How do you explain the documented fact that crime increased dramatically when prohibition started and decreased when it ended?
Drugs don't cause crime. The lack of drugs causes crime. If people had a steady supply of inexpensive, consistent/safe quality drugs they would not steal. Violence only occurs because people cannot use the legal system. If drugs were legal it opens up many non-violent ways of settling disputes.
Drugs will always be there. Humans like to get fucked up. Show me someone who disagrees with this and I will show you someone who uses alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, or religion to achieve altered consciousness.
Plus we need the tax money and the savbings from lowered spending on drug enforcement.
What happens when you wake up one day and ask permission to use the product you purchased and no response comes back? Why do you feel it's ok to ask permission to use things you bought? Would you be ok with calling Ford/Honda to ask permission to drive to work? How is that acceptable DRM?
Your idea is highly inefficient and a waste of resources.
You mention one of the problems your self. Due to the long tail of car ownership building out a brand new infrastructure, one which offers no advantage since it is simply a new way to burn fossil fuels, is a waste of resources.
You need to remember that electric cars are not green. They do not reduce green house gas emissions. They are fossil fuel powered.
You're advocating an expensive build out of experimental tech that does nothing to solve the problem. Instead why not spend those resources on an existing, proven, tech that requires no new infrastructure?
No it's actually highly inefficient. It's much better to fix the source.
Converting to electric cars still burns fossil fuels. It does nothing for the existing electrical powered devices. It requires infrastructure build out.
Instead we just build some nukes and boom every single electrical device you own is green with nothing done by you. It requires no new infrastructure.
Electric cars are a waste until we have a clean source of power.
You can hack it anyway you want. Microsoft won't do anything to you. However you can't go on live if you do since you must sign a contract stating you won't use live with a modified console.
If they could read the firmware it would be trivial to check for modded firmware and ban those boxes from Live. Since many many people connect modded boxes to Live, to play legit copies of games, and don't get banned they're obviously not doing this.
I agree copyright infringement is not stealing it's copyright infringement. If it were stealing they wouldn't need a whole new set of laws for it.
Second your abundant explanation contains the common omission. The first copy does not follow the rules you mention. Your post is only correct for the 2nd and further copies.
The first copy of a game is not abundant. It takes a significant expenditure of materials and effort to put one together. The laws of physics dictate a level of scarcity to this good.
Any business model must cover both the 1st copy and the 1+n copy. That is the core of the problem.
360 games are areacoded. The games are DVDs. They use the DVD file system and region coding. Almost all.isos are modified to be all/no region. There are at least 2 products out there that will allow you to do this yourself with any 360 game.
Your wrong. What most people fail to acknowledge with unconscionable is the the contract must result from an unfair bargaining position.
Since a computer game is purely a luxury good and there it literally nothing stopping you from declining the contract it is impossible for an unfair bargaining position thus impossible for it to be unconscionable . This is not my opinion. Please see Blizzard v bnetd where this is exact situation was ruled on in court. If the EULA is only available after purchase then the manufacturer must offer a refund. Thus the new clause in big capital letters at the start of Blizzard's EULA.
The DRM and clause issues are irrelevant to harm. If you feel they will harm you then don't accept the contract. You're agreeing to them thus harm does not exist. If you feel they are harmful then you decline. If you feel they aren't then you accept. You and you alone are in control of these facts thus unconscionable is impossible in a game EULA.
Unconscionability does not apply. The criteria under which a contract is deemed unconscionable is very narrow and it's virtually impossible for a computer game EULA to ever meet the criteria.
The reason is quoted here from your link "...one party to the contract took advantage of its superior bargaining power to insert provisions..."
As long as you can decline the contract with no harm then it cannot be an unconscionable contract. A computer game is a luxury good. There is no possible harm from not being able to play a computer game, and thus from declining the contract. The only possible way is if they did not offer a refund for fail to offer a refund if you purchase then decline the EULA. Since this is a free product unconscionabilty can not apply.
This has been proven in court. The curious can read up on Blizzard v bnetd.
You completely missed the point. I think you fail to understand how AES or BluRay encryption works.
The example you give you're trying to decrypt without the key. Your example is entirely unrelated to BluRay decryption or DRM in general.
The thing that makes BluRay, and in general most DRM, decryption both possible and feasible is that all info needed to decode is right there on the disk.
To summarize: Decoding BluRay - Has all info needed Your example (AES) - Does not have all info needed.
Ya, hours spent installing Win95 for the 5 minutes of nostalgia before I realize the graphics on a 1995 game are too crap to deal with anymore. Good times. Old games are not a thing of value I'm giving up. As a practical matter, the chances of being able to play old Steam games in the future looks like a vastly better bet than my not losing the original disk and having a suitable system for a game I purchased.
Entirely meaningless. My point is that you could if you wanted to. Whether or not you want to is completely irrelevant. With Steam you have no say in the matter.
For further guidance, go down to Blockbuster and ask any of the people there waiting in line for the chance to pay for something that isn't ownership.
Failed analogy. The people at blockbuster know what they are getting. They know they pay x dollars and they receive an item for a known time period negotiated in the open up front.
With Steam you don't know if you'll have access tomorrow. Please see the numerous stories here of "May I please play my game/listen to my music/watch my movie" type DRM systems revoking access. It's not a matter of will you loose access but when.
This is exactly what I mean by slippery slope. It slowly undermines the whole concept of ownership. You're operating on a logical fallacy. The fallacy of "It doesn't effect me so it's not an issue." It effects others. It may effect you in the future. But that doesn't matter because I can play now! It's both a selfish and short sighted view.
The example you mention of trying an old game and having it fail due to lack of operating system is not a valid comparison. With Steam you have literally no control if your legacy product will work. With your example you have complete control about if your legacy product will work. You could have reinstalled the OS. You had it at one point or you could have never run the game in the first place.
This is the crux of the issue. For some reason people think giving up the concept of ownership is a good idea. For some reason people think giving up control of the things they have is a good idea.
In that case the answer is: Yes. Yes, I would rent a TV.
There's a difference between yeah I'd rent something and You'd walk into a store pay full price for a TV and agree if the salesman said, "Hey just so you know we can come to your house and take this back at any time. No notice required"?
As far as Steam, you can make it sound how ever bad you want, but I'm having a hard time being outraged. I pay money for fun; I get fun. The total cost for fun, figuring money and hassle, is much lower than it used to be. I understand that to make things easier for me, I'm giving up certain rights and privileges (that I never used anyway). I'm OK with that.
This paragraph is the definition of slippery slope. Yeah I'm giving things up but it's ok I never use them. That's a logical fallacy. If you've never been poisoned from tainted foods then any protection against tainted food is pointless by your logic.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you explain the documented fact that crime increased dramatically when prohibition started and decreased when it ended?
Drugs don't cause crime. The lack of drugs causes crime. If people had a steady supply of inexpensive, consistent/safe quality drugs they would not steal. Violence only occurs because people cannot use the legal system. If drugs were legal it opens up many non-violent ways of settling disputes.
Drugs will always be there. Humans like to get fucked up. Show me someone who disagrees with this and I will show you someone who uses alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, or religion to achieve altered consciousness.
Plus we need the tax money and the savbings from lowered spending on drug enforcement.
The reason the difference is important is this scheme isn't to fight shoplifting, the theft of a physical item.
You're completely wrong. From the first sentence of TFA:
"Could point-of-sale "activation" software for games and DVDs discourage theft?"
What happens when you wake up one day and ask permission to use the product you purchased and no response comes back? Why do you feel it's ok to ask permission to use things you bought? Would you be ok with calling Ford/Honda to ask permission to drive to work? How is that acceptable DRM?
Your idea is highly inefficient and a waste of resources.
You mention one of the problems your self. Due to the long tail of car ownership building out a brand new infrastructure, one which offers no advantage since it is simply a new way to burn fossil fuels, is a waste of resources.
You need to remember that electric cars are not green. They do not reduce green house gas emissions. They are fossil fuel powered.
You're advocating an expensive build out of experimental tech that does nothing to solve the problem. Instead why not spend those resources on an existing, proven, tech that requires no new infrastructure?
No it's actually highly inefficient. It's much better to fix the source.
Converting to electric cars still burns fossil fuels. It does nothing for the existing electrical powered devices. It requires infrastructure build out.
Instead we just build some nukes and boom every single electrical device you own is green with nothing done by you. It requires no new infrastructure.
Electric cars are a waste until we have a clean source of power.
This.
Fuck me for posting in this thread. You need the mod points more than I need to run my yap.
You can hack it anyway you want. Microsoft won't do anything to you. However you can't go on live if you do since you must sign a contract stating you won't use live with a modified console.
I believe MS cannot read the firmware.
If they could read the firmware it would be trivial to check for modded firmware and ban those boxes from Live. Since many many people connect modded boxes to Live, to play legit copies of games, and don't get banned they're obviously not doing this.
+1 informative
2 things.
I agree copyright infringement is not stealing it's copyright infringement. If it were stealing they wouldn't need a whole new set of laws for it.
Second your abundant explanation contains the common omission. The first copy does not follow the rules you mention. Your post is only correct for the 2nd and further copies.
The first copy of a game is not abundant. It takes a significant expenditure of materials and effort to put one together. The laws of physics dictate a level of scarcity to this good.
Any business model must cover both the 1st copy and the 1+n copy. That is the core of the problem.
360 games are areacoded. The games are DVDs. They use the DVD file system and region coding. Almost all .isos are modified to be all/no region. There are at least 2 products out there that will allow you to do this yourself with any 360 game.
What you mention is a computer intrusion crime not a unconscionable contract issue.
People need to start suing companies that install software without permission.
Your wrong. What most people fail to acknowledge with unconscionable is the the contract must result from an unfair bargaining position.
Since a computer game is purely a luxury good and there it literally nothing stopping you from declining the contract it is impossible for an unfair bargaining position thus impossible for it to be unconscionable . This is not my opinion. Please see Blizzard v bnetd where this is exact situation was ruled on in court. If the EULA is only available after purchase then the manufacturer must offer a refund. Thus the new clause in big capital letters at the start of Blizzard's EULA.
The DRM and clause issues are irrelevant to harm. If you feel they will harm you then don't accept the contract. You're agreeing to them thus harm does not exist. If you feel they are harmful then you decline. If you feel they aren't then you accept. You and you alone are in control of these facts thus unconscionable is impossible in a game EULA.
The 7th circuit court of the USA disagrees with you. Click through licenses are valid legal contracts.
Please see ProCD v Zeidenberg
Unconscionability does not apply. The criteria under which a contract is deemed unconscionable is very narrow and it's virtually impossible for a computer game EULA to ever meet the criteria.
The reason is quoted here from your link "...one party to the contract took advantage of its superior bargaining power to insert provisions..."
As long as you can decline the contract with no harm then it cannot be an unconscionable contract. A computer game is a luxury good. There is no possible harm from not being able to play a computer game, and thus from declining the contract. The only possible way is if they did not offer a refund for fail to offer a refund if you purchase then decline the EULA. Since this is a free product unconscionabilty can not apply.
This has been proven in court. The curious can read up on Blizzard v bnetd.
You completely missed the point. I think you fail to understand how AES or BluRay encryption works.
The example you give you're trying to decrypt without the key. Your example is entirely unrelated to BluRay decryption or DRM in general.
The thing that makes BluRay, and in general most DRM, decryption both possible and feasible is that all info needed to decode is right there on the disk.
To summarize:
Decoding BluRay - Has all info needed
Your example (AES) - Does not have all info needed.
http://kotaku.com/5070957/backtalk-in-eas-forums-get-banned-from-your-games
This is what I mean by slippery slope.
Stop asking permission to use things. Demand they give you control.
Ya, hours spent installing Win95 for the 5 minutes of nostalgia before I realize the graphics on a 1995 game are too crap to deal with anymore. Good times. Old games are not a thing of value I'm giving up. As a practical matter, the chances of being able to play old Steam games in the future looks like a vastly better bet than my not losing the original disk and having a suitable system for a game I purchased.
Entirely meaningless. My point is that you could if you wanted to. Whether or not you want to is completely irrelevant. With Steam you have no say in the matter.
For further guidance, go down to Blockbuster and ask any of the people there waiting in line for the chance to pay for something that isn't ownership.
Failed analogy. The people at blockbuster know what they are getting. They know they pay x dollars and they receive an item for a known time period negotiated in the open up front.
With Steam you don't know if you'll have access tomorrow. Please see the numerous stories here of "May I please play my game/listen to my music/watch my movie" type DRM systems revoking access. It's not a matter of will you loose access but when.
It's not like tainted meat. I'm not going to die.
This is exactly what I mean by slippery slope. It slowly undermines the whole concept of ownership. You're operating on a logical fallacy. The fallacy of "It doesn't effect me so it's not an issue." It effects others. It may effect you in the future. But that doesn't matter because I can play now! It's both a selfish and short sighted view.
The example you mention of trying an old game and having it fail due to lack of operating system is not a valid comparison. With Steam you have literally no control if your legacy product will work. With your example you have complete control about if your legacy product will work. You could have reinstalled the OS. You had it at one point or you could have never run the game in the first place.
This is the crux of the issue. For some reason people think giving up the concept of ownership is a good idea. For some reason people think giving up control of the things they have is a good idea.
In that case the answer is: Yes. Yes, I would rent a TV.
There's a difference between yeah I'd rent something and You'd walk into a store pay full price for a TV and agree if the salesman said, "Hey just so you know we can come to your house and take this back at any time. No notice required"?
As far as Steam, you can make it sound how ever bad you want, but I'm having a hard time being outraged. I pay money for fun; I get fun. The total cost for fun, figuring money and hassle, is much lower than it used to be. I understand that to make things easier for me, I'm giving up certain rights and privileges (that I never used anyway). I'm OK with that.
This paragraph is the definition of slippery slope. Yeah I'm giving things up but it's ok I never use them. That's a logical fallacy. If you've never been poisoned from tainted foods then any protection against tainted food is pointless by your logic.
Yeah look. You didn't post it. They didn't use the word rent. You can't correct me. Only the OP can.
What are you talking about? The post I responded to never said rental. It used a term , sell, normally associated with purchases not renting.
The Steam contract says otherwise.
Since this is a documented fact please provide said documentation.
Don't put words in my mouth. You changed purchase to rent.
Would you purchase a TV that the seller could take back from you at any time?
Watermarking or any other form of unique lableing fits your criteria.
It also makes good evidence in court.