....and Heinlein's Starship Troopers was a treatise on Fascism within Western Democracies [read USA] ...so probably shouldn't be held up as something to aspire to/applaud...

As a citizen of the facist America described by Heinlein, I wonder how piracy survives at all under our decidedly enslaving but efficient social and economic system. Oops. We aren't facists. Too bad.

Heinlein's Starship Troopers really doesn't meet the standards attributed to Fascism - typically a nationalistic movement involving the subordination of individual liberties to the combination of business and government interests. Mere militarism (Which I will grant describes the book.) doesn't qualify.

I hate to say it - but arguments that subordinate my rights to copy software I bought to the corporate interests of the company I bought it from are far closer to the traditional definition of fascism than Heinlein's book. But even that it stretching a point, without a much longer baseline than IP law.

Of course, if you're arguing about the specific principle I brought up - that there should *not* be a balance enforced that greater rights imply greater responsibilities and vice versa, you are certainly welcome to do so - but ad hominem attacks on Bob Heinlein don't make your case - {G}.

Jonnan

I didn't attack 'Bob' Heinlein, with or without the Latin....

"arguments that subordinate your rights to copy software...." ....to what rights do you refer?

 

Well thanks there. Returning opened software ends up being subject to the store's policies. I worked at a store where all such returned non-defective merchandise was fully checked and upon acceptance was resealed and placed back on the shelves for sale. It was a matter of building customer loyalty.

I once was able to return an opened software package to a nameless store but, I argued that their store policy allowed for returns of opened items that weren't software. As such I had a reasonable right to assume the same policy applied to my software purchase at the time I purchased it.

And, also there was no notice posted anywhere that the store was making an exception to their standard return policy for software and electronics items only. I got my one time return and within 1 week there were notices posted everywhere in the store regarding their separate return policy for software and electronics.

Jafo, there isn't even mention of a license anywhere on the Sins case. There is no mention of a license anywhere on any game case I have at my disposal. Perhaps you should educate yourself on your own industry practices before deciding I'm just some teenager? I have stacks of them sitting around. Some of the 2k games actually have the relevant copyright information written on the backs of the cases, bloody nice of them to specify that the standard copyright protections apply, but they don't say anything extra in their EULA's so it's rather unimportant. Sorta like Stardock doesn't.

Most of my cases are in storage, but from the couple years worth I've collected since packing them up, I have EA, Ubisoft, THQ, Stardock, Valve, Sega, Atari, Egosoft and Lucas Arts original casings, none of which mention any such thing. I have never seen an EULA, let alone the contents of it, listed anywhere.

I do not have X-ray vision, and I cannot read minds. The burden of notification is on the seller, not the buyer. If it doesn't fall under basic copyright law(which everyone should know simply for their own good) and it's not disclosed at sale, it's fraud. Get over it, the pirates aren't the only thieves.

And, actually, for the record, if you've read more than the rather mediocre Starship Troopers--some of his later and better works like The Past Through Tomorrow, Time Enough for Love, or The Cat Who Walks Through Walls--you'd know he wasn't advocating fascism. Furthermore, John Steakley's Armor explored similar themes to ST with more interesting characters.

Just call me Joe Off-Topic.   

In other words, you want 200% pay for 100% work.

Ok, Whatever.

It does help me to understand your opinions on this issue better though.

That's funny most of my software package titles have a copyright notice printed on the packaging. My copy of GCII doesn't for some reason.

If you believe that your not being given a full and complete copy of the EULA is fraud you have to prove it. Have you made a reasonable effort to obtain a valid copy from the software publisher and or owner of the copyrighted materials prior to sale? Did they deny one to you? You would have to establish these as facts with proof to even allege to the satisfaction of a court that a fraud has occurred.

If my client receives two licensed sets of my work...for two separate projects I logically expect payment for both.

Being sensible, however, the second being 'mostly' [but not entirely] a repeat of the first the total fee would not be 200% ....but can fairly be around 150% or so.

If a client paid for one...but subsequently built two I can legitimately [and successfully] sue for substantially MORE than the unpaid '50%' we may have agreed to.  I am legally entitled to the profit component of the second, namely about 95% [unused materials are discounted as there was no cost to me].

It's not armchair conjecture....I've been in the industry for 35 years.... kinda know it pretty well by now....

Yes, I've read more than Starship Troopers {I read that one somewhen back in the 70s} and I'm pretty sure I made no mention/suggestion that Heinlein was 'advocating fascism' at all... The oldest Heinlein I have dates back to 1948...

Same here. The collector's edition seems to be entirely lacking in that department. Every other game I own has some form of warning.

They are going to have a fun time of defining what a pirate actually is, because they will need a very strict set of definitions and limits on when and where to apply the ban - if it comes into force.

considering that most software and intellectual property allows you to make one copy for yourself to protect the integrity of the original, what if you store that online and then download it whenever you need? will you need to prove that it is not piracy if you do multiple installations over the course of a year or more?

it sounds good, this denial of access for confirmed piracy, but then the evidence must be conclusive and iron clad and thats not going to happen. its SOOOO easy to use someone elses connection to do whatever with, must the victim now prove innocence?
not to mention how do you actually implement denial of access to the internet? the internet is literally everywhere. you might take away the pirate's computer, but what about the cellphone, smartphone, tv, playstation, etc? and thats just in the house! what about cybercafe's, work, public access areas...? implementation is going to be a nightmare

but take it one step further, will EU law supercede national law? if a country gaurantees freedoms of expression and distribution of data, will this law be allowed when it infringes on a countries soverignty? look at www.thepiratebay.org, countries and organisations have been trying for YEARS to close it down, but its freedom and continuance is gauranteed through the swedish constitution

laws which transferse boundaries of international soverignty are tricky and WILL be subject to abuse by the people who can wield the biggest stick...or veto

Copyright is not notification of an end user license agreement. Did you sign an EULA for the last book you bought? Software isn't special just because some people in the software industry want it to be. We're protected against fraud specifically to stop that sort of tactic, and the onus is to be on the buyer to figure out the hidden terms to his purchase?

There are copyrights on nearly everything you buy, and almost none of them come with an EULA. You have no EULA written in a book, you have standard copyright notification. There is no EULA for the instruction manual to your TV, or the packaging on your soap. Everything down the the label on your ass(Levi perhaps?) is protected by copyright and or trademark. If you don't know standard copyright law, then your problem is ignorance of your own laws. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, legal precedent abounds. For those copying and distributing software, yeah, it's illegal, the EULA has no bearing on that.

EULA's aren't law, though they generally cover the law, some of them only cover the law, resale, distribution, reverse engineering, all that good stuff you're not supposed to do with software. Some of them, like EA's current ones, have restrictions that are not law. They are just like any other contract, except one you don't see at purchase. They weren't even backed by any law until the atrocious DMCA.

There is severely bad case law backing up the asinine view that you can be bound by a contract not disclosed at sale, but the majority of the court rulings have been that EULA's are non-binding unless disclosed prior to sale. The DMCA was passed in part to change that little problem.

Unfortunately for the DMCA, the exchange of legal tender is a binding contract. As legal tender is constitutionally guaranteed, the piece of unconstitutional shit that is the DMCA is trumped and will be tossed if we ever get an honest ruling on it. All terms must be presented at sale, any terms that aren't, aren't part of the binding contract that is the exchange of legal tender. Any terms in the EULA you haven't been shown at sale that aren't already covered by copyright law, such as EA's termination clauses, are illegal. It doesn't get any less gray than that for copyright law in the US.

@psychoak

You are given notice of EULA at install. It's in the installer. The software won't install without your agreement to the EULA. Furthermore, you have failed to address a pertinent matter. If you are so bothered by being denied a copy of the EULA at the time of purchase then what reasonable steps have you undertaken to obtain one? Did you contact the software distributor and/or owner prior to the sale requesting one?

Bait and switch is the classic definition of a type of consumer fraud; it requires there is adverstizing or signage suggesting something is true, such as the price is $1.99, only to find at the cash register the price is actually $3.99. Or, you find the store clerk telling you we are out of the $1.99 item but have this $4.99 item available instead.

So, how have you been mislead by the software distributor and/or owner into believing your software purchase was not the subject of an EULA and what reasonable steps did you take to ascertain from the software distributor and/or owner whether or not an EULA applied. Seeing as though you allege your so familiar with the law and you demonstrate knowledge that such things are common yet you also claim you bear no obligation to obtain copy of the EULA prior to sale? I don't think any court or attorney would support these claims of yours.