Wouldn't that basically be more or less what The Sims is? Sure, it is not set in a fantasy word and so on, but still. Basically we need some cross over of The Sims into the typical RPG story, or? Not that I personally would like such a thing though.
I use Opera but have it report as being IE. Why? Because there is one or two pages I like to visit that refuses to enter unless you use IE. I don't tink I am alone in that. So I would say your statistics really is not THAT accurate.
Unless the copyright has expired or it is not something that classifies as a work and get copyright, like small chat for example. So you still need to figure that out as well as other problems.
Ehh as long as you are just copying those song books and such, no, you would not be stealing, you would be infringing on copyright. Copyright laws would deal with it. On the other hand, stealing is handled by a completely different set of laws that would not be applicable at all here. So no, it would not be stealing.
Ehhh, RIAA (in this case) are not the police. Huge difference. Imagine you have a "party", you even make an announcement, and you will do mass copying (by xerox machine or something) of books. Does that mean that a book ppublisher automatically should have some right to enter my home (assuming that is where the party is), just to see what is going on and who is there? What if I don't announce the party, I just hold it at times. Basically, should they always at any time have the right to come visiting and see if there is any copyright violation? Who else should be allowed to do so? I have written many things that are protected by copyright and I ber most people actually have. S suddenly everyeone should have entrance right everywere to see if any, how and who might be doing something wrong.
That, does not for obvious reasons work out. On the other hand, we have the law enforcement, police for example, that should handle such things. If you suspect illegal activities, contact the police and let them handle it.
You miss an important thing. That is an issue between you and the *ISP*. That is, the ISP can hold you acountable for missuse of the account. That does not mean you are responsible versus others (especially versus illegal issues). Otherwise someone could just contract away their legal responsabilities to someone else.
So no, that has nothing to do with it and don't work as an excuse.
On thing though, do they actually log in and download everything? Do they do some initial screenening? Based on what? No matter what initial screening, what happens when they download stuff they don't at all hold the copyright (or as you point out, has an "OK" from the copyright holder)? They are then of course doing wrong no?
>The recording industry then issued a subpoena to >Comcast, the user's Internet service provider, >demanding the name, address, and e-mail address >of the person behind the IP address.
How can you find an actual person "behind the IP address"?? You can of course find the account using the IP and also the person that opened up and signed for the account. That does not mean that was the person actually using it at the time though. It could have been someone else in the family, a friend visiting and so on. WOuldn't the response to any claims just be "it was not me"?
No, no. Modern HD are spinning so fast so their 1000 bytes are the equivalency of 1024 bytes. Just check the RIAA speed/size conversion table for more info.
It is important to notice that correlation does not equal casuality. That is, just because there is a correlation does not mean one of the factors affect the ohter one (and even if they did, which one is affecting the other is not always evident).
>They've chosen to go after the ISPs because >they'd have the easiest (if only) way of >identifying which people are the "thieves."
An interesting step missing here is the one going from "the owner of the account used" and the "actual person using it" which most definately do not have to be the same one.
Imagine a normal family with several members or a few students/friends sharing a flat. One of them have signed up with an ISP. So it would be his name that is given away. The obvious defence for him would then be to say "It was not me, must have been someone else in my family/houshold or perhaps some friend that visitied me". There is no way to actually prove which person was the one actually using the account. And it is the use of the account that was possibky infringing on copyright, not the account owner.
Actually, when buying a sattelite tv box you sign up with a company providing the card and so on to deconde channels. YOu have to actually SIGN and agree to a contract with them as part or prior to actually making a purchase. Same when I got my last cell phone which was bundled with a deal with a phone operator (buying a phone on itself is of course possible and has no extra contracts but then you can't use it for much). AGain, I had, in the very store, prior to the actual purchase see and agree to a contgract wwith thephone company (not the one making the phone, the operator I was using).
There are many other cases. In all of them, it is part of the purchase or something you agree to BEFORE. That is how one have to do it. IN addition, most of those contracts have been FAR from as intrusinve and "hostile" as a typical EULA is and in addition, they usually abide by the law, and doesn't have invalid parts, which many EULA has.
>The hardware is yes but the software isn't. It >hasn't been your software ever. You may own the >CD it's on but the bits burned on to it are >owned by the creator of the content.
You seem to confuse "owning" with having the copyright". It is two very different things and one does not imply the other. Hence someone can own something without having the copyright on it. Someone can also hold a copyright without owning it. Of course, in some cases one can have someone owning something AND holding the copyright.
When you buy something in a store, you get to own it (that is the concept of transfering ownership and is regulated through sale laws or consumer sale laws and so on). Transfering ownership in this way does not mean copyright is transfered as well. It remains with whoever had it before.
So if you buy software, you indeed get to own that copy of it. You do not however get to have the copyright on it. SO yes, you own the bits on the CDs too (which are actually just physical properties of the disc).
>The EULA states it isn't yours.
Which EULA? ONe that was part of the sale agreement and agreed to before purchase? Never seen such a thing. If you want to regulate a purchase (for example making it a loan, or have some other restrictions), you have to agree to it before the purchase. Sale laws and more important consumer sale laws regulate this and will also in many cases tell things that are NOT allowed to regulate with a purchase.
I suppose you refer to some paper, window screen, manual or whatever that call itself EULA and tell something about the software you sold. However that has as little bearing and influence on the sale/purchase as the piece of paper I might have in my pocket stating (for example) that by selling something to me I actually get to own the whole store. It is not part of the sale and thus, can't regulate it.
>Now before the flames begin, I believe that what >I buy should be mine to do whatever with. But >due to whatever rules that govern software it >just doesn't happen.
Rules? What "rules"? IN most countries the LAW regulate sales/purchases. Unless the laws says you never own software you buy, you do indeed own the copy of the software you bought. The copyright is still with the original maker of the software (and not with the shop for example or someone else) and copyright is of course regulated by the copyright laws. The law also regulate the procedure of selling something and how additional agreemenets regulating it is done. Having a EULA presented to you later that revoke the ownership of something you bought is NOT an acceptable such additional contract in most countries I would say.
Personally I would complain if the coffee is NOT very hot. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Actually it need to be hot when made to taste really good and if it then has to be lowered in temperature, it would mean it is actually onld. Heck, if I boil water myself (as oposed to using a coffee machine), I use exactly that, boiling coffee.
In any case, coffee is supposed to be hot (regardless of if it is really hot or just a little bit hot and hence one should handle it with care. If an accident happens, well, doh, it is supposed to be hot.
Lets sort this out and correct your statement that only monster spawns are random.
First Diablo 1, which had both single pand multi player. In single player, you save the game and with it the full dungeon at any time and can reload it as well. Of course you then get back the exact same dungeon (AND monsters) as when you saved. One can at any time start a NEW game with the saved character though. It will then have a completely new dungeon.
In Diablo 1 multiplayer, you can't save the game. The character is saved when you leave the game (and actually regulary when you play as well). When entering a new game, you will get a completely new dungeon as well.
So in Diablo 1, the full dungeon was actually randomized each time. Admitedly there exists bugs, or rather design flaws in the implementation and use of random numbers, but that does not change the fact that the dungeons are random, it only gives some interesting quirks and side effects.
Lets move to Diablo 2 which basically has 3 game types. Realm multi player, open multi player and single player. For all practical purposes, realm play and open play can be considered as identical.
First multi player. Again, you can't save the game but the character is automatically saved. Each time you enter a new game, it is randomly created and you have a new dungeon as well.
Single player is slightly different. You still can't save the game but the character is automatically saved. When you start a new game with your single player character (assuming it has not been used for an open multi player game) and it is still the same difficulty level, you will get the same dungeon. You can see it as a saved dungeon layout when you levae a game in single player. Part of the monster spawning will also be similar and in part identical. The reason for this is theat the saved character file will contain the initial seed used to create the last game. With it, most of the dungeon layout and part of monster spawns will be recreated identically. Some parts, of primarilly monster, and even more item spawning, will be randomized with the current time and hence will still differ.
One can see single player in Diablo 2 as open game that just don't allow others to join and that uses the same initial seed as the last game to create the dungeon (obviously to compensate some for not having a save game option). That is why single player characters can be used in open multi player.
If you are interested in more details about game and dungeon generation, especially in D1 but also D2, feel free to tell and I can inform you.
Actually, the elements you mentioned as random does not at all inflate the save file. The save file (for single player) only save changes between the initial state of the dungeon and the current. Basically it means saving only the stats of monsters that changes (and unfortunately a few such is NOT saved). It do inflate the save files some of course but when you reload, the game recreates the full dungeon from the initial seed used to create it (which is saved) and then when placing the monsters (and items which each also is saved as the initial seed for it) it will recreate them but update for the saved state changes. That actually makes the save files very compact.
Ehh, so you are claiming the lables doesn't hold any of the copyrights and that they have all been moved to RIAA? I simply can't believe that. That would for exmaple mean that RIAA is licencing the lables to produce the CDs as an example. Should be relatively easy to check though, just look at some "random" CD from a RIAA lable.
You are confusing "what one see" with "what the wbesite sends you". You can't interfer with the data the website send you (for example a html file). However, whatever you want to do with that html file once you got it, is of course up to you. Typically you run some web browser that parses it, some well, some not so well (some don't follow standards and thus automatically won't display as the creator of the page supposed).
Think about ad sent to your mail box. Once you get it, you can do whatever you want. You can take a big black pencil and "block" part of the ad. You can tear it to parts, tear of part of it, write new things on it and so on.
Why should any of it differ. Remember, what the web site "shows" (whatever file sent to your computer) is not altered. So no, an owner of a website will not and can not have total control over what I see. I can block an ad, just as I can close my eyes when I pass an ad in a shop for example, or pull out a paper with my own alternative and look at it while I pass by.
I am no expert on GPL, but isn't it more like a sort of "I give permision as long as..." sort of thing and not really a contract?
Assume I write some text. I will get copyright to it. Now, I want people to be free to copy it as they see fit, so I write in it that people are free to copy it. Now, would that really be a contract? I don't see it so. No need for them to reply to me saying "yes, I agree to that I am able to copy it for free".
Isn't the GPL a sort of such permision, along the lines of, feel free to copy, change and so on as long as you tag along the source code. Do they really have to acknowledge back that they agree to be allowed to do that?
Your logic goes in circle. You claim that the EULA which you only agree to afterwards, tells about the sale. But if you have not yet agreed to it, it can not possible dictate and govern the sale, hence it doesn't matter what the EULA says when you buy the software. For additional conditions or contract to govern a sale, it has to be agreed upon prior or at the same time the sale is done. Contract made later can't affect the sale as you say. Remember, the EULA is not a law, it doesn't apply to someone that has not agreed to it, hence it doesn't apply to the sale.
I don't know about your situation, but in most countries in the world, text on the outside of something you buy is not not transformed into contract. That is, buying something will not make text on it into a contract. hence it doesn't matter what happens to be written on the outside of a box for example.
>Nope. "I Agree" is agreement. Maybe you're >thinking of Counter-Offer?\
Hmm, when I studied contract law, one of the requirements for a contract to be entered was that there was an acceptance to an offer AND the acceptance had to reach the one making the offer. That is, just pressing "I agree" in itself is not enough since that would not get your agreement to the one making the offer for a contract (in this case the company that made the software and EULA). And no, a computer program is not an allowable part you can make agreements with, only real persons or the equivalent legal entity is.
Of course, at times the fact that you can point to an increase of your cost CAN lead to the buyer being willing to pay more. That is, if you can pinpoint a reason outside your control, it is possible the customer might accept a price that is higher than what he would otherwise accept.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't that basically be more or less what The Sims is? Sure, it is not set in a fantasy word and so on, but still. Basically we need some cross over of The Sims into the typical RPG story, or? Not that I personally would like such a thing though.
Nah, they will just add something to their EULA that says that you have to be satisfied and chan't change if you use their programs.
I use Opera but have it report as being IE. Why? Because there is one or two pages I like to visit that refuses to enter unless you use IE. I don't tink I am alone in that. So I would say your statistics really is not THAT accurate.
Unless the copyright has expired or it is not something that classifies as a work and get copyright, like small chat for example. So you still need to figure that out as well as other problems.
Ehh as long as you are just copying those song books and such, no, you would not be stealing, you would be infringing on copyright. Copyright laws would deal with it. On the other hand, stealing is handled by a completely different set of laws that would not be applicable at all here. So no, it would not be stealing.
Ehhh, RIAA (in this case) are not the police. Huge difference. Imagine you have a "party", you even make an announcement, and you will do mass copying (by xerox machine or something) of books. Does that mean that a book ppublisher automatically should have some right to enter my home (assuming that is where the party is), just to see what is going on and who is there? What if I don't announce the party, I just hold it at times. Basically, should they always at any time have the right to come visiting and see if there is any copyright violation? Who else should be allowed to do so? I have written many things that are protected by copyright and I ber most people actually have. S suddenly everyeone should have entrance right everywere to see if any, how and who might be doing something wrong.
That, does not for obvious reasons work out. On the other hand, we have the law enforcement, police for example, that should handle such things. If you suspect illegal activities, contact the police and let them handle it.
You miss an important thing. That is an issue between you and the *ISP*. That is, the ISP can hold you acountable for missuse of the account. That does not mean you are responsible versus others (especially versus illegal issues). Otherwise someone could just contract away their legal responsabilities to someone else.
So no, that has nothing to do with it and don't work as an excuse.
On thing though, do they actually log in and download everything? Do they do some initial screenening? Based on what? No matter what initial screening, what happens when they download stuff they don't at all hold the copyright (or as you point out, has an "OK" from the copyright holder)? They are then of course doing wrong no?
>The recording industry then issued a subpoena to
>Comcast, the user's Internet service provider,
>demanding the name, address, and e-mail address
>of the person behind the IP address.
How can you find an actual person "behind the IP address"?? You can of course find the account using the IP and also the person that opened up and signed for the account. That does not mean that was the person actually using it at the time though. It could have been someone else in the family, a friend visiting and so on. WOuldn't the response to any claims just be "it was not me"?
>Those guys in the UK will get it, sooner or later.
Yeah, they are approaching the metric system inch by inch I heared.
No, no. Modern HD are spinning so fast so their 1000 bytes are the equivalency of 1024 bytes. Just check the RIAA speed/size conversion table for more info.
It is important to notice that correlation does not equal casuality. That is, just because there is a correlation does not mean one of the factors affect the ohter one (and even if they did, which one is affecting the other is not always evident).
>They've chosen to go after the ISPs because
>they'd have the easiest (if only) way of
>identifying which people are the "thieves."
An interesting step missing here is the one going from "the owner of the account used" and the "actual person using it" which most definately do not have to be the same one.
Imagine a normal family with several members or a few students/friends sharing a flat. One of them have signed up with an ISP. So it would be his name that is given away. The obvious defence for him would then be to say "It was not me, must have been someone else in my family/houshold or perhaps some friend that visitied me". There is no way to actually prove which person was the one actually using the account. And it is the use of the account that was possibky infringing on copyright, not the account owner.
Actually, when buying a sattelite tv box you sign up with a company providing the card and so on to deconde channels. YOu have to actually SIGN and agree to a contract with them as part or prior to actually making a purchase. Same when I got my last cell phone which was bundled with a deal with a phone operator (buying a phone on itself is of course possible and has no extra contracts but then you can't use it for much). AGain, I had, in the very store, prior to the actual purchase see and agree to a contgract wwith thephone company (not the one making the phone, the operator I was using).
There are many other cases. In all of them, it is part of the purchase or something you agree to BEFORE. That is how one have to do it. IN addition, most of those contracts have been FAR from as intrusinve and "hostile" as a typical EULA is and in addition, they usually abide by the law, and doesn't have invalid parts, which many EULA has.
>The hardware is yes but the software isn't. It
>hasn't been your software ever. You may own the
>CD it's on but the bits burned on to it are
>owned by the creator of the content.
You seem to confuse "owning" with having the copyright". It is two very different things and one does not imply the other. Hence someone can own something without having the copyright on it. Someone can also hold a copyright without owning it. Of course, in some cases one can have someone owning something AND holding the copyright.
When you buy something in a store, you get to own it (that is the concept of transfering ownership and is regulated through sale laws or consumer sale laws and so on). Transfering ownership in this way does not mean copyright is transfered as well. It remains with whoever had it before.
So if you buy software, you indeed get to own that copy of it. You do not however get to have the copyright on it. SO yes, you own the bits on the CDs too (which are actually just physical properties of the disc).
>The EULA states it isn't yours.
Which EULA? ONe that was part of the sale agreement and agreed to before purchase? Never seen such a thing. If you want to regulate a purchase (for example making it a loan, or have some other restrictions), you have to agree to it before the purchase. Sale laws and more important consumer sale laws regulate this and will also in many cases tell things that are NOT allowed to regulate with a purchase.
I suppose you refer to some paper, window screen, manual or whatever that call itself EULA and tell something about the software you sold. However that has as little bearing and influence on the sale/purchase as the piece of paper I might have in my pocket stating (for example) that by selling something to me I actually get to own the whole store. It is not part of the sale and thus, can't regulate it.
>Now before the flames begin, I believe that what
>I buy should be mine to do whatever with. But
>due to whatever rules that govern software it
>just doesn't happen.
Rules? What "rules"? IN most countries the LAW regulate sales/purchases. Unless the laws says you never own software you buy, you do indeed own the copy of the software you bought. The copyright is still with the original maker of the software (and not with the shop for example or someone else) and copyright is of course regulated by the copyright laws. The law also regulate the procedure of selling something and how additional agreemenets regulating it is done. Having a EULA presented to you later that revoke the ownership of something you bought is NOT an acceptable such additional contract in most countries I would say.
Personally I would complain if the coffee is NOT very hot. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Actually it need to be hot when made to taste really good and if it then has to be lowered in temperature, it would mean it is actually onld. Heck, if I boil water myself (as oposed to using a coffee machine), I use exactly that, boiling coffee.
In any case, coffee is supposed to be hot (regardless of if it is really hot or just a little bit hot and hence one should handle it with care. If an accident happens, well, doh, it is supposed to be hot.
Lets sort this out and correct your statement that only monster spawns are random.
First Diablo 1, which had both single pand multi player. In single player, you save the game and with it the full dungeon at any time and can reload it as well. Of course you then get back the exact same dungeon (AND monsters) as when you saved. One can at any time start a NEW game with the saved character though. It will then have a completely new dungeon.
In Diablo 1 multiplayer, you can't save the game. The character is saved when you leave the game (and actually regulary when you play as well). When entering a new game, you will get a completely new dungeon as well.
So in Diablo 1, the full dungeon was actually randomized each time. Admitedly there exists bugs, or rather design flaws in the implementation and use of random numbers, but that does not change the fact that the dungeons are random, it only gives some interesting quirks and side effects.
Lets move to Diablo 2 which basically has 3 game types. Realm multi player, open multi player and single player. For all practical purposes, realm play and open play can be considered as identical.
First multi player. Again, you can't save the game but the character is automatically saved. Each time you enter a new game, it is randomly created and you have a new dungeon as well.
Single player is slightly different. You still can't save the game but the character is automatically saved. When you start a new game with your single player character (assuming it has not been used for an open multi player game) and it is still the same difficulty level, you will get the same dungeon. You can see it as a saved dungeon layout when you levae a game in single player. Part of the monster spawning will also be similar and in part identical. The reason for this is theat the saved character file will contain the initial seed used to create the last game. With it, most of the dungeon layout and part of monster spawns will be recreated identically. Some parts, of primarilly monster, and even more item spawning, will be randomized with the current time and hence will still differ.
One can see single player in Diablo 2 as open game that just don't allow others to join and that uses the same initial seed as the last game to create the dungeon (obviously to compensate some for not having a save game option). That is why single player characters can be used in open multi player.
If you are interested in more details about game and dungeon generation, especially in D1 but also D2, feel free to tell and I can inform you.
Actually, the elements you mentioned as random does not at all inflate the save file. The save file (for single player) only save changes between the initial state of the dungeon and the current. Basically it means saving only the stats of monsters that changes (and unfortunately a few such is NOT saved). It do inflate the save files some of course but when you reload, the game recreates the full dungeon from the initial seed used to create it (which is saved) and then when placing the monsters (and items which each also is saved as the initial seed for it) it will recreate them but update for the saved state changes. That actually makes the save files very compact.
Ehh, so you are claiming the lables doesn't hold any of the copyrights and that they have all been moved to RIAA? I simply can't believe that. That would for exmaple mean that RIAA is licencing the lables to produce the CDs as an example. Should be relatively easy to check though, just look at some "random" CD from a RIAA lable.
You are confusing "what one see" with "what the wbesite sends you". You can't interfer with the data the website send you (for example a html file). However, whatever you want to do with that html file once you got it, is of course up to you. Typically you run some web browser that parses it, some well, some not so well (some don't follow standards and thus automatically won't display as the creator of the page supposed).
Think about ad sent to your mail box. Once you get it, you can do whatever you want. You can take a big black pencil and "block" part of the ad. You can tear it to parts, tear of part of it, write new things on it and so on.
Why should any of it differ. Remember, what the web site "shows" (whatever file sent to your computer) is not altered. So no, an owner of a website will not and can not have total control over what I see. I can block an ad, just as I can close my eyes when I pass an ad in a shop for example, or pull out a paper with my own alternative and look at it while I pass by.
I am no expert on GPL, but isn't it more like a sort of "I give permision as long as..." sort of thing and not really a contract?
Assume I write some text. I will get copyright to it. Now, I want people to be free to copy it as they see fit, so I write in it that people are free to copy it. Now, would that really be a contract? I don't see it so. No need for them to reply to me saying "yes, I agree to that I am able to copy it for free".
Isn't the GPL a sort of such permision, along the lines of, feel free to copy, change and so on as long as you tag along the source code. Do they really have to acknowledge back that they agree to be allowed to do that?
Your logic goes in circle. You claim that the EULA which you only agree to afterwards, tells about the sale. But if you have not yet agreed to it, it can not possible dictate and govern the sale, hence it doesn't matter what the EULA says when you buy the software. For additional conditions or contract to govern a sale, it has to be agreed upon prior or at the same time the sale is done. Contract made later can't affect the sale as you say. Remember, the EULA is not a law, it doesn't apply to someone that has not agreed to it, hence it doesn't apply to the sale.
I don't know about your situation, but in most countries in the world, text on the outside of something you buy is not not transformed into contract. That is, buying something will not make text on it into a contract. hence it doesn't matter what happens to be written on the outside of a box for example.
>Nope. "I Agree" is agreement. Maybe you're
>thinking of Counter-Offer?\
Hmm, when I studied contract law, one of the requirements for a contract to be entered was that there was an acceptance to an offer AND the acceptance had to reach the one making the offer. That is, just pressing "I agree" in itself is not enough since that would not get your agreement to the one making the offer for a contract (in this case the company that made the software and EULA). And no, a computer program is not an allowable part you can make agreements with, only real persons or the equivalent legal entity is.
Of course, at times the fact that you can point to an increase of your cost CAN lead to the buyer being willing to pay more. That is, if you can pinpoint a reason outside your control, it is possible the customer might accept a price that is higher than what he would otherwise accept.