someone from the other end walks up and calmly takes the seat they've been shoving people to get to. Watching this makes everyone feel better because they know that there's a society of other people who expect polite behavior - they don't feel like they're suckers, being nice to everyone as they get shit on. So in the end it makes everyone nicer and only costs the villain their goal for the day.
I've seen people use the breaking your property tactic and it seems to work really well, but it's only legal on children because they don't own their things. But nothing says 'No' like grabbing the toy someone stole from someone else, returning it, and penalizing the offender a toy of their own.
If it was worth them stealing over, it seems that it must be important enough to punish them for. It's not like this was an accident, where unknown to them thousands of products started malfunctioning. This was a calculated business decision. This is the corporate version of someone shoving everyone away in their mad rush for a seat. Shooting them or beating them up seems beyond reasonable, but merely taking things equal in value to what they stole and breaking them to take away the benefits of their actions seems of a similar scope.
That a company can get together and plan something that should be illegal and then act on it, paying restitution only years later if everyone manages to band together... Sorry, not enough. People in the companies are shielded from the consequences of their actions and thus can be as unreasonable as they wish. Nobody has their home number, nobody knows where they live and can refuse to deal with them in their neighborhood. Like with a squad of executioners, some with blanks, nobody has to take real responsibility for what they're doing.
Sure, losing your game via Steam isn't a big deal, but letting you play wouldn't have been a big deal either. It was only $15, but if that wasn't a big deal, why did Valve have to step in and profit on it? (I notice they pocketed the money from the Thai copies they disabled.) Having their stuff be revoked would be the only punishment that fit the crime.
In theory I support the death penalty. No need for a murderer to live. But in practice I do not, because it's too hard judging that murderer properly and identifying them accura
Well, in Oblivion, the main quest does suck for a lot of reasons. Not terminally, but in little console-friendly ways. The levelling in the whole game means that the Soldiers are in front of Kvatch from the time you're level 2 until the time you're level 20, still at a standstill, but with bigger monsters.
And where do they get off having the main quest be one for the fate of the world, run, run, run, or go off and collect side quests for a while, do totally irrelevant things, then have the characters saying 'We need to hurry' just before you abandon them for another few months.
They picked a plot suited for a game on rails, ran your on rails through the intro, and then give you total freedom to make the demon hordes wait simply by not choosing to fight yet.
Maybe they should have picked slightly less apocalyptic things, or something that was central to the character so that it was obvious why it wasn't progressing when you weren't there.
Oh, and where did those bandits get their glass armor? I was off raiding ancient elven ruins, they never leave their camps...
Good luck. Though nothing you're going to get from this could come close to what they've cost. I'd like to see Vilana get the book thrown at him over the blatant lies re: notarized receipts, but it'll never happen. Even if you stood to make something from this they'd just fold that crooked shell company and found another. Now that, apparently, your suit against Andrew himself is dismissed, he seems to be free to lie and use his company's funds to fight a spiteful legal battle against you.
And you've done pretty much everything reasonable.
Anyways, congrats at hopefully getting a measure of safety from this litigious asshole.
Copyright law gives you the right to use software without a license.
Furthermore, it was sold. Cash for product swaps are sales. You'd know if you licensed something, you'd *have* to. You can't enter into a valid contract unless you know it. Nobody has *ever* told me when I've gone to buy software that it's a license. That means it's not.
You're just trolling. Nobody could honestly believe a piece of paper inside the box is going to have legal weight on the previous sale of that box, or the goods in it.
Who told you that you only bought the license? Seriously. Think way back. Any chance it was a software company? Have you ever looked at US copyright law for example where it specifically explains that copying which is required to use a work (from CD to HD, to RAM, etc) is allowed.
If that's legal, why would you bother signing an agreement to let you do it?
If the EULA isn't required and has no legal weight, skipping it or answering whatever you wish isn't 'assent'.
Show me what law makes a EULA valid. If you can do that without trolling I'll take you seriously and explain more about the damages you'd be liable for if you sold me something and then broke it as soon as I had taken possession.
I've got thousands of photos on my site, many of which have been used in Fark photoshops, a couple have even had elements borrowed in Worth1000 photoshops. Now you're teasing me because of my beard. Oh eek - I never noticed that I have one, or that non-beard wearers get jealous. Oh woe is me!
There's hundreds of years of precedent. It's obvious. Do you think we need new precedent anytime the box color changes?
Copyright law specifically gives you the right to use software without licensing it, even if the software purports to work differently.
If you think companies aren't in the business of getting sued you'd better look again. They'll do anything they can as long as the court case would be cheaper than not doing it. When it looks like they'll lose, they settle.
It's foolproof unless the customers have millions to fight back with.
That's why I suggested hucking a flaming brick through the windows of their foreign cars. Nobody at the company is going to notice a lawsuit, but if you revoked their foreign products something might happen. Fighting them in court is one way, but personally I think justice would be handled better if everyone who got screwed by them screwed them back - the court system doesn't penalize companies effectively.
How do you think that this isn't already governed by commerce laws?
Do you honestly think the question of selling something and them screwing with it has never come up?
Quake is a viable game even though everyone gets to use the same maps and weapons.
It's just a fact that anyone who plays CCG type games where the point is to have stuff the other people don't have, is a total prick.
The game would be more fun if they dropped this stupid expensive card shit and simply let people build decks out of everything that existed. What, they can't be money grubbing assholes that way? Well, damn. Breaks my heart.
Except that in Poker everyone plays from an identical deck. Imagine if poker started with the richest guy having a larger pocket of cards. That'd sure be a fun game.
Anyone who plays CCGs with friends and doesn't print out rare cards is an idiot. The game as all about stacking the deck so that the people who spend more have better odds - anyone who doesn't like you copying cards is a douche who's relying on his large stack of rares.
You bought a car with a system like OnStar. The dealer is trying to extort another $5000 out of you or they'll remotely disable your car and claim it was your fault for some clause in the manual about ISO-3818.45r3 sparkplugs. Which law are they breaking. Go! This is a test.
I don't know why you'd assume I'd region lock my consulting. That implies that I'd want the benefits I provide to go away when they move. Perhaps you mean like fingerprint their systems and make it break when they change something, like Microsoft does?
I actually provide the opposite service. You make the changes and break things, I come in and fix them. I have a hard time seeing how I'd make the ethical leap from there to sabotaging these clients in order for some captive sales. Even if this would pay off for me, I wouldn't do it to others.
I also provide software, both custom installs and whole custom applications. If I'd wanted to lock anything in any way I could have. I gave the clients full source code and unlimited usage rights. Why would I want to waste time writing legal restrictions, code to check for violations, and DRM to enforce these restrictions, when I could just charge as much as I want to make and be done with it?
I might be able to eke a little bit more money out of clients, but I'm proud of how I'm reducing the financial friction in society. Systems run smoother, cheaper, longer. I wouldn't crap on that with DRM (or I'd be just like you.)
But it was sold. That's the point. Software companies would like to license their software but they don't. It's too expensive because one of the parts of licensing is having a reasonable belief that the person you're contracting with understands the contract. Sales all work alike so it's much easier to just go with the generic sale model.
And that's what's so evil about EULAs. They're hidden contracts, often 20+ pages ones written for lawyers, that claim to dramatically change the nature of what appears to be a sale. Nobody reads them, it would take hours to do one justice as a legal document, and yet we pretend that putting this document in a box changes the legal nature of the transaction? Hah. The only parts of EULAs that have been held up are the most basic ones that people have ended up knowing about through other means (ProCD).
In most ways this is a normal sale. What elements are there that you think justify the seller remotely disabling the product? Just the EULA? That's far from untested actually. They used to have them in books to control resale - so as not to cut into new sales. You may have noticed that we don't have these anymore. And not out of a sense of goodness in the publishers. They were ruled unenforceable and the doctrine of first sale arouse out of this. The seller gives up all rights to the product at the point of first sale. If they don't like this they don't sell things, they license them. If you've ever been through a corporate software licensing you'd know that it's an event that's impossible to forget - you can be very sure than one is not going on in the checkout line at Best Buy. If you don't know you're licensing something then by the fundamental principles of contracts, you can not be a capable signer.
EULAs are a shaky principle, one worthy perhaps of steering something into arbitration before court, or limiting your privacy rights towards character data, etc. They certainly do not override fundamentals of ownership.
If I answer you, will you just ask yet another nitpicking question? It's obvious that if you remotely disable something I own that it would be actionable. This should be obvious to almost anyone. All I can figure is that you're trolling.
If the action is legal (such as Valve's running a key server) but injurious as it deprives someone of their product unlawfully, it would be 'Conversion'.
It could be fraud. They did sell something that is substantially different than what you'd expect. They purport to sell a game, you get the potential ability to install a game instead of a game itself. Very different things.
Look around for yourself. If you're not trolling you should be able to understand what they're doing here. They simply don't have a legal right to do these things - they sold those rights.
Under the not selling shit that doesn't do anything act.
They sold a full working copy of the Orange Box. They're trying to say that you can't use it because your serial number isn't authorized to. That's nonsense. You own it, you're authorized to use it.
They're trying to tack on a post-sale restriction which is 'this must be used in Thailand'. We get it. But there's no legal support for that. Their DRM is interference with the legal use of a legally owned product which Valve knowingly sold and thus gave up all rights to.
That's where it gets illegal. They can say whatever they want on the box, but when they include a remote-disable trigger then they didn't really sell the game. That would be fine if they had licensed it to the users, but they didn't. They sold it to someone who sold it to users. In a legal sense, the user hasn't dealt with Valve. Valve has no legal right to go disabling the user's property.
Many authors are unhappy with the use made of their works, but copyright only lets them stop counterfeiting not purchase or use by people they simply dislike or economically discriminate against.
Why does Valve deserve special legal protection that Coke and Nike don't get? When they sell products in the developing world they have to lower their prices to compete, as does Valve, but they have to do it carefully so as not to ruin their expensive markets. Nike can't just forbid the importation of a legitimately made shoe, so they have different styles and put localized text on them to make foreign versions unattractive. Sure, they'd love to get the government to mandate a bunch of special rules on who was allowed to import them to where and such, but that's corporate welfare. They get to play in the global pool, so they have to deal with middle-men whose entire goal in life is to minimize the difference in price between markets.
Valve deserves no special breaks just because Portal is a cool concept. Should we let id Software break a few laws just because Quake rocked?
This wasn't stolen software, it merely wasn't kept within a region that Valve wished it kept within.
That's not a crime. Remotely disabling a product that is legitimate is.
Sigh. Selling something for different prices isn't illegal. Terminating those products because the wrong person ended up with them is.
If you sold a car for %20 less to a senior citizen he could turn around and sell it to me for %10 less. If you then sabotaged the car to prevent the sale, you'd have broken the law.
That's what Valve did. They made identical versions of the software and sold some for a high price, and some for a low. When the people who'd bought a low-price copy resold theirs Valve terminated it.
Oops. That's illegal - they don't own the rights to it anymore.
I will vote with my wallet. I haven't bought a Valve game in years and now I certainly won't. DRM is the kiss of death - those who use DRM are all scum.
That might not matter, but hopefully someone will realize for what I'm saying that Valve actions seem scummy because they're exactly what the MPAA would do. That these people are thieves. They might have fancy justifications about how their theft is supposed to support cheaper copies, but they're still remotely disabling legitimate products.
Microsoft would have spoken to their lawyers before writing an EULA - obviously the poor enforceability didn't stop them. They realized that some people could be bullied regardless of the legality.
As for illegality, if I buy a legit product and it's disable remotely, that's illegal.
The Thai version is a legit product. Valve sold it, the reseller resold it. Maybe the reseller violated a contract - Valve might choose not to deal with them again, but the customers have non-counterfeit copies of a game which they paid for. Disabling these remotely is criminal.
If it means 'SUGGESTED DONATION' then you're okay with people walking past and paying less. You made a suggestion, they decided otherwise. Maybe someone would look cheap, but that's not a crime. If you *need* money, don't use the word suggested.
I know what Valve is doing. (But I find it disingenious the Fanbois keep saying they're doing this to help the poor Thais and how everyone else understands that like every other company since the beginning of time they're simply trying to reach a larger market.) That doesn't mean that I have support them breaking the law to do it.
Once I buy something, for the full price or not, from an authorized reseller or not, I have full legal title to it. You don't have the right to disable the product simply because you don't like how I got it.
Valve broke the law when they tried to enforce their scheme.
If they really want to help the poor they wouldn't try a region locking system - what about the rich Thais and the poor North Americans. They'd introduce the 'welfare version' and simple put 'Welfare Version - PlayerName' in the player name field. Nobody would want to be seen using the welfare version (not donating the $10) unless they were poor. That would actually give poor people the ability to buy a poor copy, the rich the ability to buy the regular (even if they were in Thailand) and wouldn't do anything but apply a little social pressure to the cheapskates. That would achieve the goals they tell you they're going for. But they won't do that - a non-fanboy might wonder if that's because they're lying about their goals.
The side of the box is irrelevant. The product in it could work in North America except for DRM. Like a Region 2 movie.
We know where they want us to have it. We know where the MPAA wants us to watch Region 2 DVDs. But nobody cares because they don't have the right to tell us what we can watch and where.
The same with Valve. We all know why they want to differentiate products. We understand that they want more money. But there's no law on their side so nobody cares.
If I buy a DVD I watch it where I wish, North America or Japan, on whatever player I wish. I know the studios would prefer that I buy multiple versions of movies and watch them only on "legit" players that force me to watch previews, etc. Just like I know Valve would prefer that I buy the 'proper' version.
Yes, Valve is breaking the law. They sold the product - they can't interfere with its usage and using DRM to prevent its legal use is interference. Try similar analogies anywhere else - you bought a product and it's kept from being activated because the seller doesn't approve of your usage. Obviously a sale doesn't let the seller maintain those rights, so if they try to they're violating the implied contract of sale. A short form is that they are breaking the law.
It's funny how fanboys like yourself throw away all decency, leaning to insults, all common sense, supporting actions like the MPAA's, and all willingness to investigate something for yourself just because a company that makes a game you like is involved. Yay Valve - their programmers made Portal so their management can do no wrong. If this was any company other than your favorite gaming company we wouldn't be having this discussion - it's only your fanboy personality that can't admit you're on the wrong side.
That doesn't matter. That's what I was trying to say. No matter how you got it, as long as it's not counterfeit, it's totally legal to have. These weren't - they had legit keys, they just weren't the ones Valve wanted these people to have because they thought they could be forced to pay more.
If something is sold outside of a specific agreement (before release date, in the wrong area, etc) that's a contract dispute with the reseller, not a reason to remotely disable the product. The consumer isn't legally at fault - they're allowed to do everything they did.
This is an interesting case, DRM is preventing legal usage which means that cracks for this should now be legal, it's handy that they'll probably also crack everything Valve's ever made. Fitting punishment for a company that would make the customer eat the cost. Willingness to screw someone over for 'only' $15 is still willingness to screw people over. If they didn't want to be thieves instead of just blocking keys they could have refunded customers. (Before this blew up into a media scandal - whatever they do now they've already shown their true colors.)
You're so dumb it almost hurts watching the world assrape you.
Valve would still like them to be able to play too without spending half a weeks wages on the game...
Translation: "Like everyone else, Valve would prefer a wider market."
The only companies that got bit by this are ones that tried to take an identical product, slap two vastly different price-tags on them, and hope nobody noticed.
Legitimate software companies - you know, ones that don't break the law - differentiate the versions by, and here's just one way, making them in the localized language so that they become less attractive to people merely looking to save a dollar.
Ethically loose people like you are a real problem. Anything is okay as long as you like the people who do it. It doesn't matter that you'd be up in arms if Microsoft was remotely disabling software, it's Valve doing it so it must be okay. It doesn't matter that they're using DRM like movie studios, they made Portal so it must be okay.
Oh my. You saw a photo of me? Like, one of the thousands I put on my website. People can see those? How terrible. And I was doing something unconventional and you saw an opportunity to poke fun. How original. You truly are one of the comic greats.
Hey, even if I was as ugly as you make me out to be, at least I'd be proud I'm not you. Insulting instead of backing up his opinions with words. It wasn't even on topic, just a cheap shot because you had no point.
If I walk up to you on the street and give you software, you obviously didn't license it and as such have no obligations. If you purchase it from me the same rules apply. An implied contract of purchase does not allow for remote disabling. That's why if you buy some things you have to sign a contract that spells out the specifics. With this software you didn't, so none of those type of rules could apply.
That means that if you had a student copy of something you could do whatever you wanted with it. Supposedly they're meant to be licensed with special restrictions and if you try to purchase student copies of MS's software through the website they might detail this, but in campus stores student editions are simply another product to be sold to anyone with a student card. The store presumably licenses this with Microsoft. The students, having purchased yet another product are under no obligation to anyone.
Microsoft might not like the idea that a person who speaks Thai could buy a cheap copy of Windows and use it in the USA but they know they couldn't disable it. That's why they simply make it use the Thai language - it's enough of a deterrent for people who are just trying to save money and yet it doesn't hurt legitimate users.
Valve on the other hand took a product that was working and disabled it. They might not like that these customers legally purchased this and shipped it internationally but it's a legal (not counterfeit) copy so they have no right to complain. The law - not just a good idea.
Pay what the game companies are asking for
Provide what the law requires you to.
We know why they're selling overseas, it's to reach a larger market. And we get why they want to have different prices. But none of that requires anyone else to play along. It's like razor companies with their famous loss-leader marketing model of overcharging for refills. Nothing stops a consumer from buying the cheap kit with handle every time. You take your chances in business, making products appeal to various people.
I run a computer consulting company and it'd be really handy if everyone would agree not to hire any overseas competitors. That'd keep me from having to compete on prices. Does this obligate you to please me? If not, why am I obligated to put up with their actually illegal actions to enforce their cushier profits?
The product as sold would run perfectly without Steam's DRM. It's perfectly legal to buy and to own the product, so Steam's DRM is preventing the use of something which is legal to own and use.
This is all too common. Someone gets an idea for how to make money that isn't supported by the law, but they expect everyone else to bend over backwards to protect them, usually while they do something underhanded like disable keys and force people to buy new copies. This is the idea that wanting to make a profit entitles you to pass your own laws, break existing ones, and defraud people.
How about them pursuing this in the proper fashion? If they think that importing the games is actionable (and they'll be sorely mistaken, but it's their dime) they should sue people who do it. Put the question to the courts. Get a court order before they try to remotely disable the software.
As is, they're simply refusing to provide the product they've advertised. It might be a 'for Thailand' version, but the law doesn't allow them to keep it there. They can't do this. They're breaking the law.
Do you understand?
This is simple. It's not about liking Valve, giving a shit about how long they spent working on the game or anything else. It's *all* about them illegally terminating a legal product.