Sure, that's it - all software companies just never bothered enforcing their EULA rights, just like no music company has ever sued an end user for copyright infringement. Companies are all sweet and wonderful about things like this.

Sure Willy - it's certainly got nothing to do with their lawyers telling them that they're on shaky ground regarding consumers.

Then they have need to decide if they *really* need that protection. If they do - then they go to the trouble to do it right, like everyone else has to. If not, then they realize that the extra protection isn't worth the lost sales - like everyone else does.

Life is like that.

That's a situation for courts and the UCC committee to explore in depth - as UCC currently stands, the enforcabilty is iffy and I can understand why the jurisdictions are split on it, so I'd like to see the commitee clarify what contitutes good faith information  on the EULA - the extreme version would be having a rep on a chat client to answer questions, the mildest simply having to acknowledge the EULA, but it *does* need to be clarified.

If there is a genuine need for a specific kind of protection, and it's generic enough to be applicable across all software, then the UCC committee needs to be advised of it and a specific, limited clarification that both the software industry and people like the EFF can agree on needs to be adopted, rather than having a thousand licenses for a hundred companies.

Frankly - I really don't see the need, but I'd rather come up with an honest compromise that addresses specific concerns than to allow this ridiculous attempt to trap people into contracts to keep floating along as is.

Not really, or not any more than most law. Just declares that what is sold is a negotiable Title to a Copy of the Program and the "Owner of a copy" provision under copyright handles that properly - the rest of it is method of distrubution and the internet is a valid method for moving that copy to the owner, so long as you don't complicate it with additional EULA's.

You keep trying to play the consumer clause out as if it is some really ambiguous definition. Although I see some grey area where two courts mmight disagree in a specific case, there's just not that much play involved in the definition.

Yes or no: Is selling a database you acquired from another company a use that counts as being "primarily for personal, family, or household purposes."

Yes or No: Does culling information from that database and repackaging it for resale require "knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction"

You complain on the one hand that to not hold consumers responsible for knowing the full permutations of an EULA when buying a game is to treat them as handicapped, then turn around and argue repeatedly that something as simple as *this* pair of easily understood definitions is somehow *way* too vague.

Pick a position - is contract law so simple any adult should be held to it or way too complex for your average IT professional?

Oh goody - ypu know, I just never get tired of reposting links:
[link="http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-501"]§ 2-501. Insurable Interest in Goods;  Manner of Identification of Goods.[/links]
"(1) The buyer obtains a special property and an insurable interest in goods by identification of existing goods as goods to which the contract refers even though the goods so identified are non-conforming and he has an option to return or reject them.  Such identification can be made at any time and in any manner explicitly agreed to by the parties.  In the absence of explicit agreement identification occurs

(a) when the contract is made if it is for the sale of goods already existing and identified;"

I bought a box. It had a CD on it. In abscense of explicit agreement to the contrary, when I bought the box with the CD in it, I actually bought
1) A box and
2) the CD it contained.

Even for a merchant to merchant sale, the obvious existence of
1) A box with
2) a CD in it

means I bought a box and the contents thereof, unless explicitly informed otherwise.

It is worth noting that yes - I know  the PrCD versus Zeindeberg district judge ignored this. He ignored all *sorts* of stuff.


Eh - we'll see - like I said, looks like a corporate battle. As long as Apple doesn't try and say Psystar is liable because they have mutual customers, I don't care that much.

Jonnan

In case of WoW, you dont sign the eula when downloading the client. You do it when buying an account. All bills the player has to pay for wow is on a per account basis, not per cd or per client software. Anything else would not make any sense with a subscription based game. (you could have multiple accounts but only one client ect..)

The cd inside the box is nothing worth beyond the cents for the physical cd itself.
If the way subscription based games contradicts with laws for retail selling, those either may not be sold retail or may not contain a cd, forcing every consumer to download it from the internet. If you like that option more.

§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions (1) (c) "Consumer" means an individual who buys or contracts to buy goods that, at the time of contracting, are intended by the individual to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

1 ) No, but we have no conclusive proof that his intent was to sell it when he acquired it. The consumer ruling depends on his intent when he bought it, not on his final actions. Depending who you place the burden of proof on, either Zeitenberg had to "prove" he intended the database for personal use to claim consumer status, or ProCD had to "prove" he intended it for commercial use to claim he was a merchant. Any time someone is required to prove intent of anything, simple definitions fly out the window.

2 ) This can easily be answered both ways, but I believe no, this does not make him a merchant.  How does one define exactly what knowledge is required to be a merchant? If simply knowing how to do something doesn't make one a merchant, what does? Is there some degree of knowledge of the actual buisiness practices required?

If one answers yes (as you clearly do), this sets the bar for being a merchant so absurdly low that consumers are forced to limbo under it to remain consumers. Oh no, I can change the alternator on my car, I'm officially a "merchant" mechanic! I might further qualify as a "merchant" in the following fields: carpentry, plumbing, drywall, small appliance repair, lawn care, hotel operation, agriculture research, medival armor, etc, etc, etc. Needless to say, both of us would have demonstrated enough knowledge (even if our opinions are contradictory) to qualify as merchants in terms of software licensing.

Clearly the yes option would lead to most adults (hell, even children) being considered merchants in a multitude of fields, so I have to say no, this degree of knowledge did not make Zeitenberg a "merchant", at least not for the first purchase. He certainly WAS a merchant for the second and third, but he did not qualify as one for the first.

And yes, Jonnan, the Apple complaint accuses Psystar of having "induced, caused or materially contributed to the infinging conduct of purchasers." In part, they are being sued for profitting from others infringing the copyright by operating outside the license agreement.

http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/videos/Apple-Psystar-complaint.pdf

Not my problem. If the software companies want to write themselves exemptions to the laws, they have to do it legally.

Bans on reverse engineering a product for your own personal amusement are not necessary to protect their intellectual property.

Termination clauses so they can take my game away are not necessary to protect their intellectual property.

Waiver of consumer liability and lemon law protections are not necessary to protect their intellectual property.

You are arguing a fictitious point. It doesn't exist. They DO NOT NEED EULA's. The entertainment industry makes billions every year off media just as easily copied. The only thing an EULA does is restrict the rights of honest people. Anyone that will do something to violate copyright is already breaking the law and isn't going to give a shit about the illegal contract they're breeching at the same time.



Context you twat. The negative effect that less than 5% of the users are complaining about is that the drop rates are too low. Cause and effect. The cause is that bots are being sent in to kill certain creatures and spend inordinate time doing so. The effect is that various spawns become impossible to find. They're simply targeting the cause instead of the effect.

The cold is incurable. The cold is a nuisance. How do we treat the cold?

Adjusting your drop rates to change with the load requires minimal intelligence. It's a simple thing to do if you can belt out a game like WOW in 3 years. Bots are a nuisance, an incurable nuisance. You treat the symptoms. Perhaps, if they'd tried treating the symptoms instead of trying to cure the common cold, they'd be ahead of the curve.



Considering I gave their yearly profit, and not their revenue, I fail to see why you're even mentioning this. Sorry, but restricting my rights in an attempt to increase your profit margin from 1000% to 1001% just does not get you my sympathy vote. The guestimate on the development costs for WOW are around $40 million. They make $600 million a year in profit. Profit, not revenue. The math isn't difficult, even if it cost half again what people have guessed, they're making out like bandits. If they sold a necessity instead of a luxury, they'd have been dismantled by congress for unfair business practices, price gouging, and who knows what other bullshit charges.



You state the concept, yet can't grasp it. Blizzard is allowed to steal from us because their losses can be greater than ours. Blizzard is just protecting themselves and aren't actually thieves. When we exchange our money for goods, Blizzard keeps them.

Your logic is hilarious. Catastrophic in nature and horrifying to imagine, but still morbidly hilarious.



This is my problem why? Blizzard's own incompetency in managing their account system means I should have my rights taken away from me?



Except it's not a real problem. It's a supposed problem. It has already been explained that their attempt to neutralize bots is pissing money down the drain, and that their losses are unsubstantiated despite any wishful thinking on their part. This is much like the general piracy argument. A million people downloaded it! we lost a million sales!!! No consideration of reality, no studying the dynamics behind the numbers. Blizzard is banning customers and spending millions trying to prevent it in the first place, instead of writing a comparatively simple fix to creature spawns that takes into account the rate they are being killed at and replenishes them accordingly.

Despite your cherry picked quoting, you even left the kicker in and still ignored it. COMMITTING FRAUD COMES WITH POSSIBLE JAIL TIME!

Do I need to use a bigger font too?



Then why are they banning bots? I'd never even consider playing WOW for that very reason. I've done enough grinding, I'm not putting up with that shit anymore. For all we know, if bots were legal and compensated for, they'd have 20 million users instead of 10.



You can't have it both ways. If the point is to get people to play their game, they should be happy to expand their user base to those not interested in playing them without a bot to handle the grind.



Really? The drawbacks of being honest and giving full disclosure I guess. Maybe, I should get on here and pretend I wasn't a devoted fanboy that will forgive Blizzard anything while bashing someone that admits to not liking MMORPG's and Blizzard in general.

So... do your narrow, unsubstantiated, and factually inaccurate theories also cover my bashing of the DRM in Spore, EA's termination clauses in single player games, and the general view that EULA's are illegal in all consumer software sold for the last few decades? I must hate Blizzard and awful lot for it to transfer to things that predate them.

I don't like it, I don't play it. It really is that simple. What's not simple is your reasoning. Ethical concerns in using a bot against a server in a game where your play time isn't otherwise restricted? You're not even cheating against another person, and it's just a fucking video game.

The ethical concerns are all on the side of the asshole companies screwing their customers over because they have a sense of entitlement that vastly outstrips their legal right. EA releasing knowingly defective software, and then not fixing it, is an ethical concern. EA hiding clauses in a contract you can't read until you already own the product that excuse them from any and all liability of any form is an ethical concern.

Grow a pair and challenge your own malformed ideas. Meanwhile, stop taking me out of context because you don't have any arguments beyond "Nurrr, bots are bad!"

Not sure what you're looking for here - If the court had not thrown the definitions out the window and decided to ignore the actual written law, then you're right, then when remanded back to the lower court ProCD would have had to prove he was acting as a merchant and Zeindenberg in turn would have to defend his default status as a consumer. My suspicion is that the way it was used would have been sufficient to establish this - the data Zeidenberg copied from the database was at least somewhat time sensitive, so although I am merely guessing that it was a matter of weeks rather than years between purchase and reverse-engineering the database to cull the data, it's an educated guess.

Unfortunately, the way the district court worded the decision foreclosed the line of inquiry - once the district court established that being a consumer was *no* protection despite the plain text of the UCC, the original court lost any right to even adjudge that fact. I don't think it's an unfair assumption that, had Zeidenberg and/or his lawyer thought they could have *won* the question of being a consumer versus merchant, they would have appealed this decision, but either it didn't occur to them to force that adjudication or they judged the chances of winning as being so slim as to be not worth throwing good money after bad.

I redid the plumbing for my house (A joy I could have done without - 1890's farmhouse). I did a competent job of it, installed two new bathubs, redid two bathrooms, cut out old sewage lines, moved the laundry room to the second floor. I did, if I may say so, a heckuva job and I'm happy with it.

No more makes me a real plumber than Mario and Luigi. I *also* ran portions of those lines two or three times, had to fix leaks, came within a hair of completely screwing up the 2nd floor toilet in a way that would have forced me to replace a ridiculous amount of pipe, and realized after the fact that the way I had run part of the sewer pipe from the 2nd floor to the first means that there is no way for a man my size to get through the crawlspace and fix the second floor piping if I have a problem with it.

And everytime there was a legal question about how things had to be, I had to look it up. I got fairly good at looking it up, but I had to look it up.

Being able to run pipe, does not make me a professional Plumber. Professionals are those that can do things so well that . . . people will pay them money. Professionals know the regulations for their jobs. Professionals keep books.

Zeidenberg was *selling* this database. Not giving it away, not loaning it out to his neighbor, not trading it for pizza. There was currency exchanged.

Quit trying to create some artificial confusion where none exists.


Uh - so? Nobody here has said that it was okay to copy copyrighted stuff without any legal right to do so.
A) From the description I see, Psystar was distributing the code themselves. This isn't a situation where they're being accused of 'contributory infringement' based on the fact that something they did that was perfectly legal in and of itself interacted with some EULA from a third party. They broke the law, in a fairly obvious manner or so it seems to me.

B.) They *are* a merchant, again, pretty obviously. They don't have the protections against EULA's that a consumer has.

And that is entirely irrelevant. Whatever he may have done after getting the database, at the time he got it he was a consumer - unless you think a person's actions can retroactively strip them of consumer rights? That's a stance even *I* have issues with. Using a copy of Quicken doesn't make you an accountant. Neither does charging $10 to put someone else's numbers in your copy to save them the cost of getting their own. Even if it's hundreds of other people, you're still not an accountant.

And for your plumbing, good for you. I've never tackled anything that big. Your description comes awfully close to my experience with some contractors, though. Being a merchant implies competence, it doesn't guarrantee it.

Of course Psystar broke the law, but point is that Apple is trying to hold them accountable for consumers using OS X on their computers in violation of the EULA. Not just for Psystar making and selling illegal copies, but consumers *using* the copies. Contributary copyright violations can only occur when someone is allowing *others* to infringe, thus this can only stick if the jury decides consumers are violating copyright by simply *using* these unauthorized copies. I would think that to be highly relevant to this discussion.

On a side note, how frightening is that? The outcome of a case like this can depend on 12 people who haven't the slightest clue what the law actually is, and how well the two sides can confuse them as to what is actually relevant. Having sat on a couple juries, I highly advise anyone who KNOWS they are in the right to opt out of a jury trial if at all possible. Even judges will tell you there is no predicting what a jury will come up with. There is good reason District-level decisions are not allowed to make precidents. Any written decision that can be cited as precident is at the Circuit level at least.

Well, if you think Blizzard is acting illegally, you have every right to haul them off to court.

Which makes sense - get rid of the cause, and you don't have to worry about the effect.

We do what we can to give our immune system the best chance of fighting the disease. We get plenty of rest, drink plenty of fluids, etc. We avoid things like stress that could hurt our immune system's effectivenes. Oh, I'm sorry, did you want me to say take that stuff that makes you feel better? Well, that would treat the symptoms, not the cold . . .

You're trying to make the argument that they shouldn't be trying to stop the bots. Problem is, you're not doing a very good job at it.

Perhaps, but it doesn't make it more fair to the humans who can't compete with bots, and it only fixes one small problem. It doesn't address the core issue.

Cancer is generally an incurable disease, but if you only treat the symptoms and don't attempt remove or destroy the cancerous cells on a regular basis, your patient is going to die quickly. Cancer patients have a much higher survival rate today because we do in fact try to remove and destroy the cancer cells. We know we can't ultimately win the war, but we can win battles and make life much easier for the patient.

Perhaps not. There are now vaccines available for some common strains, and having a vaccine would prevent that strain from affecting you. You wouldn't need to mess with the symptoms at all for that strain, because you simply wouldn't get sick in the first place.

In any case, the only reason why we can get away with only treating the symptoms is because we already have a deadly and devastating weapon against the common cold: The body's immune system. If our body wasn't so good at killing the common cold, it would be as bad as the bubonic plague was in Europe.

Yeah, "for all we know." That's not a very convincing statement. If you aren't even confident in your own hypothesis, why should I believe you?

I really do not care where you claim to be stealing it from, and do not expect me to give you any sympathy. After all, if you do not give any sympathy, why should you receive it?

If you believe they are stealing from you, go ahead and press charges.

Really? Did the cops come into your house and take your game away from you?

Nope. I read just fine. You just failed to address my own point, which is that it's not one person - it's thousands. That's a lot of lawsuits, a lot of money, a lot of lawyers, and a lot of time. Why spend so many resources fighting lots of people when you can fight one person?

You keep repeating that, as if repeating it will somehow make it true or make me believe it.

I don't think WoW is being unfair at all with their current levelling. In fact, it's far better than many other games I've played like Silkroad and Runescape. As far as I can tell, it took no longer to get to 55 than to get to 20. No, it's not Guild Wars, but it's not Silkroad either. It's very balanced. I do not think the grind is as horrible as you claim it is, and I think it appeals to a lot of people.

. . . and just because you don't like the product does not mean you have justification for violating the EULA. As I have said before, you can always buy a competitive product like Guild Wars or simply stop playing altogether.

If you think EULAs in general are illegal, go fight it in court. If you think DRM is unethical, write a letter to your congressman. Go talk to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, they help people all the time with this kind of stuff. Whining to me certainly won't fix what you think is wrong with this court case.

There should be an announcement if this thread ever comes to some kind of a conclusion.

That's not very likely to happen. Jonnan almost certainly won't change his position, even if the court rules EULAs enforcable for consumers. I probably won't change my opinion unless they strike down the entire concept, and I don't see that as very likely. Either way, it will be years before we get Circuit-level decisions to debate.

Ahah, conclusion? Does that include the eventual boredom kill that will end the posting when we get tired of people that can't read?

Crackhead! I don't play WOW, never played WOW, never will play WOW, and was responding to your own asstard hypothetical's in the first place. Obviously, I'm not cheating, using bots, or stealing WOW. So, stop calling me a thief or I'll sue you for libel and get a ruling as equally preposterous as the one Blizzard got that puts you in the poor house. Seriously, it's getting really fucking boring stating that I haven't done this or that over and over, page after page.



Excellent analogy. Billions have been spent to vaccinate against something that causes minor aches and pains and is better served by exercise and proper nourishment. The second part is even better, our body is so good at killing the cold because it wipes the intruding virus out on an individual basis. Now, go try to solve the common cold by eradicating it from the face of the earth, see how far you get.

Also, cancer is fatal, shittard. It's obviously not just a nuisance.



Broken window theory. Read it. This is hardly a unique issue. Minor crime is ignored constantly in favor of major crime, all crime is higher as a result. Cities that settle frivolous lawsuits because it's cheaper end up buried in frivolous lawsuits. People that don't maintain their property have it trashed at the first sign of abandonment. Rules that aren't enforced become ignored.

Do you really think bot use would be so prevalent in WOW if people went to jail for joining under false pretenses? Forget jail if that seems too lofty a goal, how about a fine the first time, breech of contract for violating the terms of service. You do grasp that the TOS covers bots right? That the TOS, unlike the EULA, is actually legal?

Regardless, you're still confusing wishful thinking with reality.



Oh, so I should make outrageous claims with no foundation as Blizzard did? Ok... If these bots weren't being unfairly targeted, WOW would appeal to a much larger user base. Fact. Why is it fact? Because people pay money for one that works. Just think if they were free like they would be without the Blizzard enforced monopoly that left only one bot maker standing, and the people using them weren't being banned! There could be twice as many people playing wow, maybe ten times.

Blizzard gives numbers, ignores reality, and pretends they live in a vacuum with no other factors. You take that at face value, ignore reality yourself, and use the ambiguity of the system you wont admit to against the counter argument. Bravo, real intellectual.



It must smell really bad up there, can you breath alright?



I'd suggest you invest in some anal extraction tools, at the least ventilation.

How many times now have I stated that I don't own WOW and wont buy a game with such things in place to actually give me standing to take them to small claims court later? Would you intentionally buy a product just to see if the company would act on the protections they wrote themselves and defraud you later? I give money to people I want to support, not people I want to stomp into a greasy spot. Hell, doing so is probably the grounds they'd need to get the case dismissed.



Maybe because it is? Gravity is still a theory, but you blindly follow their Swiss cheese logic? If I kick you in the nuts hard enough to crush your balls, it will hurt. Now how much does it hurt? Blizzard's statements go that far. Why would I kick you in the balls to start with? Maybe you're a giant walking dick and I couldn't kick you anywhere else. Maybe you kicked me first. Maybe I kicked you in the balls because you have a fetish and want me too.

You can't study a complex system and determine the causes that lead to your end results by listing the number of banned bot users and people that don't like them. Blizzard has never even attempted to study the problem. They set up no test servers where bot use was allowed. They never tried punishing bot users. They never tried correcting for the effects of bot users. They know just as little as I do, the only difference is they lie about it and state fictitious losses that may or may not exist.



You think. Accepting that as plausible, so what? I think their leveling system sucks. I think Runescape is a horrific nightmare designed to torture small children and kill puppies. Your opinion on how fun or not fun the unmodified game is has no bearing. Either you're a customer, or you're not. You are, I'm not. I could be with bots.

Blizzard is a business, the more they sell, the more money they make. If they want to make more money, they need to appeal to a broader audience. They already pulled in several million more users than the other guys by not having it be as slow as EQ was, by decreasing the grind requirements. They also lost quite a few people that think it's too simple and fast, that like the slower pacing of other games. Bots mean you can think one thing and still like the game, and I can think another and still like the game, assuming it's at all possible.





Lets pretend this is relevant, and it's not.

I buy a game. It sucks. I modify the game until it interests me without regards to the limitations on modification given in the EULA. Explain how that comes out being a bad thing in a world not inhabited by leprechauns and fairies. Where the fuck do you get off telling someone they can't modify their own copy? This ruling doesn't apply to people cheating with bots on MMO's. This ruling means if I rewrite the executable to say "FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE!" on startup, I no longer have the right to use the game and am violating copyrights every time I use it.

Did you even read it?



You seem to not grasp the concept of standing. You can't fight an EULA in court. I can walk up to you in the middle of the street, and say you own me 50 dollars every time you take a piss. You can't take me to court for it. I actually have to try to collect on it before you have standing. Until then, wish in one hand, shit in the other. As to the other, less effective means, I've never stated that I've taken no action. You merely assume I have not. Filing protests has already gotten a few DRM schemes shot down, notably, Sony's rootkit fiasco. It would be nice if it takes down SecuROM and EULA's written to legalize fraud, but so far it doesn't seem to be working.

Probably because most of the country has mush for brains and isn't even paying attention, and the rest are so fucked in the head that they agree with the practices out of some sense of necessity.

Just out of curiosity Cobra - on what produst have you *ever*, upon *not* seeing a notice of a EULA, asked a person at the store or looked up the EULA online on?

Seriously.

Have you done so for Banana's?

Couch?

Digital Camera?

CD Player?

DVD Player?

If not, why not?

I feel it's worth noting that three of those include digital programming for which the license can be revoked if using them in a way in which the software manufacturer disagrees, and couch designs are now considered copyrightable under U.S. Law (If you don't believe me, ask anyone that makes movies. Using 'copyrighted' furniture is a problem.), which of course leaves only the banana is not copyrightable, and therefore it couldn't have an EULA.

Unless it's a genetically modified banana of course.

In which case, it is in fact certain copyrighted, so you need to verify that before you assume it's not.

You'd better talk to the grocery department and verify you have a license to use that banana with your cereal. Because, you know, you're may not be buying a banana, you're might just be buying a license to a banana.

So Cobra - Have you checked the licenses of *any* of those by checking the website of the company?

Jonnan

Okay, I wasn't careful enough with my language. I'm not meaning to accuse you. Not that you're being very careful with your own language. "Crackhead?"

I'm not saying they should give up fighting bots in the conventional manner. This is not a mutually exclusive matter.

And I did not say cancer was not fatal.

You have a really poor grasp on logic if you think that is what I had meant. That's a false dilemma: I most certainly was not saying you should make outrageous claims.

You admit you haven't tried it, and that it's merely a hypothetical. So make your point and move on.

Okay, you want to gather in a larger variety of people, that's okay. I just don't think playing around with controversial software is the best way to do it. They have a system for making suggestions and filing complaints.

Other than what I have already repeated many times? Do you really have a point lurking around here somewhere? I'm not interested in skirting the issue. You already know I'd just make another speech about the law and ethics. Make your point, please.

I've looked up the occasional EULA online.

For the items you're listed, I haven't created any copies of them. If for some odd reason I wanted to attempt to create a copy of the firmware on a CD player, yes I'd have to ask them for permission.

Don't need to. I'm not copying it. Copyright law covers copying, not usage. Blizzard has to make the case that copying was done. If they fail in that regard, they can easily lose the entire case. Very easily.

But copyright law already covers copying.  Licenses further restrict your use.  You may only be allowed to consume that banana in it's natural state.  Slicing it could be construed as exploratory and banned to prevent other people from making modified bananas.

For the rest of your post.  Perhaps it would make more sense if you took the entire posts instead of separating your quotes out and then only responding to those?

This one in particular is great, really...

Maybe, if you'd quoted the other half of the paragraph, you'd look like a fucking retard instead of just a shit?

 

You know, this half?

 

I say again, did you even read it?  You know, the ruling that started this post?  The one you're arguing in favor of because Blizzard has to stop bots?  Not that you're really arguing, you just ignore everything you can't counter.

Really?

You mean sir - that you've never taken a photograph of any item you own?

Because the physical design for virtually anything is copyrighted no - that's why I brought up moviemaking - it's a genuine problem there - {G}. That includes your couch, your furniture, your clothing and that slinky thing your girlfriend only wears when she want's something. So better not photograph anything.

And of course, virtually every DVD player is, internally, a computer now - so you need to look at the license agreement of every DVD you own. Same for your CD's as well. I'm sure the license agreement allows for standard use, but if they are withdrawing the license agreement when used on days evenly divisible by prime numbers, you need to check that.

And of course the DVD Hardware is flash updatable, so whenever you turn your DVD back on a copying operation is performed from eprom to memory.

I mean come on - if you're going to make statements like the one that kicked this off - you need to make sure you check these things - <G>.

And the banana's of course can't have photos taken of them either. Nor can they be painted - those genetically modified banana's are copyrighted.

You have to know these things when you're a king - {G}.

Jonnan

Who is doing the apple to oranges comparisons now?

Thats NOT copying. You are making a photo not a copy.

 

 

Code is intelectual property. They have the right to give you only the rights they want you to have.

They do not restrict the usage of the program.

But that does not include any rights to do anything with the code.

Again, YOU NEVER HAD ANY RIGHTS to the intelectual property of other people.

And nothing is forcing them to give you any.

Nor can you compare code the the design of something. If you modify a code, it is still their code.

If you modify the design of something you own, it does not have the original design anymore.