I don't agree. New characters aren't stupidly weak (well, right now mages are quite broken and weak but that is something they work on and all agree). ONe can do both interesting and varying quests, right from the start. One always start of in a somewhat isolated smaller area (which one, depends on race) were one do the first few levels. There are a bunch of quests there, some townish building, a cave or two and so on. One can handle it solo or go party. My first time through, I would say I played there between 2 and 3 hours (I think), before I was level 4 or 5 and went out to the rest, and much more open world. It was no bunny hunting (although in some areas you can kill the level 1 ambient bunnies).
Sure, the game is based on levels quite a bit, I personally don't see that as a problem though, but some might. Ultimately one have to put numbers into it somewere, it is an issue of showing it to the players or not, and to make it meaningfull, understandable and usefull to the player. I personally hate not having a clue about what is actually going on, why things work and not (not just a "you need to improve in some way, try more and eventually you get good without knowing"). So I prefer the levels. Still, If one can have skill factor in a big bit too, it doesn't hurt. As someone said, partying works well, and at least in lwoer levels (I have played up to 13 or so only) no class is required although if you want to go up on tough quests and monsters, a healthy mix might let you do it slightly earlier, but usually any mix can do it relatively easy anyway. It do let you go play in much harder areas if you party though.
Overall I must say I am quite satisfied and find the game interesting and fun. I am by no means a MMORPG fan, only having played UO way back in its initial days, but I got invited by Blizzard and here, I actually also feel like I can do it both like a "solo" game, AND have the fun and interest of partying with others and the interaction one get in this type of game, in a much more friendly and fun way than back in UO. Yes, it feels a bit like Diablo in a full scale more than Warcraft, but then, I have always been a big Diablo fan.
Re:No infringement required; allegations are enoug
on
EU Passes Nasty IP Law
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but you can't accuse someone on copyright infringment for sharing cassettes/CDs with friends as was the example in the post I replied to.
Still, it would have to be a copyright infringement to start with. Trading cassette tapes (or CDs) with friends is not nessecarilly copyright infringement in some countries. Even with the new proposed copyright laws here in Sweden, you can copy for example music for close friends and family.
First, I must admit that GPL is not my area of expertice and have never "used" it. However, it is VERY different from a EULA. A GPL is basically a copyright holder giving you some additional rights you would not have under normal copyright laws. That is, you can actually do things you would normally not be allowed to do. Still, there are requirements and you are not free to do everything. If you don't want to follow the requirements of the extra "rights" granted, you don't have to. You can just continue as if nothing have happened, stil using the program as normal (and according to what, for example, copyright laws permits). In that aspect, it is indeed the very same thing.
Note though that you don't HAVE to accept the GPL to use the program. You really only have to follow it if you want to do things copyright laws would normally not allow.
Now, the so called software licenses are very different, they try to make you think that you can not use your program unless you accept them, and basically revoke the pruchase you have allready made, typically claiming that what you just bought, is not really yours at all and so on. That you can't even use the software without accepting it and so on. There is no need for it really, and you can just not accept them and again, just as with GPL continue using your software, in accordance with copyright laws.
First of all, I have never claimed that one can use software on multiple machines. Obviously that is not possible (at least not at the same time) due to, as you say normal copyright laws.
As for electronic contract, there is really nothing "special" with doing contracts electronically and contract law are in that sense neutral abd applicable as it is. The same requirements still has to be fulfilled, regardless of if you do an oral contract, a written, or through electronical means. One requirement is, regardless of in which form or through which media, that the acceptance of a contract has to reach the one making the offer for example. That does not happen when you click "I agree" (or similar solutions) in most cases. And a computer prgram itself is not a legal entity and can not act on behalf of one either and thus not "recieve" your acceptance.
>the electronic contract proposed by Microsoft >allows you to either accept their conditions >imposed by the EULA, or to return the product >for a refund.
Yes, that is what THEY write. However, that does not make those the only choises. I can propose a contract to you that says, either agree to a bunch of things, or you must return (for refund) what I sold you some time ago. That does not mean those are your only options. You can simply ignore it (basically not accepting it). That is it.
Why should I then have to return something that I have bought and thus is mine? No reason at all. There is no law that give someone the right to come and demand a contract just because they once sold me something. They can do it as part of the sale of course, but still, as it is a consumer situation, consumer sale laws applies (at least here in Sweden) and I can tell you that quite a lot of the things you find in a typical EULA would not pass as acceptable or enforcable. The thing is though, since it is not part of thesale and the deal you make then, it can't affect it and they can't demand that I agree to it to use something they allready sold me.
>...what you agree to when you click "I agree" >when installing...
Out of curiosity, in your country, can you make an agreement with a software program? Because according to contract laws in my country (and others I know of), a contract requires a few requirements to be fullfilled before it takes effect. It would typically include an offer and then an acceptance which reaches the one doing the offer. Only then is the contract made. Clicking typically doesn't include such a thing.
Also, do the laws of your country allow someone who sold you something, to later come and demand that you agree to something to use what they sold you? Can for example a car manufacturer (lets not confuse things with cars sold onwards from the initial buyer), for example, the first time you want to open the tank to put in gas, demand that you agree to something (for example by "opening" it) and refuse you further use since you must open it to put in gas? Seems like an awefully strange country if it has such laws.
>You do NOT own the software, only the media it's >written to.
I do't know about you, I have bought all my software. Usually by entering a shop and buying them, sometimes bought through some internet site. In all cases it was a starndard purchase, following all the requirements and rules of the sales laws (consimer sales laws in this case) and when over internet, also the "distance" sales laws applicable. SO yes, I happens to own my copies of the software I have bought. Perhaps you have made different deals when you go out to get software, I have no idea.
>READ the whole flippin' EULA and recognize that >it defines your use of Microsoft products.
No, it doesn't any more than the piece of paper here on my table governs your reading of this post. If they wanted to impose some restrictions or additional agreements into the sale of the software (or whatever I buy, like a book, a bottle of milk or a screwdriver and so on), it should be done at the time of the purchase and also in accordance with applicable (consumer) sale laws, which might regulate just what and how such additional agreements are done. There have never been any such things when I have bought software.
>That EULA, and nothing else, defines your >relationship with Microsoft regarding their >software.
No, the laws defines it from the point I have bought it. The laws (atleast in my country) does not allow someone to dictate how I use anything just because they once sold it to me unless it is agreed upon at the time of the purchace (and even then, it still has to be in acordance with the laws).
Next you will probably tell me that if I buy, say, a refrigirator from you and when I come home I see a paper pasted over the powerbutton inside, that I can't use it unless I agree to what it says on the paper. Or perhaps, if I place a book on your table with a paper on it stipulating that if you ever remove the book or paer from the table, you have to agree to a whole bunch of thins on the paper? Perhaps such laws that permits such behaviour exists in your country, in most it doesn't.
So? Last time I bought software it was sold in the exact same as music. I entered a shoppicked what I wanted, payed for it and that was it, a typical purchase according to, among other things, consumer sale laws. I have yet to spot a difference. Neither would the laws, at least in my country, say that software are sold in some special ways.
>The difference is in the terms.
Again, no difference. Actually, on neither case were there any special termas at all, hence normal consumer sale laws were applied with no additions. Perhaps you buy software (or music) in some shop or other place that do it differently, but from asking arround, people I know, it has been the same to them.
> The Windows EULA specifically says that there >is NO WARRANTY with the software.
And that would matter HOW, if the law of a country would say otherwise? In many countries one simply can't get away from responsability through contract terms like that.
Hmm, I suppose it means I need to get another bookshelf just to keep the receipts of all my books. And that doesn't include magazines, newspapers and so on. And what about my VHS tapes recorded from the TV, I probably need to keep documentation that I somehow had "access" to the content on them thorugh the TV signals I got. Luckyliy the receipts of my music CD collection could be kept in a small box, but I must admit I don't have any receipts at all for my old vinyls. Hmm, The only good thing about this is I do't live in Sweden, so I might get away with it unless I plan to move there.
And how would you connect the owner of the account that was connected with the person that actually used it at that time? COuld have been for example someone else in the family/household, a friend and so on. Or do USA have laws that say someone signing up for an account with an ISP also take any legal responsabilities for any person using it?
In most cases the owner of something does not take legal responsabilities for actions of someone lese using it unless a law specifically says so. An example, at least here in Sweden, is that the car owner is responsible for parking tickets (but not for speed tickets for example). Never heared of such laws when it compes to copyright infringement.
>giving out records of who was online when with >which ip might just as well be a juridical >problem.
It is next to impossible to tell WHO was out. At the most one can tell which account and who signed up for the account, but that does not mean the same person is the only one using the account or that it was that person at that specific moment, which is what you have to get at if one want to proceed to, for example a court.
OK, what am I missing here? I have always thought that if one get aware of, or suspect, illegal activities, that one should contact and report it to the police (or other authorities). Then they will handle it.
So, if I over hear some discussion on phone, should I then contact the phone company so that they can contact the appropriate persons and warn them about the illegal activities? Perhaps I should contact the car manufacturer if I see or suspect illegal activities conducted using a car. They can then contact the car owner (and I would probably have to push for a law so that they actually *keep* records on who buy their cars, how else can they or me get in contact with them.
Somehow, there is something that seems wrong with all this.
One can't just generally trademark a name. Trademarks are done in seperate sections (I don't know how many there are, but it is in the 20+ ammounts). For example, nothing prevents someone from registering a name for use with cars. Someone else can register the exact same name in the field of entertainmaint and so on. Take Diablo as an example, I recall seeing it as registered tradmark for cigarrs, cars and movie/games (a few similar fields) and possibly more, all by different companies. No problem at all. Sure, one can try to register ones name in ALL fields though. However, trademarks needs to be more or lesss activly used. You can't just register it and sit there waiting, you will then risk losing it (in say 5 years or something) to someone else.
For domain name cases it is for the same reason not at ALL a good reason to go with trademark since there can be many having registered the exact same name as a trademark. Who gets to use it? Obviously, no one else could use it in the filed someone else has it registered in, but other than that? Since top domains aren't grouped/named after trademark sections, it won't work well in many cases.
Having such a statement work backwards makes it kind of pointless to have an agreement say anything at all. I can see how one can change an agreement so that it from a certain point of change, onwards works in a new way (and one can then of course cancel the whole agreement), but simply changing it to affect allready agreed upon things is usually not applicable.
Isn't that controlled by difficulty level you chose? After all, no matter how good or bad I am at a game, at times I want to play an easy game, at times a hard game. If the game simply adappt to me, and sets itself based on how I play, that is not possible. In my opinion, most games should have much more settings that you should be able to change individually, not just a easy/medium/hard option.
You obviously need to read the appropriate laws regarding sale (many countries even have special laws for sales to consumers. To sum it up really fast, if you enter shop, take item and give money in return, you bought something and the ownership was transfered to you in the process. End of story.
>This piece of law requires local governments to >implement in national legislation that >circumvention of copyright protection is illegal.
Ehh, only circumvention of a system that prevents a right the copyright holder has exclusive right to, like copying. In this case, there is no issue of circumventing a copy protection system. It is an access system. That is, it makes it possible to play a DVD. It has absolutely nothing to do with the copying. So no, this will not change because of the EUCD.
Since they always claim the sales of music goes down due to, among other things P2P network, according to their own logic, they must be selling more, or their logic doesn't work.
What is also important to remember is that correlation does not always mean causation. And even if there is acausation, it is important to know, which way it works. Did people turn to "legitimate" online sources due to increased legal activities and monitoring by RIAA? Or did people stop using illegitimate sources when they found new working legitimate sources (for example like iTunes)? Perhaps it is even totally unrelated and there is other causes.
Such copies of temporary nature (the definition is more complex) are excepted from the exclusiveness of the copyright holder. That is, you are allowed to do them (especially if needed to use the original copy). Hence, such copying is not in violation of copyright and not protected for circumvention either.
Slashdot Mirror
And even more interestingly, do they actually download all the files to see what content they actually have? Or do they just go by file names?
>(The new beta is in a push of the 'good' races.
>Humans Dwarves Taurens, etc, no orcs or goblins.)
To be more specific, it is an alliance push, which includes dwarves, gnomes, humans and night elves (somce classes are disabled too).
I don't agree. New characters aren't stupidly weak (well, right now mages are quite broken and weak but that is something they work on and all agree). ONe can do both interesting and varying quests, right from the start. One always start of in a somewhat isolated smaller area (which one, depends on race) were one do the first few levels. There are a bunch of quests there, some townish building, a cave or two and so on. One can handle it solo or go party. My first time through, I would say I played there between 2 and 3 hours (I think), before I was level 4 or 5 and went out to the rest, and much more open world. It was no bunny hunting (although in some areas you can kill the level 1 ambient bunnies).
Sure, the game is based on levels quite a bit, I personally don't see that as a problem though, but some might. Ultimately one have to put numbers into it somewere, it is an issue of showing it to the players or not, and to make it meaningfull, understandable and usefull to the player. I personally hate not having a clue about what is actually going on, why things work and not (not just a "you need to improve in some way, try more and eventually you get good without knowing"). So I prefer the levels. Still, If one can have skill factor in a big bit too, it doesn't hurt. As someone said, partying works well, and at least in lwoer levels (I have played up to 13 or so only) no class is required although if you want to go up on tough quests and monsters, a healthy mix might let you do it slightly earlier, but usually any mix can do it relatively easy anyway. It do let you go play in much harder areas if you party though.
Overall I must say I am quite satisfied and find the game interesting and fun. I am by no means a MMORPG fan, only having played UO way back in its initial days, but I got invited by Blizzard and here, I actually also feel like I can do it both like a "solo" game, AND have the fun and interest of partying with others and the interaction one get in this type of game, in a much more friendly and fun way than back in UO. Yes, it feels a bit like Diablo in a full scale more than Warcraft, but then, I have always been a big Diablo fan.
Yes, but you can't accuse someone on copyright infringment for sharing cassettes/CDs with friends as was the example in the post I replied to.
Still, it would have to be a copyright infringement to start with. Trading cassette tapes (or CDs) with friends is not nessecarilly copyright infringement in some countries. Even with the new proposed copyright laws here in Sweden, you can copy for example music for close friends and family.
First, I must admit that GPL is not my area of expertice and have never "used" it. However, it is VERY different from a EULA. A GPL is basically a copyright holder giving you some additional rights you would not have under normal copyright laws. That is, you can actually do things you would normally not be allowed to do. Still, there are requirements and you are not free to do everything. If you don't want to follow the requirements of the extra "rights" granted, you don't have to. You can just continue as if nothing have happened, stil using the program as normal (and according to what, for example, copyright laws permits). In that aspect, it is indeed the very same thing.
Note though that you don't HAVE to accept the GPL to use the program. You really only have to follow it if you want to do things copyright laws would normally not allow.
Now, the so called software licenses are very different, they try to make you think that you can not use your program unless you accept them, and basically revoke the pruchase you have allready made, typically claiming that what you just bought, is not really yours at all and so on. That you can't even use the software without accepting it and so on. There is no need for it really, and you can just not accept them and again, just as with GPL continue using your software, in accordance with copyright laws.
First of all, I have never claimed that one can use software on multiple machines. Obviously that is not possible (at least not at the same time) due to, as you say normal copyright laws.
As for electronic contract, there is really nothing "special" with doing contracts electronically and contract law are in that sense neutral abd applicable as it is. The same requirements still has to be fulfilled, regardless of if you do an oral contract, a written, or through electronical means. One requirement is, regardless of in which form or through which media, that the acceptance of a contract has to reach the one making the offer for example. That does not happen when you click "I agree" (or similar solutions) in most cases. And a computer prgram itself is not a legal entity and can not act on behalf of one either and thus not "recieve" your acceptance.
>the electronic contract proposed by Microsoft
>allows you to either accept their conditions
>imposed by the EULA, or to return the product
>for a refund.
Yes, that is what THEY write. However, that does not make those the only choises. I can propose a contract to you that says, either agree to a bunch of things, or you must return (for refund) what I sold you some time ago. That does not mean those are your only options. You can simply ignore it (basically not accepting it). That is it.
Why should I then have to return something that I have bought and thus is mine? No reason at all. There is no law that give someone the right to come and demand a contract just because they once sold me something. They can do it as part of the sale of course, but still, as it is a consumer situation, consumer sale laws applies (at least here in Sweden) and I can tell you that quite a lot of the things you find in a typical EULA would not pass as acceptable or enforcable. The thing is though, since it is not part of thesale and the deal you make then, it can't affect it and they can't demand that I agree to it to use something they allready sold me.
>...what you agree to when you click "I agree" ...
>when installing
Out of curiosity, in your country, can you make an agreement with a software program? Because according to contract laws in my country (and others I know of), a contract requires a few requirements to be fullfilled before it takes effect. It would typically include an offer and then an acceptance which reaches the one doing the offer. Only then is the contract made. Clicking typically doesn't include such a thing.
Also, do the laws of your country allow someone who sold you something, to later come and demand that you agree to something to use what they sold you? Can for example a car manufacturer (lets not confuse things with cars sold onwards from the initial buyer), for example, the first time you want to open the tank to put in gas, demand that you agree to something (for example by "opening" it) and refuse you further use since you must open it to put in gas? Seems like an awefully strange country if it has such laws.
>You do NOT own the software, only the media it's
>written to.
I do't know about you, I have bought all my software. Usually by entering a shop and buying them, sometimes bought through some internet site. In all cases it was a starndard purchase, following all the requirements and rules of the sales laws (consimer sales laws in this case) and when over internet, also the "distance" sales laws applicable. SO yes, I happens to own my copies of the software I have bought. Perhaps you have made different deals when you go out to get software, I have no idea.
>READ the whole flippin' EULA and recognize that
>it defines your use of Microsoft products.
No, it doesn't any more than the piece of paper here on my table governs your reading of this post. If they wanted to impose some restrictions or additional agreements into the sale of the software (or whatever I buy, like a book, a bottle of milk or a screwdriver and so on), it should be done at the time of the purchase and also in accordance with applicable (consumer) sale laws, which might regulate just what and how such additional agreements are done. There have never been any such things when I have bought software.
>That EULA, and nothing else, defines your
>relationship with Microsoft regarding their
>software.
No, the laws defines it from the point I have bought it. The laws (atleast in my country) does not allow someone to dictate how I use anything just because they once sold it to me unless it is agreed upon at the time of the purchace (and even then, it still has to be in acordance with the laws).
Next you will probably tell me that if I buy, say, a refrigirator from you and when I come home I see a paper pasted over the powerbutton inside, that I can't use it unless I agree to what it says on the paper. Or perhaps, if I place a book on your table with a paper on it stipulating that if you ever remove the book or paer from the table, you have to agree to a whole bunch of thins on the paper? Perhaps such laws that permits such behaviour exists in your country, in most it doesn't.
>We're not talking music, we're talking software.
So? Last time I bought software it was sold in the exact same as music. I entered a shoppicked what I wanted, payed for it and that was it, a typical purchase according to, among other things, consumer sale laws. I have yet to spot a difference. Neither would the laws, at least in my country, say that software are sold in some special ways.
>The difference is in the terms.
Again, no difference. Actually, on neither case were there any special termas at all, hence normal consumer sale laws were applied with no additions. Perhaps you buy software (or music) in some shop or other place that do it differently, but from asking arround, people I know, it has been the same to them.
> The Windows EULA specifically says that there
>is NO WARRANTY with the software.
And that would matter HOW, if the law of a country would say otherwise? In many countries one simply can't get away from responsability through contract terms like that.
Hmm, I suppose it means I need to get another bookshelf just to keep the receipts of all my books. And that doesn't include magazines, newspapers and so on. And what about my VHS tapes recorded from the TV, I probably need to keep documentation that I somehow had "access" to the content on them thorugh the TV signals I got. Luckyliy the receipts of my music CD collection could be kept in a small box, but I must admit I don't have any receipts at all for my old vinyls. Hmm, The only good thing about this is I do't live in Sweden, so I might get away with it unless I plan to move there.
And how would you connect the owner of the account that was connected with the person that actually used it at that time? COuld have been for example someone else in the family/household, a friend and so on. Or do USA have laws that say someone signing up for an account with an ISP also take any legal responsabilities for any person using it?
In most cases the owner of something does not take legal responsabilities for actions of someone lese using it unless a law specifically says so. An example, at least here in Sweden, is that the car owner is responsible for parking tickets (but not for speed tickets for example). Never heared of such laws when it compes to copyright infringement.
>giving out records of who was online when with
>which ip might just as well be a juridical
>problem.
It is next to impossible to tell WHO was out. At the most one can tell which account and who signed up for the account, but that does not mean the same person is the only one using the account or that it was that person at that specific moment, which is what you have to get at if one want to proceed to, for example a court.
OK, what am I missing here? I have always thought that if one get aware of, or suspect, illegal activities, that one should contact and report it to the police (or other authorities). Then they will handle it.
So, if I over hear some discussion on phone, should I then contact the phone company so that they can contact the appropriate persons and warn them about the illegal activities? Perhaps I should contact the car manufacturer if I see or suspect illegal activities conducted using a car. They can then contact the car owner (and I would probably have to push for a law so that they actually *keep* records on who buy their cars, how else can they or me get in contact with them.
Somehow, there is something that seems wrong with all this.
One can't just generally trademark a name. Trademarks are done in seperate sections (I don't know how many there are, but it is in the 20+ ammounts). For example, nothing prevents someone from registering a name for use with cars. Someone else can register the exact same name in the field of entertainmaint and so on. Take Diablo as an example, I recall seeing it as registered tradmark for cigarrs, cars and movie/games (a few similar fields) and possibly more, all by different companies. No problem at all. Sure, one can try to register ones name in ALL fields though. However, trademarks needs to be more or lesss activly used. You can't just register it and sit there waiting, you will then risk losing it (in say 5 years or something) to someone else.
For domain name cases it is for the same reason not at ALL a good reason to go with trademark since there can be many having registered the exact same name as a trademark. Who gets to use it? Obviously, no one else could use it in the filed someone else has it registered in, but other than that? Since top domains aren't grouped/named after trademark sections, it won't work well in many cases.
Having such a statement work backwards makes it kind of pointless to have an agreement say anything at all. I can see how one can change an agreement so that it from a certain point of change, onwards works in a new way (and one can then of course cancel the whole agreement), but simply changing it to affect allready agreed upon things is usually not applicable.
And the program would know how, what country it is currently running in?
Isn't that controlled by difficulty level you chose? After all, no matter how good or bad I am at a game, at times I want to play an easy game, at times a hard game. If the game simply adappt to me, and sets itself based on how I play, that is not possible. In my opinion, most games should have much more settings that you should be able to change individually, not just a easy/medium/hard option.
You obviously need to read the appropriate laws regarding sale (many countries even have special laws for sales to consumers. To sum it up really fast, if you enter shop, take item and give money in return, you bought something and the ownership was transfered to you in the process. End of story.
Actually, if Norway is anything like Sweden, only the supreme court cases will give precedence. Lower court decisions will not.
>This piece of law requires local governments to
>implement in national legislation that
>circumvention of copyright protection is illegal.
Ehh, only circumvention of a system that prevents a right the copyright holder has exclusive right to, like copying. In this case, there is no issue of circumventing a copy protection system. It is an access system. That is, it makes it possible to play a DVD. It has absolutely nothing to do with the copying. So no, this will not change because of the EUCD.
Since they always claim the sales of music goes down due to, among other things P2P network, according to their own logic, they must be selling more, or their logic doesn't work.
What is also important to remember is that correlation does not always mean causation. And even if there is acausation, it is important to know, which way it works. Did people turn to "legitimate" online sources due to increased legal activities and monitoring by RIAA? Or did people stop using illegitimate sources when they found new working legitimate sources (for example like iTunes)? Perhaps it is even totally unrelated and there is other causes.
Such copies of temporary nature (the definition is more complex) are excepted from the exclusiveness of the copyright holder. That is, you are allowed to do them (especially if needed to use the original copy). Hence, such copying is not in violation of copyright and not protected for circumvention either.
>WTF are you talking about? The only time
>mentioned in the post is "10 years"
Ehh, the post I replied to has the following in it:
"As in, let it cool for 30 minutes with the lid off"
That is what I commented on.