One fellow's thoughts on anti-piracy policies

Users who are viewing this thread

Archonsod said:
Merentha said:
Being annoyed at what is an unnecessary step that does almost nothing to the pirates and inconveniences the, by and large, honest customer base is perfectly rational, reasonable, and acceptable. Just because you consent to something doesn't mean you have to be happy with it.
If I code my game to require a serial key, or access to a Valve server, or whatever how is that any different from coding it to need a 3D card or 1Gb of memory? If I decide my game should tell me what kind of system you're running it on that's up to me, only option you get is to choose whether to buy the software or not. There's no law which dictates what a piece of software can and can't do, nor is their one dictating what secondary functions are permitted or not. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Buying it and then complaining is a bit like buying a car and then complaining you don't like the colour.
None of your analogies are particularly applicable.  Coding a game to require a 3D card is catering to a different (more affluent/devoted) crowd of customers, not throwing in a completely arbitrary and mostly useless feature.  You assume that we're complaining after we buy it, for one thing.  More appropriately would be complaining that the only car of a certain type I am interested in buying only comes in one color when almost every other car on the market has a wide selection.  I'm still going to buy the car, but I'm also going to ***** about how I'm inconvenienced. 

If you're going to repeat your "don't like it, don't buy it" mantra, well, I am simply going to repeat mine.  You didn't even respond to my post, you just repeated the same arrogant **** again. 
Merentha said:
Just because you consent to something doesn't mean you have to be happy with it.
 
Piracy is a big deal, but more for the niches that don't have much support in the first place, or download only distributed games. Bioware has a huge following and had lots of budget. They simply can't deliver good games that are based on their own IPs. That's why they are now owned by EA.

Even funnier is the new stealth encryption chip going onto all computers now. Like they can't just crack that out of every single game just like they get the cd keys out....
 
Thus spake Nosferatu said:
First off, they don't spell out what the copy protection does. Second, those are completely nonbinding anyhow, and no one ever reads them.
Um, actually over the past two years every game I've bought has shipped with documentation which explains the copy protection far better than it explains the actual game. On that count, you should be complaining that the copy protection you bought shipped with this confusing graphical app that's badly documented and unclear in purpose :razz: Dunno what legal status has to do with it, and technically they've never been legally challenged. Problem there being that as you are licensing the software, the provider does actually have a legal right to terminate service at their own discretion.

Merentha said:
None of your analogies are particularly applicable.  Coding a game to require a 3D card is catering to a different (more affluent/devoted) crowd of customers, not throwing in a completely arbitrary and mostly useless feature.
If it were mostly useless I don't think it would be there. Simply because it isn't useful to the end user doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone. Given that it's not actually meant for the benefit of the end user I don't see where you could get the criteria to determine whether it's useful or not. For all we know, publishers might be involved in some huge conspiracy to make us replace our keyboards by forcing us to enter ridiculously long serial numbers everytime we play the game, in which case it's highly useful.
As for the former,  I fail to see the difference between saying "someone who wants to play our game needs a Geforce 6 or greater" and "someone who wants to play our game needs a valid serial key".

Thus spake Nosferatu said:
Even funnier is the new stealth encryption chip going onto all computers now. Like they can't just crack that out of every single game just like they get the cd keys out....
Wouldn't need to. Just look at the success it enjoys in the Xbox.
 
As for the former,  I fail to see the difference between saying "someone who wants to play our game needs a Geforce 6 or greater" and "someone who wants to play our game needs a valid serial key".

Copy protection is annoying, while graphics requirements are somewhat less annoying.
 
Rabid Potatoe said:
As for the former,  I fail to see the difference between saying "someone who wants to play our game needs a Geforce 6 or greater" and "someone who wants to play our game needs a valid serial key".

Copy protection is annoying, while graphics requirements are somewhat less annoying.
One is a practical requirement while the other is arbitrary. 
 
Archonsod said:
Merentha said:
Being annoyed at what is an unnecessary step that does almost nothing to the pirates and inconveniences the, by and large, honest customer base is perfectly rational, reasonable, and acceptable. Just because you consent to something doesn't mean you have to be happy with it.
If I code my game to require a serial key, or access to a Valve server, or whatever how is that any different from coding it to need a 3D card or 1Gb of memory? If I decide my game should tell me what kind of system you're running it on that's up to me, only option you get is to choose whether to buy the software or not. There's no law which dictates what a piece of software can and can't do, nor is their one dictating what secondary functions are permitted or not. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Buying it and then complaining is a bit like buying a car and then complaining you don't like the colour.


The required hardware is on the box, the EULA is not. You have to buy the game to figure out what it says. I don't know the law myself, but I remember reading one argument that said that the EULA was not binding for that very reason. I'm pretty sure the EULA hasn't been tested in court that often.

Mind you, if the EULA said that the company CEO could come to my house and rape me in the ass, I wouldn't consider myself bound by it, either. There are limits to what you can do with these things. Some copy protection borders on destruction of property.
 
Bellum said:
I'm pretty sure the EULA hasn't been tested in court that often.
Hasn't been tested at all. Like I said though it's moot, you have no rights regarding the licence, and the licence holder has the right to revoke your licence at any time. The only real question is whether you'd be entitled to get money back from the publisher if this happened.
There are limits to what you can do with these things. Some copy protection borders on destruction of property.
No, there's no laws regulating software. As long as you were told prior to running or installing the software that it will do something, then as far as the law is concerned by running or installing the software you have already accepted it.
 
Then it should be illegal, which was my original point.

Again, it's not much different from being anally raped, just without all the bodily contact.
 
Archonsod said:
There's no law which dictates what a piece of software can and can't do
Actually, the Computer Misuse Act does make malicious software such as viruses and Trojan Horses illegal. But for mainstream software you're correct, and on top of that the CMA is spectacularly useless at actually stopping virus creators.
 
In order to be considered illegal the software must be made with clear malicious intent. IIRC only Germany implemented a law using the trojan/virus definition, everywhere else was more sensible.

Bellum said:
Then it should be illegal, which was my original point.
Like I said as far as the law is concerned you're agreeing to it by installing or running the program. It would be impossible to make it illegal without also outlawing things like disk formatting utilities, which would be a bit silly.
You can prosecute under the misrepresentation of goods/services laws if it isn't mentioned on the box prior to purchasing the game, but I don't think it's been tried. In theory, you could technically demand a refund from the publisher if you reject their EULA, assuming the court is willing to accept your paying for a licence rather than the actual DVD rom or whatever, although even if they determine it to be goods rather than a service then you might have an argument along 'not fit for purpose' lines.
 
I personally think, that when companies *cough EA cough* stop acting like a bunch of greedy scumbags, then piracy would go down. OR when devolpers say something, they actually mean it (black and white 2 comes to mind, multiplayer anyone?)


Personally, I don't have a ton of money to spend on games, I remember buying Rainbow Six Vegas because it had "Online split screen" so me and my brother could play on the same team online, that sounded awesome...

But by "online split screen" it meant "You can sign into you online Xbox names and play single player co-op woohoo!"


****s.


 
Archonsod said:
Evidently they don't consider it futile or else they wouldn't be handing money out to the likes of Sony for it in the first place. Of course, for the few which do actually report information back one could also point out that protection isn't it's only purpose too.

That they consider something to be futile or otherwise doesn't necessarily mean that it is... I'd hardly label Sony's management a standard for objectivity
 
Games are sickeningly expensive. Not only that, its like walking on landmines when trying to find a good game. People get naturally pissed when they spent 60 bucks on a pathetic game.

Anyway, about the analogy, the theatre managers need to find a way to close the fire exit.
Of course, what are they going to do? Make 1 .mp3 a GB of space? Sadly, torrents and downloads are not so popular because people are cheap, but because they are convenient.

A company really needs to set up a service that doesn't require a credit card and has some sort of own bank account. Something like Direct2Drive that doesn't give you broken versions and is easy to use. I'd spend way more if I could pump 50$ into a online game account and buy away.

Trying to find a game is impossible where I live really. Gothic 3? I had to wait to go to Toronto just to pick it up. Direct2Drive removed it and its no where in the crappy stores here. I guess that's why I mod...

Edit: You know what I find funny is how people have reported that "pirates" are friendlier than staff. Making guides, helping others out, seeding just to lend a hand. Its hilarious how honour seems to grow when faced with the big bad meanie companies.

Still, I have no interest in buying games or ever wanting to pirate them- I've come to the conclusion that most games suck nowadays.
 
Archonsod said:
[Legal Approximations Here]
I'm pretty sure that, at least over here, if you don't accept the EULA you are entitled to a refund. I don't remember ever seeing a box with the phrase "You must accept an EULA to use this product." or something similar on it. Furthermore there is no way to find out what the EULA actually says before purchasing the product. Whether it's a license or a product you weren't informed of the EULA before you bought it, therefore you can return it.

I'm not a legal expert though, so I could easily be wrong. (Are you, by the way?)
 
Interesting point... can you be refused a refund if you refused the terms of the EULA.  Probably not as you can't prove you've rejected it as vendors would say.  However this swings both ways.  Does clicking "I agree" constitute as a legally binding signature (still legal grey area iirc).  If no then the argument, along with the copy protection issue is moot.  If yes then how legal is it to sell someone a product to which a legally binding contract is attached yet can't even be read and accepted until they've bought it.

 
Sevain said:
I'm pretty sure that, at least over here, if you don't accept the EULA you are entitled to a refund.
Yes and no. It depends entirely on whether it's treated as a good or service, which is usually at the discretion of the court. As a service, then rejecting the EULA should entitle you to a full refund since technically you haven't actually accepted the service (in fact, you shouldn't have paid in the first place). If it's treated as a good then you're not, since you still own the media. However in that case you'd be covered by your statutory rights, which in most countries allow you to return the goods for a full refund within seven days of purchase, provided they are in the same condition they were when sold. I've never heard of anyone requesting a refund for rejecting the EULA, but most publishers have their own returns policies. Until someone finally takes them to court over it I don't think it'll ever be established though.
Products purchased via digital download tend to be covered by separate laws, and usually depend upon the location of the company providing the service.
I don't remember ever seeing a box with the phrase "You must accept an EULA to use this product." or something similar on it.
Microsoft tend to have a blue seal on their boxes informing you that you must accept the EULA to open them; kind of ironic since the EULA is actually inside the box. Although that being said I haven't seen one for a while, but then I don't think I've bought anything off Microsoft since AOEIII
Whether it's a license or a product you weren't informed of the EULA before you bought it, therefore you can return it.
The problem is who to return it to. If it's a product then it's the person who sold you it who is responsible for refunds, as per statutory rights on the sale of goods. If it's a licence then it's the licence provider who is responsible for refunding you. Most publishers I know of will insist it's a product, thus the onus is on the seller. Most sellers will insist that refusing the EULA is a licencing issue and refer you to the publisher. It's a catch 22 situation at the moment, and until the law decides precisely what software falls under it's likely to continue.
I'm not a legal expert though, so I could easily be wrong. (Are you, by the way?)
Technically I'm a service :lol: My company provides briefings on this stuff regularly since part of our responsibilities include potential licensing issues, for the kind of software that costs upwards of $5K per year. It's amazing the **** we need to know; we also get regular updates on the US non-proliferation policies and their denied/restricted persons list too.

Iron Count said:
Probably not as you can't prove you've rejected it as vendors would say.
If you click reject then the software won't install. In theory, you can prove you rejected the EULA simply by showing you have not used the software, which is where online activations might come around to bite the publishers on the arse. After all, if the particular serial key on your copy has never been activated then it's pretty strong proof you've not used the service.
Under local law though (at least in the UK) the vendor is obliged to refund you upon return of the goods within the seven day period after purchase, provided they're in the same condition you purchased it (and removing the shrink wrap doesn't actually invalidate this).
  Does clicking "I agree" constitute as a legally binding signature
No, the EULA isn't a legal contract, it's a terms of service agreement. The provider is basically saying they will terminate your license to use the product if you breach any of the EULA conditions. As far as the law is concerned the provider has the right to terminate the license at any time and for any reason, the main purpose of the agreement is to cover their arse rather than yours; if they terminate without specific reason or due warning then you do have a right to sue for damages.
 
Oh Christ.  Get yourself back to whatever libertarian hellhole you crawled out of and stop embarrassing yourself and everyone around you. 

edit:
Commander said:
Its absolutely INSANE to pay $70+ for a game you hate 10 sec after installing it! then when you try to bring it back you get $5 for it! like..hell that is piracy lol so i usaly get my hard ernd $$ stolen by makeing the mistake of putting trust into a company to give me a product worth haveing that is verry verry rarely likely to happen!..if i was a farmer & sold you an apple would you expect to pay the same for a roten worm infested apple as a nice ripe delicious one? NO!...im really really starting to hate being riped off nearly every time i hit the game store! :evil: :evil:

Oh yha on this note in Canada my puss of a government is trying to pass a bill thatl makeit that if you get cought downloading iligaly more than 3 times you get your internet cut! that & there going to have cops check your I-Pod, Labtop, ext ext.. for downloaded software! A TOTAL invasion of privacy! if that bill gets passed i swear im gona suicide bomb my nearest government office! lol not really but sumething as harsh!...god damn governments always trying to controll the people!..like whats worse? downloadeing a game that you probably wont like any way? (i buy after i try) or getting your internet cut for life because you downloaded illigaly?..your 1 true cheep,average everyday way to travel the world & gain knolage from almost any part of the world..like its my only real escape from my life!..well that & drinking but id rather cruse the internet than drink myself into acoma every night!..any way lol Another drunken rant! yhahhh..
Whoops, missed the bolded part.  Bye now. 
 
I was with him, up until the second paragraph.

Also, is it a rule that you can't even say that you've ever pirated anything, ever?
 
Oh good, I was getting a bit paranoid.

::shifty eyes::

Not that I've ever pirated anything of course....
 
Back
Top Bottom