Forums LFJR

Réponses: 15 Pages: 2 [ 1 2 \| Suivant ]

Invité

Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 25 mars 2003 07:15

Répondre

Invité

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 25 mars 2003 07:15

Répondre

Iguana Bwana

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 25 mars 2003 07:15

Répondre

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:03:17 GMT, "Mr B" <trip976@attbi.com> wrote:

>Just a thought.......

On the basis of that evidence, you'd best not attempt another one.

Iguana Bwana

Dartanus

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 25 mars 2003 08:09

Répondre

An interesting case, But where not talking about lawnomowers. Your exaple
was Theft, where if you had just made a perfect copy of that lawnmower, then
there wouldn't have been a problem. Pirate software is not theft. It is just
copying, duplicating bits upon new meadia taken from old. I only ever copy
games that ether a) aren't in my contry yet, B) I cant find in stores or C)
is out of production, so I have no other ways of getting this software, as
unfortunitly I dont have a Credit card. This cuases me no end of strife when
trying to order things from overseas, so I mostly try to get a copy first.
So in conculsion, Lawnmower Theft bad, copying Ok.

Invité

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 26 mars 2003 08:49

Répondre

Ewan Sinclair

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 26 mars 2003 08:49

Répondre

Doesn't the owner still have a license whether they have lost/broken the CD
or not, meaning that they are authorised to own and use the software?
If this is the case, this agreement says nothing about obtaining a
replacement copy of the actual data you are licensed to use, only about
making your own copy.

Of course, the person copying the thing for you isn't subject to the
agreement, so wouldn't they technically be allowed to make you a copy of
someone else's CD as long as you had a legitimate license?

In any case, laws aside, isn't it just a little mean spirited to take money
from someone twice when it costs you nothing to allow the person a
replacement, knowing full well that they paid for a license? If someone paid
me to let them know a number they wanted(which is basically all a program
is, albeit a very large one) and then they forgot it, I'd personally feel
like a bit of a scrooge for not just telling them again free of charge.

Of course, this kind of attitude would invite abuse in a controllable
system, but since we are currently at a point where no control can be
applied to these things, people are trying to develop their own moralities
to decide what to do. Simply saying "it's against the law" means nothing, as
it can't be enforced. The law is only based on morality, it is not
synonymous with it. So, in a place where laws don't matter, people naturally
think to themselves not "what can I get away with?", but "what is right?".
In this case, I think there are few who would say that failing to replace
something your customer has lost, when they didn't even have to pay for it
in the first place but did, and when it costs you nothing to replace, is a
fair thing to do. Conversely, it is also unfair to obtain a copy without
paying, but this is not what is at issue here.

So for all those who adhere blindly to the law, please do take the time to
question it. We'd still be burning witches, refusing women the vote, and
using black people as slaves if there wasn't a bit of breaking and
questioning going on.

Ewan

> INA owns the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in
the
> Software. The Software contains copyrighted material, trade secrets and
> other proprietary material. You may not copy, rent, lease, sublicense or
> distribute the Software. You may not electronically transmit the Software
> from one computer, console or other platform to another or over a network.

Ewan Sinclair

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 26 mars 2003 08:58

Répondre

> I lost my lawnmower........It is no longer in production and no lawnmower
> cuts like that one.......
> My neighbor has had one like I used to so I pirated that one. Now I cut my
> grass just like I used to.

Please do let me know how you pirate lawnmowers, I was under the impression
that obtaining one involved making it stop being in one place and start
being in another, which is a little different to software theft. I certainly
wouldn't mind too much if people snuck into my garage to pluck fresh
lawnmowers from my own, but the lawnmower company might get a little poor.
Not quite the same as actually taking someone's lawnmower away though, is
it?

> What country is this legal in? Through my loss, I get to take someone
elses
> work and use it with out paying?

> What other product is this right or OK to do? Cars? Computers? Lawnmowers?
> You may have kids, You may not. Not my problem.....until they steal
> something from me....taught by their father.....

The thing is that there is nowhere else in the world where you can "steal"
something without actually depriving someone of it. Comparisons with
physical objects are woefully inadequate.

I'd personally support simply taxing harder and then paying developers to
release freeware. It would make far more sense, and stop programmers from
starving. Attempting to make the current system work is doomed to failure,
and there isn't really anything fundamentally wrong with piracy, it just
doesn't fit our antiquated business model. A little bit of progressive
thinking would be rather nice.

Ewan

Dartanus

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 26 mars 2003 11:09

Répondre

Could it be? a voice of reason? I do belive it is!. Thank you Ewan, you made
the point I was trying to make, except I did it wrong

CaptainJ

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 26 mars 2003 17:20

Répondre

"Ewan Sinclair" <ewan_sinclair@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:J4dga.8329$Jf.694145@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
snip
>The thing is that there is nowhere else in the world where you can "steal"
>something without actually depriving someone of it. Comparisons with
>physical objects are woefully inadequate.

Books / Plagerism / Copyrights / Patents / Identity

> I'd personally support simply taxing harder and then paying developers to
> release freeware. It would make far more sense, and stop programmers from
> starving.

Heh, what planet are you from? Communism makes no sense. It rewards and
encourages mediocrity. If a programmer can't prevent starvation he needs a
better education, better work ethic, or different line of work.
What are you taxing? If the software is all free, you must be taxing
hardware, or non-users -a punishment to hardware manufacurers, or non-users.

>Attempting to make the current system work is doomed to failure,
> and there isn't really anything fundamentally wrong with piracy,

Thou shall not steal is quite fundamental.

> it just doesn't fit our antiquated business model.
>A little bit of progressive
> thinking would be rather nice.

Progressive? Like communism?
CJ

Invité

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 26 mars 2003 20:30

Répondre

Rudy Kreutz

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 26 mars 2003 20:30

Répondre

Ewan Sinclair wrote:

> > >The thing is that there is nowhere else in the world where you can
> "steal"
> > >something without actually depriving someone of it. Comparisons with
> > >physical objects are woefully inadequate.
> >
> > Books / Plagerism / Copyrights / Patents / Identity
>
> Fair point sir, I forgot that one. I was just thinking about libraries today
> actually. I see students who have paid vast sums of money going to them only
> to find the books they need for their papers are not available. In an age
> where information is infinite and as good as free to distribute, this seems
> inexcusable. These libraries should be paying some kind of license fee to
> the publishers.
>
> Also, if someone patents a log fire(for the sake of argument) it's still ok
> to build a log fire, just not to sell it. If people had to pay royalties
> every time they built their own log fire, this would be quite ridiculous.
> Perhaps you will recall the incident with a company patenting the strain of
> rice that a massive portion of some country(I can't recall which, somewhere
> around India methinks) and then telling the inhabitants that they were no
> longer allowed to make their living from it.
>
> > > I'd personally support simply taxing harder and then paying developers
> to
> > > release freeware. It would make far more sense, and stop programmers
> from
> > > starving.
> >
> > Heh, what planet are you from? Communism makes no sense. It rewards and
> > encourages mediocrity.
>
> Hey, who whoa whoa, at what point did I mention communism? I think you are
> quite right on that one, and it has been proven not to work time after time.
> It's a little sad that suggesting that changing the way things currently are
> is instantly branded as communist propoganda.
>
> > If a programmer can't prevent starvation he needs a
> > better education, better work ethic, or different line of work.
>
> In that case, you may as well resign yourself to branding all programmers as
> lazy, uneducated and useless, because the more people realise they don't
> have to pay for software, the less they will do so. We can already see this
> happening to the music industry, the business model needs to change for the
> sake of the people who create the software/music.
>
> > What are you taxing? If the software is all free, you must be taxing
> > hardware, or non-users -a punishment to hardware manufacurers, or
> non-users.
>
> I'm no expert on how taxation systems work, but I'm reasonably sure that
> it's possible to "charge" every citizen a certain amount of money every year
> that will go into the software development fund. perhaps citizens could then
> vote on which companies they want the money to go to, and what they want
> developed. Alternatively, software companies could try pitching the concept
> of a piece of software, then taking paid preorders before they start coding.
> I suppose they could also just program the thing and then ask for a certain
> number of orders before the thing is released(read: pirated by every man and
> his pet dachsund) so that they are guaranteed money. Not enough money, no
> software for anyone.
>
> I personally think the last two ideas wouldn't really fly, but the first
> might. The curent idea won't, it is failing.
>
> > >Attempting to make the current system work is doomed to failure,
> > > and there isn't really anything fundamentally wrong with piracy,
> >
> > Thou shall not steal is quite fundamental.
>
> Yes, but "Thou shalt not make unauthorised copies" is not. It is only called
> stealing by some because there is no decent term to properly describe it.
> However, the good wholesome bible doesn't have a one line answer for this
> one. By the way, was it you that was maligning communist ideals earlier? I
> don't support them, but I'd take them over biblical ones any day of the
> week.
>
> > Progressive? Like communism?
>
> Kindly explain how communism is progressive, I don't understand.
>
> Ewan

I'll take a stab at this. The progressive/communism line was sarcasm. On that
first idea that you had. charging the citizen a tax for software they don't even
have developed yet. So you wanna take, say $5 out of my pocket a year, to give
it to some company that makes software. A company that i have very little choice
in giving it to. (i vote for comp. A, comp. B wins) now they are developing a
software line that i don't want or need. and, they already have the money and
have used it. (presumably) What if the company fails or is embezzled? all the
money is gone, and there is no product. They (comp B) could just say that the
software was too hard to make, but all the money was spent any ways. So i get no
"tax refund" for no product. My, along with all the other peoples money is just
gone.
This is exactly what happened in the USSR in the 80's. They (gov't) took
everybody's money and redistributed it to everybody equally. then they took a
hefty tax and gave that to favorite companies to produce goods. which usually
never got produced, but the money disappeared. Usually to be found in a bank
belonging to some gov't official.
By far the easiest way I think is free economy. The companies gets investors,
produces a product, and sells it. In the selling they hope to make enough to pay
off the creditors, pay the cost of good and set up to manufacture the next
product.
In software, we have the added problem of technology outpacing the industry.
Meaning things go out of style. In the case of TA, cavedog met their goal of
paying off the creditors, and making enough money to keep then fat, dumb and
happy. So no more TA was made. The only real way to get around the piracy issue
this long after a company abandons the product line, would be for them to
release all EULA's and open the source code. should cost them nothing or next to
nothing to do.
How ever, this was not done. Because cavedog had plans (kind of) to get a TA2
going and use that same source code. So in effect, the EULA still stands and
downloading any part of the software covered by the EULA is stealing. It BELONGS
to cavedog. They are just letting you play with it. If you give away something
that belongs to someone else, you better be bigger and badder then they are. Or
face the potential consequences

Iguana Bwana

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 27 mars 2003 02:06

Répondre

PREAMBLE
--------
Any reasoning person can deduce Shonner's inflexibly sanctimonious
perspective as puerile.

Not only is he through it trying to hi-jack what is pragmatically a
purely theoretical argument with unrealistic extremes of
enforcability, but he is wrong both from the legal perspective as well
as in his warped interpretation of holding some sort of self-imagined
sanctimonious moral high ground.

Don't misinterpret the facts about to be presented with his assured
responsive twist to have you misconstrue them as ad hominem. I hold so
little respect for him now, that I wouldn't waste energy in unrelated
denigration. The purpose of this post is to address his disinformation
which DEMANDS correction lest it assume a mythological status akin to
the proverbial "word from the burning bush".

THE REAL FACTS
--------------
>On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:00:03 -0800, "Shonner" <shonner@hotmail.com> ranted:

>From Infogrames North America TA manual:

This is INAPPLICABLE to the overwhelming majority of "Total
Annihilation" end user licensees.

You'd best re-read the *original* "END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT" which
came with the software. Best *you* start with the first line of the
preamble to Clause 1, and I quote: "PLEASE READ CAREFULLY." <LOL>

>INA owns the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the
>Software. The Software contains copyrighted material, trade secrets and
>other proprietary material. You may not copy, rent, lease, sublicense or
>distribute the Software. You may not electronically transmit the Software
>from one computer, console or other platform to another or over a network.

I did not purchase my software license from "INA", nor have I since
agreed to their end user license agreement either directly or
indirectly (ie: am not bound so tacitly by continued use of the
software) according to the terms of my original agreement. Nor do I
agree to or am bound morally or legally by INA's terms of agreement
for *future continued use of software end user license agreement I
purchased*.

>This license agreement will always be true whether TA is sold or not.

Er..no, it wasn't, isn't and won't.

Speaking of "stupidity" and distortion of the "truth".

THE FINE PRINT
--------------
Infograms (sic) didn't own the game copyright at the time I purchased
my end user license when it released in 1997, and there being no
statute of time limitation or other proviso for amendment to the
original license to which I did agree, I am therefore not bound by
Infograms since reworded and revised copyright agreement, but rather
to Cavedog's or Humongous Entertainment Incs's.

The End-user license agreement terms on page 57 of the original TA
manual accompanying the original release of the game specifically
exclude the word "copy", prohibition of same under Clause 2 entitled
"Restrictions" or elsewhere. In any case, INA's blanket "may not copy"
prohibition is contrary to and subjegated by fair dealing guidelines
generally considered as tantamount to where not enshrined as law by
the State in such copyright torts.

Furthermore, Clause 3 states that "This License is effective until
terminated" stating possible terms of termination by both parties AND
I draw your attention to the acknowledgement within Clause 6 by the of
the unenforcability and subjugation of the agreement to laws of State
which hold precedential superiority.

Clause 7 confirms and concludes that the 7 clauses of the end user
"license constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with
respect to use of the software". ie: No other restriction or caveat
implied or otherwise apply. eg: license (not) subject to revision of
their or any future intellectual property copyright owner, copying not
expressly prohibited. What one does with a "copy" is another issue
covered legally, morally, more properly and sensibly in reasoned view,
by the clausal restriction on "distribution".

Furthermore according to Clause 1, specifically I am also free to
transfer all granted rights of license *at my discretion* to another
party at will subject to their agreeing to the same terms of the
agreement, with no caveat precluding said transfer being either
contiguous in perpetuity, reciprocal by caveat or of a temporary
nature. I can do so verbally or in writing, conditionally and without
charging a fee for exercising said rights of license.

The facts are that if a person is a legitimate licensee, he/she/it is
expressly permitted by the terms of the *original* agreement to
install and play the game from the hard drive of a single computer
*irrespective of* the installation source. The essential essence of
the agreement pertains to being a legitimate licensee, not possession
of an original game CD.

SUMMARY
-------
In plainspeak any legalese pertinent to "piracy" cannot absolve itself
from interpretation of intent and fair dealing. In the specific case
under discussion, as long as the user has a legitimate end user
license and conforms with the license agreement, he/she/it is
contravening neither the license agreement or the law by installing it
from a back-up copy and playing it from his/her/its hard drive.

So not only is Shonner's distorted "piracy" viewpoint factually
incorrect, but it's pragmatically unenforceable, academically obtuse
and lacks the moral common sense accepted under the law of civilised
States referred to as "fair dealing".

Iguana Bwana

CaptainJ

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 27 mars 2003 06:18

Répondre

"Rudy Kreutz" <rkreutz@floridacirtech.com> wrote in message
news:3E81FFE1.422900B7@floridacirtech.com...
> Ewan Sinclair wrote:
>
> > > >The thing is that there is nowhere else in the world where you can
> > "steal"
> > > >something without actually depriving someone of it. Comparisons with
> > > >physical objects are woefully inadequate.
> > >
> > > Books / Plagerism / Copyrights / Patents / Identity
> >
> > Fair point sir, I forgot that one. I was just thinking about libraries
today
> > actually. I see students who have paid vast sums of money going to them
only
> > to find the books they need for their papers are not available. In an
age
> > where information is infinite and as good as free to distribute, this
seems
> > inexcusable. These libraries should be paying some kind of license fee
to
> > the publishers.
> >
> > Also, if someone patents a log fire(for the sake of argument) it's still
ok
> > to build a log fire, just not to sell it. If people had to pay royalties
> > every time they built their own log fire, this would be quite
ridiculous.
> > Perhaps you will recall the incident with a company patenting the strain
of
> > rice that a massive portion of some country(I can't recall which,
somewhere
> > around India methinks) and then telling the inhabitants that they were
no
> > longer allowed to make their living from it.
> >
> > > > I'd personally support simply taxing harder and then paying
developers
> > to
> > > > release freeware. It would make far more sense, and stop programmers
> > from
> > > > starving.
> > >
> > > Heh, what planet are you from? Communism makes no sense. It rewards
and
> > > encourages mediocrity.
> >
> > Hey, who whoa whoa, at what point did I mention communism? I think you
are
> > quite right on that one, and it has been proven not to work time after
time.
> > It's a little sad that suggesting that changing the way things currently
are
> > is instantly branded as communist propoganda.
> >
> > > If a programmer can't prevent starvation he needs a
> > > better education, better work ethic, or different line of work.
> >
> > In that case, you may as well resign yourself to branding all
programmers as
> > lazy, uneducated and useless, because the more people realise they don't
> > have to pay for software, the less they will do so. We can already see
this
> > happening to the music industry, the business model needs to change for
the
> > sake of the people who create the software/music.
> >
> > > What are you taxing? If the software is all free, you must be taxing
> > > hardware, or non-users -a punishment to hardware manufacurers, or
> > non-users.
> >
> > I'm no expert on how taxation systems work, but I'm reasonably sure that
> > it's possible to "charge" every citizen a certain amount of money every
year
> > that will go into the software development fund. perhaps citizens could
then
> > vote on which companies they want the money to go to, and what they want
> > developed. Alternatively, software companies could try pitching the
concept
> > of a piece of software, then taking paid preorders before they start
coding.
> > I suppose they could also just program the thing and then ask for a
certain
> > number of orders before the thing is released(read: pirated by every man
and
> > his pet dachsund) so that they are guaranteed money. Not enough money,
no
> > software for anyone.
> >
> > I personally think the last two ideas wouldn't really fly, but the first
> > might. The curent idea won't, it is failing.
> >
> > > >Attempting to make the current system work is doomed to failure,
> > > > and there isn't really anything fundamentally wrong with piracy,
> > >
> > > Thou shall not steal is quite fundamental.
> >
> > Yes, but "Thou shalt not make unauthorised copies" is not. It is only
called
> > stealing by some because there is no decent term to properly describe
it.
> > However, the good wholesome bible doesn't have a one line answer for
this
> > one. By the way, was it you that was maligning communist ideals earlier?
I
> > don't support them, but I'd take them over biblical ones any day of the
> > week.
> >
> > > Progressive? Like communism?
> >
> > Kindly explain how communism is progressive, I don't understand.
> >
> > Ewan
>
> I'll take a stab at this. The progressive/communism line was sarcasm. On
that
> first idea that you had. charging the citizen a tax for software they
don't even
> have developed yet. So you wanna take, say $5 out of my pocket a year, to
give
> it to some company that makes software. A company that i have very little
choice
> in giving it to. (i vote for comp. A, comp. B wins) now they are
developing a
> software line that i don't want or need. and, they already have the money
and
> have used it. (presumably) What if the company fails or is embezzled? all
the
> money is gone, and there is no product. They (comp B) could just say that
the
> software was too hard to make, but all the money was spent any ways. So i
get no
> "tax refund" for no product. My, along with all the other peoples money is
just
> gone.
> This is exactly what happened in the USSR in the 80's. They (gov't) took
> everybody's money and redistributed it to everybody equally. then they
took a
> hefty tax and gave that to favorite companies to produce goods. which
usually
> never got produced, but the money disappeared. Usually to be found in a
bank
> belonging to some gov't official.
> By far the easiest way I think is free economy. The companies gets
investors,
> produces a product, and sells it. In the selling they hope to make enough
to pay
> off the creditors, pay the cost of good and set up to manufacture the next
> product.
> In software, we have the added problem of technology outpacing the
industry.
> Meaning things go out of style. In the case of TA, cavedog met their goal
of
> paying off the creditors, and making enough money to keep then fat, dumb
and
> happy. So no more TA was made. The only real way to get around the piracy
issue
> this long after a company abandons the product line, would be for them to
> release all EULA's and open the source code. should cost them nothing or
next to
> nothing to do.
> How ever, this was not done. Because cavedog had plans (kind of) to get a
TA2
> going and use that same source code. So in effect, the EULA still stands
and
> downloading any part of the software covered by the EULA is stealing. It
BELONGS
> to cavedog. They are just letting you play with it. If you give away
something
> that belongs to someone else, you better be bigger and badder then they
are. Or
> face the potential consequences
>
You just saved me a lot of typing, thanks.
Mr. Sinclair,
Your "vote on it" thing does place competition / incentive back into the
mix, but you still have everybody being forced to pay for what only some
will use.
CJ

Ewan Sinclair

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 27 mars 2003 15:56

Répondre

> I'll take a stab at this. The progressive/communism line was sarcasm. On
that
> first idea that you had. charging the citizen a tax for software they
don't even
> have developed yet. So you wanna take, say $5 out of my pocket a year, to
give
> it to some company that makes software. A company that i have very little
choice
> in giving it to. (i vote for comp. A, comp. B wins) now they are
developing a
> software line that i don't want or need. and, they already have the money
and
> have used it. (presumably) What if the company fails or is embezzled? all
the
> money is gone, and there is no product. They (comp B) could just say that
the
> software was too hard to make, but all the money was spent any ways. So i
get no
> "tax refund" for no product. My, along with all the other peoples money is
just
> gone.

You are quite correct in your criticism, but equally, one could pose the
following situation:
Companies A,B and C make software products and attempt to sell them. few
copies are bought, but vast amounts of piracy occur. Now I can't get any new
software because companies A,B and C are out of business for having the
audacity to try and sell their product. While this isn't such a concern for
software targetted at reasonably sized companies, who can't really get away
with piracy, it does mean that software(and of course music) that finds its
greatest popularity with individual users will be starved of revenue.

Of course, I do realise that what I propose is not the world's most refined
idea, but then again, so is the current way of doing things is at least as
inadequate. It is not as if I am suggesting a complete paradigm shift the
world over here, just a different way of funding the creation of products
that cannot be hoarded, restricted and regulated beyond the sale of the
first few copies.

Taking the piracy effect in its pathological case (for the sake of
simplicity), how do you propose anyone be convinced to program, sing or
write anything when, after the sale of a single copy, nobody ever buys
another one, but everybody obtains one for free?

Obviously this case is not likely to occur, but there is a strong tendency
towards it, which seems to be getting not only stronger, but greater in
breadth.

> This is exactly what happened in the USSR in the 80's. They (gov't) took
> everybody's money and redistributed it to everybody equally. then they
took a
> hefty tax and gave that to favorite companies to produce goods. which
usually
> never got produced, but the money disappeared. Usually to be found in a
bank
> belonging to some gov't official.

One could also say that police are useless because Stalin used them to
kidnap, torture and kill vast numbers of people and brought much misery to
many. Police do not mean stadiums full of people being executed, and
preemptive payment does mean failure to produce. There are many places where
one pays before receiving the desired product in the current commercial
system that do not make a habit of ripping people off. However, on
reflection, the government could just as easily make an agreement to pay
upon delivery of the software(assuming it met pre-arranged standards), thus
eliminating the embezzlement factor.

> By far the easiest way I think is free economy. The companies gets
investors,
> produces a product, and sells it. In the selling they hope to make enough
to pay
> off the creditors, pay the cost of good and set up to manufacture the next
> product.

I certainly agree in nearly all cases, but for freely and easily replicable
products, this model has proven to be far less effective and is only getting
worse with time. I don't pretend to know the solution (and I apologise is
this has seemed to be the case), but I do know that one is needed.

> In software, we have the added problem of technology outpacing the
industry.
> Meaning things go out of style. In the case of TA, cavedog met their goal
of
> paying off the creditors, and making enough money to keep then fat, dumb
and
> happy. So no more TA was made. The only real way to get around the piracy
issue
> this long after a company abandons the product line, would be for them to
> release all EULA's and open the source code. should cost them nothing or
next to
> nothing to do.

Not likely, however. Fair enough really, what do they stand to gain from it?

> How ever, this was not done. Because cavedog had plans (kind of) to get a
TA2
> going and use that same source code. So in effect, the EULA still stands
and
> downloading any part of the software covered by the EULA is stealing. It
BELONGS
> to cavedog. They are just letting you play with it. If you give away
something
> that belongs to someone else, you better be bigger and badder then they
are. Or
> face the potential consequences

This is my point, everyone *is* bigger and badder than Cavedog (and all the
other software developers for that matter) and faces no real consequences
for piracy, and they are acting accordingly. There isn't much that can be
done to change this, so the question becomes "What *can* we change to make
things better?".

I realise that things are not yet so bad that nobody produces software
anymore, and famous musicians are still rich, but this may well not be the
case for too long and I really beleive that people should be thinking about
what can be done to halt or divert the process. it will likely be having
very noticeable effect in the near future.

Ewan

Rudy Kreutz

Re: Defintion (or Degrees) of Piracy
Publié: 27 mars 2003 18:28

Répondre

> <SNIP>
>
> This is my point, everyone *is* bigger and badder than Cavedog (and all the
> other software developers for that matter) and faces no real consequences
> for piracy, and they are acting accordingly. There isn't much that can be
> done to change this, so the question becomes "What *can* we change to make
> things better?".
>
> I realise that things are not yet so bad that nobody produces software
> anymore, and famous musicians are still rich, but this may well not be the
> case for too long and I really beleive that people should be thinking about
> what can be done to halt or divert the process. it will likely be having
> very noticeable effect in the near future.
>
> Ewan

They are trying to make music and software unreproducable. So far they have
failed badly. About 6 months ago, and american country music guy released a CD
that was touted to be unreproducable. I won't go into the specifics... but it
was a good plan. Less then 6 hours after the CD was released, the first copy was
on the internet. The hackers move much quicker then the labels can move.

In a perfect world, all products will be free and of the highest quality. People
work to produce because they love to do just that thing. Unfortunately, this
should end up happening around 6 Trillion AD.

As for what the companies get by releasing their source code. Nothing. Not a
damn thing. All it lets happen is getting rid of ppl getting bent out of shape
about EULA's and gives lawyers less to do. And we all know lawyers don't need
anymore money!