Yes, the "no, you tell me" answer. It's not a phonorecord, but the ECU of my car is copyrighted. Am I allowed to transfer the license to my ECU (and the car along with it)?
My house is copyrighted. It's a "creative work" as are all architectural designs, unless proven otherwise.
But you are asserting that it doesn't apply to those copyrighted items. Why?
Now if you have educated yourself on this can you see how ridiculous your assertion that this applies to your house or your car is?
My car and house are covered under copyright. The ECU and other things are copyrighted. I have notes in my owner's manual to that effect. The structure of my house is a "creative work" as asserted by all architects everywhere, and thus is also copyrighted.
What's your problem? That you don't know that the software in your car is copyrighted?
I tried to check, but I didn't find any reference to DRM on the wiki page, despite it being well detailed for SH4. I remember having bought it, but ending up pirating it, but I may not have known why at the time (nor cared).
That and on Steam, it doesn't have Starforce anymore. Though it seems Steam does sell some copy protected Ubisoft games.
So the First Sale Doctrine has nothing to do with my car? That would mean that I'm not allowed to re-sell my car without Ford's permission. Is that what you are saying?
That's "preventable" deaths. Auto deaths aren't "preventable" in that you must travel. They craft statistics like that to hide cancer, heart disease and other "preventable" deaths that are less directly caused. It's amazing how much the statistics are crafted to prove a point, not to describe reality.
Yes, telling people to 'slow down' when driving cars is bad advice. This must be why auto accidents are a leading cause of death and injury in the US.
When the national speed limit went from 55 to 65, deaths dropped. When the limit was removed (many going to 70, one up to 100), the deaths dropped. The higher the limits, the lower the deaths. The higher the speeds, the lower the deaths.
How about just slow the fsck down when you are piloting 2,000 lbs of metal?
Because the stats show that the faster you go, the safer you are. No, really. I know your "common sense" says the opposite. But reality trumps an unsupported opinion.
I guarantee that your life will not be adversely affected if you were to just drive 5mph BELOW the speed limit everywhere you went,
Aside from getting killed by the other drivers you are holding up.
No better then pretending the SS trust fund is an asset that can be tapped.
I've never seen that. I've just seen that the SS fund buys bonds from the general fund. So it's not "real" money, but is a "real" debt.
In the end it will be who's story becomes laughable first. Lots of capital is looking for safe places to park. Look at the price of productive farmland. That has nothing to do with the price of crops. It's big money buying up land, then renting it to farmers at a short term loss.
I saw that. I laughed. And sold my farmland (only about 100 acres). But the truth is that land always goes up. There are more people and no more land (except for tiny areas reclaimed, or developments "under water" such as Holland and New Orelans.
I have land, but rather than owning a farm rented out for 3% return, I own houses rented out for 10-15% return. When the crash happens, people will still need a place to live. I know the standard answers about people just stealing land, but in most cases, a written deed is honored by new governments, even if the interim anarchy doesn't care.
The details of this indicate that the "key" is legal, but followed a supply chain that didn't maximize Ubisoft's profits, so Ubisoft canceled it. It's very hard to parallel import something "illegally". Drugs are the main exception to that rule. Viagra made in the US, shipped to Canada for sale, bought in Canada, and re-imported to the US, is illegal because the quality of the drug, made in the USA and factory sealed could be inferior to the US standard. But other than that one bit of protectionism, there's precious little that can't be re-imported. The Supreme Court even upheld that right.
The assertion in this case is that the EULA is violated if the first End User agrees to it and abides by it.
That proves a lack of legal standing of the EULA, and EULAs should be judged illegal. In practice, any boiler plate contract not written by the State is illegal. Except EULAs, and sometimes cell phone contracts.
In this particular case I suspect UPlay, Origin, Steam are reasoning that the licence is non transferrable, and since it WAS transferred from one person to another it has become void.
So it's a violation to buy something from anyone other than uPlay, Origin, or Steam. If you buy it off the shelf in Target/Wal-Mart, or online at EB Games/Amazon, it obviously was "re-sold" (distributed) at least once. Thus, is invalid.
"Videogame makers declare video games illegal" (unless you buy directly from them) should be the headlines run in the NYT. Because that's exactly what they are saying. Only the publishers know which keys they'll honor, and the end buyer can't ever know, unless they buy directly from the publisher.
and if you want to avoid it, don't buy licences off some reseller.
Yeah, well, EB games should be sued, if they don't have that warning printed in every store in large print. As well as Amazon and thousands of others.
He's lost everything they can take already. Disable the network on the console, then chargeback. If they disable more out of spite, file a small-claims case against them. They will lose and it'll cost 10x your loss for them to lose in court.
When my father passed the bar exam, there was no requirement that you hold a law degree (though he had one at the time). The rules have since been changed to require a law degree to be able to join the bar. Government granted monopoly guilds (ABA, AMA) are evil. The AMA limits the number of seats in med school to maintain a permanent shortage of doctors.
The thing I've explained to many people is that describing it unambiguously is much harder than taking an unambiguous spec and coding it. The literacy is the ability to word an idea unambiguously. That's something that's rare. BAs and most meetings exist solely because people can't say what they want completely and unambiguously.
And how am I supposed to know that buying it at Target is "legit" and EB Games isn't? In all cases, the end user went to a Ubisoft reseller. I couldn't find anything that indicated there is an "approved" list, so the user can't know who is authorized and who isn't.
Then you should be able to do a chargeback on your credit card (always buy everything with a credit card). And if you didn't use a card, you can sue them.
Complaing to others about how you were wronged, but are too indignant to do anything about it will just make you look silly, and get you ignored.
Most pedos aren't. There's a difference between being attracted to pre-pubescent children and post-pubescent children. The laws and stigma doesn't recognize it. If you are under 18 or 16 or whatever, you are incapable of consent. That's the distinction point. And no other. So someone who has consentual sex with a 17 year old in Florida is the "same" as someone unconsentually raping a 4 year old.
Internationally, you see a lot pushed through because of the (supposed) links between the Royal Family and organized pedophilia rings. Anyone with the "protection" of the crown is free to offend with impunity. Or at least that's the theory. And with enough international people in Anonymous, there could be a belief that all the pedos are known, but ignored, as they are too well connected.
When I have a receipt for the property, and the person I bought it from has a receipt, all the way back to Ubisoft who sold it, it doesn't sound like "stolen property" at all. That they've convinced people that buying a valid key from Ubisoft is theft, means it's all broken. That was my point.
I'm riling up those who spend all their time focusing on the last and never using the first 3. That, and in most cases, the individual who doesn't like what the mega-corp does has no recourse. A huge lawsuit for a game? That'll never work, and a class-action will have them give you back 3/4th of a valid key. There may be a backing-away from this, but the end goal of everyone selling in the US was to revoke the right of first sale.
Ubisoft sold keys ad different prices. Some of the "cheap" keys were activated in "expensive" areas. Rather than identifying the resellers and shutting them down (though they may have done nothing wrong), Ubisoft identified the keys, and revoked them.
Note, Ubisoft made a profit selling these keys to authorized distributors, and the users paid for a (at the time) valid key. But Ubisoft thinks they could have extracted greater profit with a different sales plan, so they revoked them all to try again. Too many "save, restart" games played by Ubisoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the "no, you tell me" answer. It's not a phonorecord, but the ECU of my car is copyrighted. Am I allowed to transfer the license to my ECU (and the car along with it)?
My house is copyrighted. It's a "creative work" as are all architectural designs, unless proven otherwise.
But you are asserting that it doesn't apply to those copyrighted items. Why?
Now if you have educated yourself on this can you see how ridiculous your assertion that this applies to your house or your car is?
My car and house are covered under copyright. The ECU and other things are copyrighted. I have notes in my owner's manual to that effect. The structure of my house is a "creative work" as asserted by all architects everywhere, and thus is also copyrighted.
What's your problem? That you don't know that the software in your car is copyrighted?
Then how does the Right of First Sale have nothing to do with my car, when it applies to my car?
Seems the only one here that doesn't know what it is is you.
It is the norm to exceed the speed limit, as the limits are usually set well below the safe settings.
The ignorance is on the side of those who don't know what causes crashes.
I tried to check, but I didn't find any reference to DRM on the wiki page, despite it being well detailed for SH4. I remember having bought it, but ending up pirating it, but I may not have known why at the time (nor cared).
That and on Steam, it doesn't have Starforce anymore. Though it seems Steam does sell some copy protected Ubisoft games.
So the First Sale Doctrine has nothing to do with my car? That would mean that I'm not allowed to re-sell my car without Ford's permission. Is that what you are saying?
That's "preventable" deaths. Auto deaths aren't "preventable" in that you must travel. They craft statistics like that to hide cancer, heart disease and other "preventable" deaths that are less directly caused. It's amazing how much the statistics are crafted to prove a point, not to describe reality.
Yes, telling people to 'slow down' when driving cars is bad advice. This must be why auto accidents are a leading cause of death and injury in the US.
When the national speed limit went from 55 to 65, deaths dropped. When the limit was removed (many going to 70, one up to 100), the deaths dropped. The higher the limits, the lower the deaths. The higher the speeds, the lower the deaths.
How about just slow the fsck down when you are piloting 2,000 lbs of metal?
Because the stats show that the faster you go, the safer you are. No, really. I know your "common sense" says the opposite. But reality trumps an unsupported opinion.
I guarantee that your life will not be adversely affected if you were to just drive 5mph BELOW the speed limit everywhere you went,
Aside from getting killed by the other drivers you are holding up.
No better then pretending the SS trust fund is an asset that can be tapped.
I've never seen that. I've just seen that the SS fund buys bonds from the general fund. So it's not "real" money, but is a "real" debt.
In the end it will be who's story becomes laughable first. Lots of capital is looking for safe places to park. Look at the price of productive farmland. That has nothing to do with the price of crops. It's big money buying up land, then renting it to farmers at a short term loss.
I saw that. I laughed. And sold my farmland (only about 100 acres). But the truth is that land always goes up. There are more people and no more land (except for tiny areas reclaimed, or developments "under water" such as Holland and New Orelans.
I have land, but rather than owning a farm rented out for 3% return, I own houses rented out for 10-15% return. When the crash happens, people will still need a place to live. I know the standard answers about people just stealing land, but in most cases, a written deed is honored by new governments, even if the interim anarchy doesn't care.
The details of this indicate that the "key" is legal, but followed a supply chain that didn't maximize Ubisoft's profits, so Ubisoft canceled it. It's very hard to parallel import something "illegally". Drugs are the main exception to that rule. Viagra made in the US, shipped to Canada for sale, bought in Canada, and re-imported to the US, is illegal because the quality of the drug, made in the USA and factory sealed could be inferior to the US standard. But other than that one bit of protectionism, there's precious little that can't be re-imported. The Supreme Court even upheld that right.
That proves a lack of legal standing of the EULA, and EULAs should be judged illegal. In practice, any boiler plate contract not written by the State is illegal. Except EULAs, and sometimes cell phone contracts.
In this particular case I suspect UPlay, Origin, Steam are reasoning that the licence is non transferrable, and since it WAS transferred from one person to another it has become void.
So it's a violation to buy something from anyone other than uPlay, Origin, or Steam. If you buy it off the shelf in Target/Wal-Mart, or online at EB Games/Amazon, it obviously was "re-sold" (distributed) at least once. Thus, is invalid.
"Videogame makers declare video games illegal" (unless you buy directly from them) should be the headlines run in the NYT. Because that's exactly what they are saying. Only the publishers know which keys they'll honor, and the end buyer can't ever know, unless they buy directly from the publisher.
and if you want to avoid it, don't buy licences off some reseller.
Yeah, well, EB games should be sued, if they don't have that warning printed in every store in large print. As well as Amazon and thousands of others.
He's lost everything they can take already. Disable the network on the console, then chargeback. If they disable more out of spite, file a small-claims case against them. They will lose and it'll cost 10x your loss for them to lose in court.
When my father passed the bar exam, there was no requirement that you hold a law degree (though he had one at the time). The rules have since been changed to require a law degree to be able to join the bar. Government granted monopoly guilds (ABA, AMA) are evil. The AMA limits the number of seats in med school to maintain a permanent shortage of doctors.
The thing I've explained to many people is that describing it unambiguously is much harder than taking an unambiguous spec and coding it. The literacy is the ability to word an idea unambiguously. That's something that's rare. BAs and most meetings exist solely because people can't say what they want completely and unambiguously.
And how am I supposed to know that buying it at Target is "legit" and EB Games isn't? In all cases, the end user went to a Ubisoft reseller. I couldn't find anything that indicated there is an "approved" list, so the user can't know who is authorized and who isn't.
You agreed to their terms. If you didn't, you need to complain to them, and if they ignore it sue them. Anything else is agreement with the new terms.
Then you should be able to do a chargeback on your credit card (always buy everything with a credit card). And if you didn't use a card, you can sue them.
Complaing to others about how you were wronged, but are too indignant to do anything about it will just make you look silly, and get you ignored.
Most pedos aren't. There's a difference between being attracted to pre-pubescent children and post-pubescent children. The laws and stigma doesn't recognize it. If you are under 18 or 16 or whatever, you are incapable of consent. That's the distinction point. And no other. So someone who has consentual sex with a 17 year old in Florida is the "same" as someone unconsentually raping a 4 year old.
Internationally, you see a lot pushed through because of the (supposed) links between the Royal Family and organized pedophilia rings. Anyone with the "protection" of the crown is free to offend with impunity. Or at least that's the theory. And with enough international people in Anonymous, there could be a belief that all the pedos are known, but ignored, as they are too well connected.
First sale doctrine (in the US). You think you bought something, but you didn't. Not your game, not your house, not your car. Nothing is yours.
Last Ubisoft game I bought was Silent Hunter III. The next had DRM, so I passed, even though I liked SH3.
When I have a receipt for the property, and the person I bought it from has a receipt, all the way back to Ubisoft who sold it, it doesn't sound like "stolen property" at all. That they've convinced people that buying a valid key from Ubisoft is theft, means it's all broken. That was my point.
I'm riling up those who spend all their time focusing on the last and never using the first 3. That, and in most cases, the individual who doesn't like what the mega-corp does has no recourse. A huge lawsuit for a game? That'll never work, and a class-action will have them give you back 3/4th of a valid key. There may be a backing-away from this, but the end goal of everyone selling in the US was to revoke the right of first sale.
ok, i don't understand this.
Ubisoft sold keys ad different prices. Some of the "cheap" keys were activated in "expensive" areas. Rather than identifying the resellers and shutting them down (though they may have done nothing wrong), Ubisoft identified the keys, and revoked them.
Note, Ubisoft made a profit selling these keys to authorized distributors, and the users paid for a (at the time) valid key. But Ubisoft thinks they could have extracted greater profit with a different sales plan, so they revoked them all to try again. Too many "save, restart" games played by Ubisoft.