The issue is not what was paid, it is, "should a company that chooses to make a product that is knowingly more dangerous than it needs to be, be held liable for preventable accidents?" This is not even a patent issue, it is a liability issue.
The answer to that issue is that any time a company knowingly chooses to disregard an accepted common place safety device or procedure, they are liable. Case law on this subject pre-dates the Republic (The United States of America for those who were confused).
There are thousands of such cases. Many of them involve patents. As I have stated, I was a juror on one of them.
If you strongly disagree, read up on liability law. It varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If there is not much of easily accessible material for your home area, I would recommend looking up the history of liability law in the State of California. There are tonnes and tonnes of documents and cases covering this very issue in detail. And again, this issue is old, you can throw a stone and find a dozen cases almost identical to this one. I even did a google search and found another one involving a different table saw.
The article is probably the worst one out there covering this topic. They took the subject compeletly out of context. Here is a better article that includes the context:
Here is the source of the quote. It is a thread of several emails, but only from one side:
SUBJECT: Re:http://www.filecabi.net/
Jul 29, 2005 1:05 AM, Steve Chen wrote:
steal it!
Jul 29, 2005 1:25 AM, Chad Hurley wrote:
hmm, steal the movies?
Jul 29, 2005 1:33 AM, Steve Chen wrote:
haha ya.
or something.
just something to watch out for. check out their alexa ranking.
-s
Jul 29, 2005 7:45 AM, Chad Hurley wrote:
hmm, i know they are getting a lot of traffic... but it's because they are a stupidvideos.com-type of site. they might make enough money to pay hosing bills, but sites like this and big-boys.com will never go public. I would really like to build something more valuable and more useful. actually build something that people will talk about and changes the way people use video on the internet.
Jul 29 2005 6:51 AM, Steve Chen wrote:
right, i understand those goals but, at the same time, we have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic. how much traffic will we get from the personal videos? remember, the only reason why our traffic surged was due to a video of this type.
i'm not really disagreeing with you but i also think we shouldn't be so high & mighty and think we're better than these guys. viral videos will tend to be THOSE type of videos.
-s
Jul 29 2005 6:56 AM, Steve Chen Wrote:
another thing. still a fundamental difference between us and most of those other sites. we do have a community and it's ALL user generated content.
-s
To me, when taken in context that sounds like a pretty reasonable half of a conversation. He does not advocate copyright infringement. He also states that they should not get all high and mighty against file sharers. He then sums up saying that they have a community who makes its own content which other sites do not.
This only sets a precedent with lower courts in the same jurisdiction. Other courts can still disagree. In fact particular rulling was in Boston and will have almost no effect anywhere unless it is appealed, the appeal is accepted and a higher court rules on it.
Also this is not even the first time a patented technology is required to be used. Did you know that almost every piece of safety equipment is patented? The same with medical equipment. In fact, it is illegal to do certain types of operations without purchasing specific patented equipment. Why? Because the risk of death is so high without it that it is dangerously stupid to not purchase that equipment.
Another example is the seat belt. Did you know that the seat belt was a patented device? US Patent #312,085 issued to Edward J. Claghorn. The airbag was patented by John Wenrick.
To quote myself:
At a certain point when a safety system because so universally acknowledged as basic, it becomes criminal to not include it.
I was a juror on a lawsuit a few years ago. The plaintiff's wife died and was suing the doctor. The argument was that a common device that most doctors use to prevent this exact cause of death, was not used by the doctor. The device was patented.
1) The device is commonly known to prevent death.
2) The doctor knowingly decided to save money by not purchasing the device. That this lead to the death was undisputed.
By your logic the doctor should not be held liable for not using a generally accepted safety standard. At a certain point when a safety system because so universally acknowledged as basic, it becomes criminal to not include it. That is why we have seat belts. It is why we have air bags.
NOTE: I am not arguing that this case was decided correctly. I don't know the facts of the case. But then again neither does anyone else here. (Please correct me if you have read through all of the court filings, listened to all the testimony, examined each and every piece of evidence, read the applicable laws and completed relevant research into presidents in other cases.)
That's why I don't think CDs are relevant to me. I didn't go out and do a market analysis study before I posted to/., so that's why I qualified my statement with "I'm not sure that..."...
But you didn't state it is not relevant *TO YOU* you stated it was not relevant *AT ALL*.
This would have been a great strategy for the late 1990's, when the CD was still a relevant media (and, for that matter, when consumers were demanding that prices be lowered, both through their words and through their actions -- which the industry by and large ignored completely).
If you want to make large generalized statements, then expect to people to point out you are wrong. In this case all you had to do was do a google search of the issue and read any of the articles. Your first sentience is a broad generalized statement, that also happens to be untrue.
You next follow up with a second statement saying I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still." (I assume that this is where your claim that this is your opinion comes from). Followed by another inaccurate statement about solid state media (solid state does not even have a single percentage point in the market yet).
I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still. We've moved on to solid state media, writeable storage decoupled from the content. You could discount 8-track tapes and they wouldn't sell today.
I should also mention that they DO still sell 8 tracks:
Lastly I would disagree with the premise that the CD is dieing. It will be here for the next 10-20 years. Why? Because there is no replacement to the physical format. When we DO have a replacement format that is as easy to use as the CD then it will be replaced, but not before.
I don't mean to say you should not share your feelings or opinions. However when you enter into a public debate using incorrect information that is your own fault. The statement that *you think* that the format is dieing and no longer relevant to you (and to many others I assume you point would be) is entirely valid. The change from the *for you* to *for everyone* however is one of those dangerous statements that speakers such as Joseph McCarthy and former Governor Palin use when they didn't bother to inform themselves. It is a tool to win a debate without having accuracy or truth on your side.
I also want to be clear that I am not trying to associate you with either of those extreme examples. I just find the use of such "opinion-as-fact" tactics morally repugnant. (Even when used by accident, which is what I assume happened here.)
I do apologize about the being-a-dick part, that was probably uncalled for.
I do love reading comments like this. CD sale make up more than 55% of all music sales. This includes Vinyl, MP3 (or any other digital format), Cassette tapes and any other format. (Actually if you look at the numbers, they refer to "songs sold online" vrs "CD albums sold". If you take a reasonable and low estimate that there are 8 songs on a CD, the math clearly shows that songs are being sold at a rate of 2-1 in CD's favor)
I questions anyone's sanity that say, "Is the majority of the market still relevant?" Let me use another example. About half of all people are Women, would you claim that Women are not relevant?
Even if CD sales declined at this speed for 5 more years. At the end of that, it would still be a fifth of all music sales.
So here is what I suggest, since 1/5 is obviously not relevant. Next time you get a pay check, send the not relevant portion to me! (pre or post tax, either way, I am not picky.)
Part of the rational here is that a single email can do MORE than $1,000 in harm. The most often used example is of a minor getting hardcore porn. Other examples include opening up pornographic email at work (and risking loosing your job because of it).
I have a story on the last one. In the late nineties my Sister worked at a domestic violence support organization. They helped battered and abused women and there children get out of those situations. Part of her job was to be a open contact for anyone suffering abuse, this included reading through her email box and the main companies email box.
Every day she would go through the 2-3 hundred combined emails in those two boxes, most of which were unlabeled porn ads. At one point her boss called her in and "had a talk with her about looking at pornography in the work place". This being the '90s not everyone knew about spam yet. Luckily she explained and her boss understood. She still had to walk around and apologize every time she read through her email though.
Grouping every person who ascribes to a belief into a single batch of crazy extremists is just what the Fundamentalist right does. If your goal is to act more like Glen Beck or for that matter, Joseph McCarthy, Stalin and the like, well then you are right on track. It is nothing short of blatant hate speech and un-educated bigotry.
Just like the majority of people, the majority of Christians are sane, reasonable people. Just like the majority of the left are sane reasonable people. Also note that the majority of the left ARE Christians as well (half of all US Citizens are Christian).
Every time a person stands up and says things like you have just done, it weakens the point of reasonable people. If you actually care about these issues, please spend some time doing some research. Then, after some contemplative time, say what your opinion is. If you really want something to change, also suggest a solution.
If however, your goal is to just spew FUD. Well then, by all means continue.
Quality over quantity. That's all I have to say. Who cares about the sheer amount of it when it is completely bereft of quality?
There are lots of good quality artists out there. I have more than a week worth of songs on my mp3 player all made by current bands that I love. (To be clear, I mean no repeated songs that play 24 hours x 60 minutes x 7 days non-stop.)
Some times the issue is not lack of something but an inability to find it. Most of the bands that I really love, I found out about because I have friends obsessed with music. They point out bands regularly. But without them, I would not have half the music I listen to on a daily basis.
Because a society is socially responsible for all of its actions. I am responsible for correcting the mistakes of my forefathers, just like they were responsible for building a better society for me.
*WE* fought the Civil War as a nation (or two nations if you prefer). Just because it happened before I was born, does not negate the issue that I am part of that nation, and as a living nation, *WE* fought the Civil War.
I would also state the same in regards to any national event that I did not physically take part in. *WE* won X number of Gold medals at the Olympics. *WE* invaded Iraq. As an individual Citizen I have shared responsibility for every action that we as a whole take. That is why many people have argued that it is morally required to speak out against those things you object to in a Democracy (ok, we have a Republic not a Democracy, point still applies).
If you ever want some truly interesting reading, take a look at some of the debate on this issue that occurred between the founding fathers of the United States. They were very articulate, very vocal and debated in length almost any subject you can think of.
The sad thing is, a naturalized citizen probably has a higher likelihood of actually knowing this than most natural-born citizens under a certain age.
My experiences has always been that most people put almost no effort into understanding our country, its history or how the daily process works. I've never seen a difference between age groups either.
My point is that the box should be entirely clear what you are getting. The Windows 7 box states what edition you are buying. Bio Shock 2 states on the box that you are getting the entire game which you are not. There is no mention that you can only access part. On the Windows box, it explicitly states that you will not be given full access.
My second point was that the legal fiction that you are purchasing a license (for a consumer shrink-wrapped box) is absurd. Until the DMCA there was no legal issue stopping you from just activating the extra content on the Bio Shock 2 disc without RE-purchasing it. There is also no moral issue if you are like the majority of Americans, or the majority of Federal Circuit Courts, that hold the belief that you are in fact purchasing a product and NOT a license when you by a software box.
It's not just games, when you buy win 7 home premium that disk contains all the "content" of win 7 ultimate.
Correct, when you buy the Windows HOME EDITION BOX, you get the home edition. When you buy the Windows Ultimate edition box, you get the Ultimate edition. There is no false advertising. IT SAYS ON THE BOX WHAT YOU GET. The specifiably states that you do not have access to everything. That is not the case here. This is in every way contradictory to the consumer expectations of purchase. This is all covered under consumer protection and fraud laws.
Next you get to the issue of first sale doctrine verses licensing. Right now in the US most Federal Circuit courts have standing precedents that a shrink wrapped software box is a sale of the package and NOT a sale of a license. If this is true in your given jurisdiction, then when you purchase a product (including this game) you are purchase the right to use that software regardless of the EULA (your right to use happens at purchase, NOT at the "I agree" button on the EULA). This would include anything on the disc, be it Windows 7 Ultimate or Bio Shock 2 DLC. It is after all on your disc, which you own, and have a right to use it. (That is not to say you have a right to reproduction which is what copyrights are all about.)
To summarize, I think this is BS for two reasons.
1) It is unethical to advertise a product as complete but that contains portions that you are unaware you can not use.
2) If I have a disc that I have purchased from the creator, I should be able to do what ever I want (for personal use). This includes using any portion of code or software on the disc without further payment. (This was entirely legal until the DMCA by the way.)
To also state I am talking about non-commercial use. Commercial use already has its own set of requirements that seem adequate. But the recent attempts by many companies to circumvent the historic meaning and use of copyright law is absurd. The law was never meant to go after non-commercial users, it was to prevent commercial exploitation by third parties. At no point did anyone drafting legislation until the 30's-40's (more than a century after enactment) even consider it in the ball park that someone should be prosecuted for anything related to home use.
I would suggest this nifty article with some bits of commentary from Presidents Jefferson and Madison:
The law, just like life, is not fair. It is not even an attempt to be fair.
To fully examine the OP's statement, the software producer could have done less work and by doing so would have made additional sales.
Less work because implementing and running a DRM system is more work than the zero work of NOT implementing and running such a system.
Additional sales because:
1) DRM does in no way prevent piracy. It is trivial to get around. There is not a single person who bought a game because they could not purchase it. (Much of the time it is easier to pirate a game than purchase it.)
2) Every person who would have purchase the game without DRM is simply one lost sale.
He is accurately stating the cause and effect of 2K's (or theoretical companies action) on his decision. It is not to play or not to play. It is to pay or not to pay.
1) He *WILL* play the game he is interested in. Possibly this decision was made the second the game was announced.
2) He *WONT* pay for a game that contains for-fee DLC.
The only question (if statement if you will) is "will the game have for-fee DLC"?
That is a simple logical construct and unarguable.
If you want to take an exception to his ethics that is a whole other statement. We can debate ethics and legality all you want, but that is not what *THIS* was about. The man stated clearly, this is what it causes, a loss of sale.
I would agree with you. I prefer the Bungie Halo map-pack model. That seems to me to have all the advantage and no downside.
For those of you not familiar the process goes like this:
1) Game comes out, you purchase game.
2) X time later an addition to the game is released. You can purchase this addition.
3) Y time later the addition is released to everyone for free.
You can repeat steps 2 and 3 several times. I purchased all of the Halo 3 map packs knowing that I could just wait a few months and get them for free. To me it was worthwhile to pay Bungie for immediate access.
*I* thought I was getting access to all content on the disc. I assume this every time I purchase a package. So I guess *I* did not get everything I thought I was getting after all.
The next logical question is, *why* do I assume this? Because when you purchase something you then OWN IT. I bought a package that contained a disc. I *theoretically* now have a license to run all software on that disc. Oh, wait! You say that is not what the license is for?! You say I only have a license for HALF the stuff in the box I just purchased?! Where exactly on the box does it say I am only getting a partial license for the contents of the box?!
There simply is not another situation where you can purchase a product then not be able to use part of what came in the box. If anyone tried doing this with any other type of product, everyone would just laugh at them and use the product anyways. The law also is very clear that if you purchase a box you own all contents inside that box, not half. But because this is software, 2K can get away with this.
Please do provide us with examples of democracy at work within the church.
The Lutheran church recently had a public vote to allow openly gay pastors. They VOTED democratically to change the requirements of being a pastor. Well technically it is a republic style vote system like the United States of America but it is a good example.
Here is your source:
15 billion dollars to run a organization that has full time clergy in every country in the world?! And you consider that wealth!?
The Catholic Church has according to many sources about 1 billion members. The Church pays for full time clergy and support staff for Churches in almost every country in the world. The operating budget for one month is more than 15 billion dollars.
Whats more, Vatican city is an independent nation, recognized by treaty by the Italian nation. Many of those treaties define taxation and travel rights. Trying to modify terms of a contract after the fact in a way that only benefits one party, has a name. That name is extortion.
Slashdot Mirror
Well in that case I respect your opinion and thank you for taking the time to investigate. =)
The issue is not what was paid, it is, "should a company that chooses to make a product that is knowingly more dangerous than it needs to be, be held liable for preventable accidents?" This is not even a patent issue, it is a liability issue.
The answer to that issue is that any time a company knowingly chooses to disregard an accepted common place safety device or procedure, they are liable. Case law on this subject pre-dates the Republic (The United States of America for those who were confused).
There are thousands of such cases. Many of them involve patents. As I have stated, I was a juror on one of them.
If you strongly disagree, read up on liability law. It varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If there is not much of easily accessible material for your home area, I would recommend looking up the history of liability law in the State of California. There are tonnes and tonnes of documents and cases covering this very issue in detail. And again, this issue is old, you can throw a stone and find a dozen cases almost identical to this one. I even did a google search and found another one involving a different table saw.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/viacom-may-be-misrepresenting-youtube-founders-call-to-steal-it/
Here is the source of the quote. It is a thread of several emails, but only from one side:
To me, when taken in context that sounds like a pretty reasonable half of a conversation. He does not advocate copyright infringement. He also states that they should not get all high and mighty against file sharers. He then sums up saying that they have a community who makes its own content which other sites do not.
All seems pretty reasonable to me.
I think the outcome is fair. The company should now use better safety standards. The guy has no hand. Idiots 0 everyone else 2.
Also this is not even the first time a patented technology is required to be used. Did you know that almost every piece of safety equipment is patented? The same with medical equipment. In fact, it is illegal to do certain types of operations without purchasing specific patented equipment. Why? Because the risk of death is so high without it that it is dangerously stupid to not purchase that equipment.
Another example is the seat belt. Did you know that the seat belt was a patented device? US Patent #312,085 issued to Edward J. Claghorn. The airbag was patented by John Wenrick.
To quote myself:
At a certain point when a safety system because so universally acknowledged as basic, it becomes criminal to not include it.
Correction: precedents not presidents
I was a juror on a lawsuit a few years ago. The plaintiff's wife died and was suing the doctor. The argument was that a common device that most doctors use to prevent this exact cause of death, was not used by the doctor. The device was patented.
1) The device is commonly known to prevent death.
2) The doctor knowingly decided to save money by not purchasing the device. That this lead to the death was undisputed.
By your logic the doctor should not be held liable for not using a generally accepted safety standard. At a certain point when a safety system because so universally acknowledged as basic, it becomes criminal to not include it. That is why we have seat belts. It is why we have air bags.
NOTE: I am not arguing that this case was decided correctly. I don't know the facts of the case. But then again neither does anyone else here. (Please correct me if you have read through all of the court filings, listened to all the testimony, examined each and every piece of evidence, read the applicable laws and completed relevant research into presidents in other cases.)
... to write about ...
We should just convince Stephenie Meyer to right about how angsty all of these Jihad forums are...
http://xkcd.com/591/
That's why I don't think CDs are relevant to me. I didn't go out and do a market analysis study before I posted to /., so that's why I qualified my statement with "I'm not sure that..." ...
But you didn't state it is not relevant *TO YOU* you stated it was not relevant *AT ALL*.
This would have been a great strategy for the late 1990's, when the CD was still a relevant media (and, for that matter, when consumers were demanding that prices be lowered, both through their words and through their actions -- which the industry by and large ignored completely).
If you want to make large generalized statements, then expect to people to point out you are wrong. In this case all you had to do was do a google search of the issue and read any of the articles. Your first sentience is a broad generalized statement, that also happens to be untrue.
You next follow up with a second statement saying I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still." (I assume that this is where your claim that this is your opinion comes from). Followed by another inaccurate statement about solid state media (solid state does not even have a single percentage point in the market yet).
I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still. We've moved on to solid state media, writeable storage decoupled from the content. You could discount 8-track tapes and they wouldn't sell today.
I should also mention that they DO still sell 8 tracks:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10287864-1.html
Lastly I would disagree with the premise that the CD is dieing. It will be here for the next 10-20 years. Why? Because there is no replacement to the physical format. When we DO have a replacement format that is as easy to use as the CD then it will be replaced, but not before.
I don't mean to say you should not share your feelings or opinions. However when you enter into a public debate using incorrect information that is your own fault. The statement that *you think* that the format is dieing and no longer relevant to you (and to many others I assume you point would be) is entirely valid. The change from the *for you* to *for everyone* however is one of those dangerous statements that speakers such as Joseph McCarthy and former Governor Palin use when they didn't bother to inform themselves. It is a tool to win a debate without having accuracy or truth on your side.
I also want to be clear that I am not trying to associate you with either of those extreme examples. I just find the use of such "opinion-as-fact" tactics morally repugnant. (Even when used by accident, which is what I assume happened here.)
I do apologize about the being-a-dick part, that was probably uncalled for.
I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still.
I do love reading comments like this. CD sale make up more than 55% of all music sales. This includes Vinyl, MP3 (or any other digital format), Cassette tapes and any other format. (Actually if you look at the numbers, they refer to "songs sold online" vrs "CD albums sold". If you take a reasonable and low estimate that there are 8 songs on a CD, the math clearly shows that songs are being sold at a rate of 2-1 in CD's favor)
I questions anyone's sanity that say, "Is the majority of the market still relevant?" Let me use another example. About half of all people are Women, would you claim that Women are not relevant?
Even if CD sales declined at this speed for 5 more years. At the end of that, it would still be a fifth of all music sales.
So here is what I suggest, since 1/5 is obviously not relevant. Next time you get a pay check, send the not relevant portion to me! (pre or post tax, either way, I am not picky.)
Part of the rational here is that a single email can do MORE than $1,000 in harm. The most often used example is of a minor getting hardcore porn. Other examples include opening up pornographic email at work (and risking loosing your job because of it).
I have a story on the last one. In the late nineties my Sister worked at a domestic violence support organization. They helped battered and abused women and there children get out of those situations. Part of her job was to be a open contact for anyone suffering abuse, this included reading through her email box and the main companies email box.
Every day she would go through the 2-3 hundred combined emails in those two boxes, most of which were unlabeled porn ads. At one point her boss called her in and "had a talk with her about looking at pornography in the work place". This being the '90s not everyone knew about spam yet. Luckily she explained and her boss understood. She still had to walk around and apologize every time she read through her email though.
Please restrict your generalized bigotry.
Grouping every person who ascribes to a belief into a single batch of crazy extremists is just what the Fundamentalist right does. If your goal is to act more like Glen Beck or for that matter, Joseph McCarthy, Stalin and the like, well then you are right on track. It is nothing short of blatant hate speech and un-educated bigotry.
Just like the majority of people, the majority of Christians are sane, reasonable people. Just like the majority of the left are sane reasonable people. Also note that the majority of the left ARE Christians as well (half of all US Citizens are Christian).
Every time a person stands up and says things like you have just done, it weakens the point of reasonable people. If you actually care about these issues, please spend some time doing some research. Then, after some contemplative time, say what your opinion is. If you really want something to change, also suggest a solution.
If however, your goal is to just spew FUD. Well then, by all means continue.
and the great era of plenty
Quality over quantity. That's all I have to say. Who cares about the sheer amount of it when it is completely bereft of quality?
There are lots of good quality artists out there. I have more than a week worth of songs on my mp3 player all made by current bands that I love. (To be clear, I mean no repeated songs that play 24 hours x 60 minutes x 7 days non-stop.)
Some times the issue is not lack of something but an inability to find it. Most of the bands that I really love, I found out about because I have friends obsessed with music. They point out bands regularly. But without them, I would not have half the music I listen to on a daily basis.
Because a society is socially responsible for all of its actions. I am responsible for correcting the mistakes of my forefathers, just like they were responsible for building a better society for me.
*WE* fought the Civil War as a nation (or two nations if you prefer). Just because it happened before I was born, does not negate the issue that I am part of that nation, and as a living nation, *WE* fought the Civil War.
I would also state the same in regards to any national event that I did not physically take part in. *WE* won X number of Gold medals at the Olympics. *WE* invaded Iraq. As an individual Citizen I have shared responsibility for every action that we as a whole take. That is why many people have argued that it is morally required to speak out against those things you object to in a Democracy (ok, we have a Republic not a Democracy, point still applies).
If you ever want some truly interesting reading, take a look at some of the debate on this issue that occurred between the founding fathers of the United States. They were very articulate, very vocal and debated in length almost any subject you can think of.
The sad thing is, a naturalized citizen probably has a higher likelihood of actually knowing this than most natural-born citizens under a certain age.
My experiences has always been that most people put almost no effort into understanding our country, its history or how the daily process works. I've never seen a difference between age groups either.
This is sad.
You didn't get the memo? Your couch is now base Zeta, new home of the 438 Ranger Battalion. I hope you have some good plumbing...
My point is that the box should be entirely clear what you are getting. The Windows 7 box states what edition you are buying. Bio Shock 2 states on the box that you are getting the entire game which you are not. There is no mention that you can only access part. On the Windows box, it explicitly states that you will not be given full access.
My second point was that the legal fiction that you are purchasing a license (for a consumer shrink-wrapped box) is absurd. Until the DMCA there was no legal issue stopping you from just activating the extra content on the Bio Shock 2 disc without RE-purchasing it. There is also no moral issue if you are like the majority of Americans, or the majority of Federal Circuit Courts, that hold the belief that you are in fact purchasing a product and NOT a license when you by a software box.
It's not just games, when you buy win 7 home premium that disk contains all the "content" of win 7 ultimate.
Correct, when you buy the Windows HOME EDITION BOX, you get the home edition. When you buy the Windows Ultimate edition box, you get the Ultimate edition. There is no false advertising. IT SAYS ON THE BOX WHAT YOU GET. The specifiably states that you do not have access to everything. That is not the case here. This is in every way contradictory to the consumer expectations of purchase. This is all covered under consumer protection and fraud laws.
Next you get to the issue of first sale doctrine verses licensing. Right now in the US most Federal Circuit courts have standing precedents that a shrink wrapped software box is a sale of the package and NOT a sale of a license. If this is true in your given jurisdiction, then when you purchase a product (including this game) you are purchase the right to use that software regardless of the EULA (your right to use happens at purchase, NOT at the "I agree" button on the EULA). This would include anything on the disc, be it Windows 7 Ultimate or Bio Shock 2 DLC. It is after all on your disc, which you own, and have a right to use it. (That is not to say you have a right to reproduction which is what copyrights are all about.)
To summarize, I think this is BS for two reasons.
1) It is unethical to advertise a product as complete but that contains portions that you are unaware you can not use.
2) If I have a disc that I have purchased from the creator, I should be able to do what ever I want (for personal use). This includes using any portion of code or software on the disc without further payment. (This was entirely legal until the DMCA by the way.)
To also state I am talking about non-commercial use. Commercial use already has its own set of requirements that seem adequate. But the recent attempts by many companies to circumvent the historic meaning and use of copyright law is absurd. The law was never meant to go after non-commercial users, it was to prevent commercial exploitation by third parties. At no point did anyone drafting legislation until the 30's-40's (more than a century after enactment) even consider it in the ball park that someone should be prosecuted for anything related to home use.
I would suggest this nifty article with some bits of commentary from Presidents Jefferson and Madison:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/23/23214/3438
The law, just like life, is not fair. It is not even an attempt to be fair.
To fully examine the OP's statement, the software producer could have done less work and by doing so would have made additional sales.
Less work because implementing and running a DRM system is more work than the zero work of NOT implementing and running such a system.
Additional sales because:
1) DRM does in no way prevent piracy. It is trivial to get around. There is not a single person who bought a game because they could not purchase it. (Much of the time it is easier to pirate a game than purchase it.)
2) Every person who would have purchase the game without DRM is simply one lost sale.
He is accurately stating the cause and effect of 2K's (or theoretical companies action) on his decision. It is not to play or not to play. It is to pay or not to pay.
1) He *WILL* play the game he is interested in. Possibly this decision was made the second the game was announced.
2) He *WONT* pay for a game that contains for-fee DLC.
The only question (if statement if you will) is "will the game have for-fee DLC"?
In code form, it might look like this:
boolean willPlay = true;
if( willPlay ){
if(mustBuyDLC){
pirate();
}else{
doNotPirate();
}
}
That is a simple logical construct and unarguable.
If you want to take an exception to his ethics that is a whole other statement. We can debate ethics and legality all you want, but that is not what *THIS* was about. The man stated clearly, this is what it causes, a loss of sale.
I would agree with you. I prefer the Bungie Halo map-pack model. That seems to me to have all the advantage and no downside.
For those of you not familiar the process goes like this:
1) Game comes out, you purchase game.
2) X time later an addition to the game is released. You can purchase this addition.
3) Y time later the addition is released to everyone for free.
You can repeat steps 2 and 3 several times. I purchased all of the Halo 3 map packs knowing that I could just wait a few months and get them for free. To me it was worthwhile to pay Bungie for immediate access.
You got everything you thought you were getting.
*I* thought I was getting access to all content on the disc. I assume this every time I purchase a package. So I guess *I* did not get everything I thought I was getting after all.
The next logical question is, *why* do I assume this? Because when you purchase something you then OWN IT. I bought a package that contained a disc. I *theoretically* now have a license to run all software on that disc. Oh, wait! You say that is not what the license is for?! You say I only have a license for HALF the stuff in the box I just purchased?! Where exactly on the box does it say I am only getting a partial license for the contents of the box?!
There simply is not another situation where you can purchase a product then not be able to use part of what came in the box. If anyone tried doing this with any other type of product, everyone would just laugh at them and use the product anyways. The law also is very clear that if you purchase a box you own all contents inside that box, not half. But because this is software, 2K can get away with this.
Disclaimer, I write software for a living.
Please do provide us with examples of democracy at work within the church.
The Lutheran church recently had a public vote to allow openly gay pastors. They VOTED democratically to change the requirements of being a pastor. Well technically it is a republic style vote system like the United States of America but it is a good example. Here is your source:
Before the vote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/17/AR2009081703016.html
After the vote:
http://blog.pflag.org/2009/08/lutheran-church-votes-to-allow-gay.html
15 billion dollars to run a organization that has full time clergy in every country in the world?! And you consider that wealth!?
The Catholic Church has according to many sources about 1 billion members. The Church pays for full time clergy and support staff for Churches in almost every country in the world. The operating budget for one month is more than 15 billion dollars.
Whats more, Vatican city is an independent nation, recognized by treaty by the Italian nation. Many of those treaties define taxation and travel rights. Trying to modify terms of a contract after the fact in a way that only benefits one party, has a name. That name is extortion.