Well, I think I know what your point is in fact, but it's fallacious. How many novel writers search the USPTO database to find a storyline to create an implementation of?:)
And I highly doubt that I am the only one who thinks the EULA is intentionally deceptive, so I believe it to be rather disengenuous of you to put it that way.
I'm just going to assume it was in fact Garcia, given how quickly it was posted and how quickly he was responding up to that point. If that's not the case, perhaps I'm just proving the AC's point:)
The DMCA is deceptive and vague but yet it still stands. Welcome to law.
Which has absolutely no bearing on Sony's deceptive business practices, the legality of which can still be questioned in a court of law, as can the interpretation of the DMCA, FYTW.
Because no one has the time and financial ability to go up against Microsoft, Sony, etc. So, regardless of YOUR opinion on the subject
First of all, my opinion is irrelevent, as is yours. I didn't realize we were discussing our opinions in the first place. The only opinions that matter as far as the law is concerned is a Judge and/or Jury's.
you can certainly guarantee that this particular EULA will stand until another fails.
That simply does not follow. There is no reason to assume this particular EULA will not be tested in court. Why are you making that assumption?
The SOFTWARE is designed to hide itself, alters the functionality of the machine to the detriment of its performance and can cause it to malfunction(prevent CD/DVD readers/writers from working properly), opens up the machine to further attack, and finally reduces the stability of the machine. The EULA, which you cited, is intentionally vague and misleading, and certainly does not absolve Sony of responsibility for the above problems caused by their SOFTWARE. Also, just because it's in the EULA, sorta(!), does not make it legal. Sony is clearly being deceptive with these products and their EULA, and there are laws on the books to protect consumers from such action.
Furthermore, it is not a safe bet to assume an EULA is a binding contract, there is precedent both ways on this, it depends on the EULA and the judge's opinion, and there are all kinds of laws regarding contract validity.
No, LAME does include a decoder. I use it to decode my MP3s when making audio CDs for my car. MP3s, which, just for the record, I have encoded from CDs which I own.
Offtopic: Ya know, I don't have an actual CD player suitable for playing the CDs I buy. I absolutely cannot keep the original discs in my car, as they only last a few months getting shuffled around. Hell, they take a beating just being in my car, in a CD carrying case. Other than while driving, I listen to music while working, in several different locations, on my laptop.
Considering that any deal Jobs works out with Disney in regards to Pixar is also, most likely, going to benefit Pixar, he would probably be acting perfectly proper. He's, probably, not bolstering one at the expense of the other, but, rather, using the fact that he controls both to work out more profitable deals for both.
On the other hand, I really despise that I just defended Steve Jobs, as I personally really do not like the man(read: I hate the fucker).
Your way is not necessarily the best way, or the only way. Please acknowledge this, at least.
I never made ANY such claims. You, OTOH, keep acting as if you know what is best for everyone, and take a serious condescending tone with anyone who supports the right to posess firearms.
I simply explained our right, and the justification for that right, to own firearms. And, idiotically, you kept blabbering about personal defense, to me, when I specifically stated that that was not an issure I care about one lick.
My "preception of normal" comes from the normal standards of the society I live in. My "perception of normal" is local to where I live. It is correct, and appropriate, for the context in which I currently live. I don't pretend I'm trying to say what's good for you (though my original post should have been worded differently, for sure).
Be that as it may, I submit that you should widen your perceptions and accept the necessities in other parts of the world. If the simple realities of existence in the rest of the world, not all or even most, but large portions, is so "alien" to you, I can only take that as a sign of ignorance. Furthermore, history is rife with violent uprisings that eventually lead to greater freedom, or fought back against encroaching, malicious powers; that you are so sure you are so safe from such necessity is foolish, IMO. But I still would not presume to tell you what's best for you.
And guerilla warfare seems rather ridiculous with the backdrop of non-gun-wielding nations around the world right now.
That is absolutely in defiance of logic. There are guerillas all over the place fighting for the things we take for granted. That's not ridiculous, that's human nature, and for some people, necessary for their very survival.
But guerilla warfare isn't the point, just an example of effective use of common arms for fighting an enemy with far greater military power, which falsifies many of your earlier arguments in the myriad of silly comments you posted.
However, the government gets taken aback when confronted, even if it ends in death. Neither Ruby Ridge nor Waco will happen again. Never. And that was entirely because people were willing to die for their beliefs.
Indeed. They may have died, but that doesn't mean it was completely in vain.
And that's the point, really, one that almost noone gets. The 2nd ammendment isn't simply about preserving one's own life and liberty; it is much more far reaching than such pettiness. It's about preserving society from the corruption that comes from within. It is *understood* that those brave enough to take up the arms that the constitution guarantees them the right to posess, will likely die. They will die, and if the cancer has been allowed to grow long enough, many, many people will die. But maybe, just maybe, if enough people are willing to pay the ultimate price, the peoples' freedom will survive.
And around and 'round again... People get freedom. People lose freedom. Lots of fucking people die. And then, maybe, those that come later will have freedom again.
The 2nd ammendment is designed to make the freedom half of the cycle longer lasting, and the loss of freedom and death more brief.
You keep saying, over and over again, "you don't get it." I think *you* don't get it, too. There two sides to this "coin," and neither is pretty. That's life. Just face it.
You admit that gun restrictions don't change crime rates, yet still claim that guns are a menace. It seems to me that you're basing your argumentation on an axiom that you can't let go of.
Now, personally, I'm not terribly concerned with self defense. If my home is ever invaded by a gun wielding maniac, my opinion may change if I survive, but chances are, I won't, even if I kept a loaded weapon in the house. But I can hardly fault anyone for wanting to protect him/herself.
But that's not the point of gun ownership in the United States. The point of gun ownership is simply to keep the government in line. You argue gun ownership no longer serves that purpose. Surely, our armed forces carry much more powerful weapons than a citizen could sanely be allowed to own. However, it does not logically follow that this inequity of firepower means the citizens are made completely powerless. Indeed, there are far more citizens than there are soldiers, and numbers play an important role in war, epsecially in a conflict on own's own land.
It is such an alien, amazing, surreal thing to entertain the thought of trying to asassinate members of government with firearms as a means to make the world a better place.
It is alien, amazing and surreal, only because you have never faced such circumstances. Your perception of normal is in stark contrast to much of human history. In fact, fuck history, it's in stark contrast to the present in much of the world.
If it ever got so bad that this was necessary, you're going to need more of a plan than just buying big guns.
Quite right. But guerilla warfare is hardly a foreign concept to a significant number of people alive today. In fact, this whole discussion seems rather ridiculous with the backdrop of guerilla warfare going on around the world right now.
That argument from MS is actually a complete non sequitur, and they know it. HD-DVD "requires" the author to let personal "copies" be made for viewing on PC or over a network. Blu-Ray doesn't prevent authors doing that, but doesn't demand that they do. But the reality of the situation is different than what MS is implying. Authors are allowed to charge extra, and as much as they want, for the ability to copy the content with HD-DVD. So it's still up to the author, in practice.
Not in the hypothetical case of pornographers purchasing a license to do so. The fact is, even if QuantumG's paranoid delusions are indeed true, it *still* is not evidence of unethical behavior on EA's part, much less illegal behavior.
No, we are not. The point I made was hypothetical. You have still provided absolutely nothing to support your grandiose claims. Another poster could find nothing on google to substantiate them. Perhaps you're full of shit?
QuantumG can't be bothered to argue with facts and logic. He posts a hell of a lot of crap, but doesn't get modded up for it too often, so I think it's probably safe to ignore him.
Oh, yes, right you are. I was thinking in a brainwashed manner. You could indeed call Nader a fiscal conservative, just not in America. In America, fiscal conservative tends to mean doing away with wellfare and providing subsidies to large businesses. Yes, seriously.
Willing to silence? Uhm, no; me telling you to shut the fuck up doesn't come with the threat of force. I am simply being an asshole. You, OTOH, would err on the side of USING FORCE OF LAW and interfering with other peoples' lives and livlihood. That sort of thing generally pisses a lot of people off.
And your conspiracy theory nonsense about EA being involved with selling porn to minors, possibly even child porn(yes, folks, scan back through his posts to find the reference, if you feel so inclined) grows tiring. Especially when there are, real, actual nefarious things afoot in the world.
Again, you are posting completely unsubstantiated drivel. You have provided absolutely no evidence, are continuing to parrot the lines of a known liar and bully, who has now come under investigation by a bar association twice, and keep blathering on about conspiracy theory-esque bullshit.
Ya know, there is a lot of pornography out there. Most of it is perfectly legal. The MPAA doesn't rate porn, and neither should the ESRB, because there is no reason. It is adult content, sold through other channels by independent businesses, and they are under no obligation to furnish a ratings board with their material for a rating, which would be entirely worthless in the first place. If EA does in fact have deals with pornographers, unless they are intentionally selling the pornographic content to minors, they are doing nothing unethical. Of course, EA wouldn't be involved with the distribution of material created by another party in the first fucking place.
And finally... EA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO KEEP TABS ON WHAT OTHER, INDEPENDENT COMPANIES DO WITH ANY LICENSE THEY MAY SELL THEM.
And what if, while the parent was reading the back of the box, z0mfg, a child molesticator snatched their child and did things to him/her?!!!!!! And what if, the police can't get the child back because the parent and the store clerk were still looking at the back of the box, because that takes long time(!!!!!!) and didn't see the molestorz0rz face!!!!
THINK OF THE MOTHER FUCKING CHILDREN!! IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU ARE IS WIT H THE MOLEST!!!
The ESRB is an organisation funded by the gaming industry to rate their games how they pay them to rate them.
Would you stop spouting this unsubstantiated nonsense, please? It seems clear from all the discussions you participate in regarding gaming, you are not really very involved in the gaming community, and you go on spouting this conspiracy theory bullshit.
Nothing infuriates me more than people who want to interfere with other people so much, especially when they are seemingly so far removed. Really, do shut the fuck up.
So EA is responsible if someone is violating their EULA? End User License Agreement, those things that don't necessarily stand up in court, on still on shaky legal ground after all these years, are probably not worth actively enforcing in a strict manner, etc.?
Ethically, and legally, it's their product and they are under no obligation to police the way people use it if they're not so inclined. And logistically... it's a big fucking planet. What the hell do you want them to do? Hire a several million man police force to guard their fucking EULA?
By your "logic"... Ya know, fuck it, you're clearly insane. By your logic, software can't be distributed, period.
It seems to me that you are one of such people I spoke of earlier who are unwilling to tolerate freedom.
You do realize what an extremist viewpoint that is, no? Completely banning commerce with minors would destroy countless businesses, hurt the overall economy, and would be a generally shitty thing to do to minors.
In fact, how the fuck do you want kids to learn a damn thing if they're not allowed to participate in the real world at all?
But back to the ESRB.... No. They want the ratings to be done by an independant group.. not one that is bought and paid for by the video game industry.
Bought and paid for? Where the fuck do you get that idea? Every other fucking form of media has more explicit content than games, with lower ratings. Furthermore, independent polls suggest that the rating system is pretty widely agreeable. And why would this be necessary anyway? The movie industry doesn't need this; movies are rated by the MPAA, in America, IIRC.
No, the truth is that parents don't want other peoples' kids playing violent games, because they find it morally disagreeable. We're back to freedom again.
Slashdot Mirror
And I highly doubt that I am the only one who thinks the EULA is intentionally deceptive, so I believe it to be rather disengenuous of you to put it that way.
I'm just going to assume it was in fact Garcia, given how quickly it was posted and how quickly he was responding up to that point. If that's not the case, perhaps I'm just proving the AC's point :)
Which has absolutely no bearing on Sony's deceptive business practices, the legality of which can still be questioned in a court of law, as can the interpretation of the DMCA, FYTW.
Because no one has the time and financial ability to go up against Microsoft, Sony, etc. So, regardless of YOUR opinion on the subject
First of all, my opinion is irrelevent, as is yours. I didn't realize we were discussing our opinions in the first place. The only opinions that matter as far as the law is concerned is a Judge and/or Jury's.
you can certainly guarantee that this particular EULA will stand until another fails.
That simply does not follow. There is no reason to assume this particular EULA will not be tested in court. Why are you making that assumption?
The SOFTWARE is designed to hide itself, alters the functionality of the machine to the detriment of its performance and can cause it to malfunction(prevent CD/DVD readers/writers from working properly), opens up the machine to further attack, and finally reduces the stability of the machine. The EULA, which you cited, is intentionally vague and misleading, and certainly does not absolve Sony of responsibility for the above problems caused by their SOFTWARE. Also, just because it's in the EULA, sorta(!), does not make it legal. Sony is clearly being deceptive with these products and their EULA, and there are laws on the books to protect consumers from such action.
Furthermore, it is not a safe bet to assume an EULA is a binding contract, there is precedent both ways on this, it depends on the EULA and the judge's opinion, and there are all kinds of laws regarding contract validity.
Offtopic: Ya know, I don't have an actual CD player suitable for playing the CDs I buy. I absolutely cannot keep the original discs in my car, as they only last a few months getting shuffled around. Hell, they take a beating just being in my car, in a CD carrying case. Other than while driving, I listen to music while working, in several different locations, on my laptop.
On the other hand, I really despise that I just defended Steve Jobs, as I personally really do not like the man(read: I hate the fucker).
I never made ANY such claims. You, OTOH, keep acting as if you know what is best for everyone, and take a serious condescending tone with anyone who supports the right to posess firearms.
I simply explained our right, and the justification for that right, to own firearms. And, idiotically, you kept blabbering about personal defense, to me, when I specifically stated that that was not an issure I care about one lick.
My "preception of normal" comes from the normal standards of the society I live in. My "perception of normal" is local to where I live. It is correct, and appropriate, for the context in which I currently live. I don't pretend I'm trying to say what's good for you (though my original post should have been worded differently, for sure).
Be that as it may, I submit that you should widen your perceptions and accept the necessities in other parts of the world. If the simple realities of existence in the rest of the world, not all or even most, but large portions, is so "alien" to you, I can only take that as a sign of ignorance. Furthermore, history is rife with violent uprisings that eventually lead to greater freedom, or fought back against encroaching, malicious powers; that you are so sure you are so safe from such necessity is foolish, IMO. But I still would not presume to tell you what's best for you.
And guerilla warfare seems rather ridiculous with the backdrop of non-gun-wielding nations around the world right now.
That is absolutely in defiance of logic. There are guerillas all over the place fighting for the things we take for granted. That's not ridiculous, that's human nature, and for some people, necessary for their very survival.
But guerilla warfare isn't the point, just an example of effective use of common arms for fighting an enemy with far greater military power, which falsifies many of your earlier arguments in the myriad of silly comments you posted.
Indeed. They may have died, but that doesn't mean it was completely in vain.
And that's the point, really, one that almost noone gets. The 2nd ammendment isn't simply about preserving one's own life and liberty; it is much more far reaching than such pettiness. It's about preserving society from the corruption that comes from within. It is *understood* that those brave enough to take up the arms that the constitution guarantees them the right to posess, will likely die. They will die, and if the cancer has been allowed to grow long enough, many, many people will die. But maybe, just maybe, if enough people are willing to pay the ultimate price, the peoples' freedom will survive.
And around and 'round again... People get freedom. People lose freedom. Lots of fucking people die. And then, maybe, those that come later will have freedom again.
The 2nd ammendment is designed to make the freedom half of the cycle longer lasting, and the loss of freedom and death more brief.
You admit that gun restrictions don't change crime rates, yet still claim that guns are a menace. It seems to me that you're basing your argumentation on an axiom that you can't let go of.
Now, personally, I'm not terribly concerned with self defense. If my home is ever invaded by a gun wielding maniac, my opinion may change if I survive, but chances are, I won't, even if I kept a loaded weapon in the house. But I can hardly fault anyone for wanting to protect him/herself.
But that's not the point of gun ownership in the United States. The point of gun ownership is simply to keep the government in line. You argue gun ownership no longer serves that purpose. Surely, our armed forces carry much more powerful weapons than a citizen could sanely be allowed to own. However, it does not logically follow that this inequity of firepower means the citizens are made completely powerless. Indeed, there are far more citizens than there are soldiers, and numbers play an important role in war, epsecially in a conflict on own's own land.
It is such an alien, amazing, surreal thing to entertain the thought of trying to asassinate members of government with firearms as a means to make the world a better place.
It is alien, amazing and surreal, only because you have never faced such circumstances. Your perception of normal is in stark contrast to much of human history. In fact, fuck history, it's in stark contrast to the present in much of the world.
If it ever got so bad that this was necessary, you're going to need more of a plan than just buying big guns.
Quite right. But guerilla warfare is hardly a foreign concept to a significant number of people alive today. In fact, this whole discussion seems rather ridiculous with the backdrop of guerilla warfare going on around the world right now.
Sorry, my mistake :)
Just curious is all.
And your conspiracy theory nonsense about EA being involved with selling porn to minors, possibly even child porn(yes, folks, scan back through his posts to find the reference, if you feel so inclined) grows tiring. Especially when there are, real, actual nefarious things afoot in the world.
Ya know, there is a lot of pornography out there. Most of it is perfectly legal. The MPAA doesn't rate porn, and neither should the ESRB, because there is no reason. It is adult content, sold through other channels by independent businesses, and they are under no obligation to furnish a ratings board with their material for a rating, which would be entirely worthless in the first place. If EA does in fact have deals with pornographers, unless they are intentionally selling the pornographic content to minors, they are doing nothing unethical. Of course, EA wouldn't be involved with the distribution of material created by another party in the first fucking place.
And finally... EA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO KEEP TABS ON WHAT OTHER, INDEPENDENT COMPANIES DO WITH ANY LICENSE THEY MAY SELL THEM.
THINK OF THE MOTHER FUCKING CHILDREN!! IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU ARE IS WIT H THE MOLEST!!!
Would you stop spouting this unsubstantiated nonsense, please? It seems clear from all the discussions you participate in regarding gaming, you are not really very involved in the gaming community, and you go on spouting this conspiracy theory bullshit.
Nothing infuriates me more than people who want to interfere with other people so much, especially when they are seemingly so far removed. Really, do shut the fuck up.
Ethically, and legally, it's their product and they are under no obligation to police the way people use it if they're not so inclined. And logistically... it's a big fucking planet. What the hell do you want them to do? Hire a several million man police force to guard their fucking EULA?
By your "logic"... Ya know, fuck it, you're clearly insane. By your logic, software can't be distributed, period.
It seems to me that you are one of such people I spoke of earlier who are unwilling to tolerate freedom.
In fact, how the fuck do you want kids to learn a damn thing if they're not allowed to participate in the real world at all?
But back to the ESRB.... No. They want the ratings to be done by an independant group.. not one that is bought and paid for by the video game industry.
Bought and paid for? Where the fuck do you get that idea? Every other fucking form of media has more explicit content than games, with lower ratings. Furthermore, independent polls suggest that the rating system is pretty widely agreeable. And why would this be necessary anyway? The movie industry doesn't need this; movies are rated by the MPAA, in America, IIRC.
No, the truth is that parents don't want other peoples' kids playing violent games, because they find it morally disagreeable. We're back to freedom again.