Mod maker thinks he's the police
-
@masonwheeler But the actions of the OP are not otherwise illegal. Just like refusing to sell you a book.
-
@Yamikuronue "extralegally" != "illegally."
-
@masonwheeler Okay? so you're saying it should be illegal to not sell you a book?
-
@masonwheeler
You know what else is NOT illegal? Using force, potentially even deadly force, to stop someone who is in the act of stealing from within your private property.Anti-DRM crusades aren't about stopping vigilantism. They're socio-communism. They're Venezuela, for the software world.
-
@izzion I didn't say that either. I said that violating Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence is unacceptable.
Like I said, piracy is not my problem, and no one has a right to make it my problem unless they can prove that I'm part of the problem. (Which would be rather difficult, as I'm not a pirate!) Why is this a controversial statement?
-
@Yamikuronue ??? !!! ??? No, I'm not saying anything even close to that.
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
Due Process
Only applies to the legal system
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
Presumption of Innocence
Only applies to a court case.
Unless you're saying I have no right to refuse to sell you my books until I prove that you stole my friend's wallet?
-
@izzion said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
stealing
stealing
stealing
stealing
stealing
You lose more and more credibility every time you misuse that word...
Copying Is Not Theft - Official Version – 01:00
— Question Copyright
-
@Yamikuronue No. Again, I'm not saying anything like that. Why do you keep coming back to that?
And you know what else only applies to the legal system? The enforcement of the law. Which is my entire point. Copyright law is a part of the law, and therefore the enforcement of it should only apply to the legal system. Extralegal enforcement thereof by private means is vigilantism, and should be outlawed entirely.
-
@masonwheeler Because nothing about DRM is involved with the legal system?
Stealing someone's wallet is illegal. But that doesn't stop someone from holding a grudge against you (rightly or wrongly), or changing how they do business because of a given incident of theft. Nothing forces them to implement features or not implement them, and nothing forces you to buy or not buy their products.
-
@Yamikuronue said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
@masonwheeler Because nothing about DRM is involved with the legal system?
Exactly. It's an end-run around the legal system, privately enforcing [the publisher's own vision of] copyright so they don't have to go to the trouble of actually proving that the law has been violated.
theft
Now don't start that again...
Nothing forces them to implement features or not implement them, and nothing forces you to buy or not buy their products.
And I never claimed otherwise. But once I have a copy of the software in my possession, the law says that I am presumed to have already bought it, and therefore, at that point, the idea that they can "refuse to sell it to me" is a logical absurdity because they already sold it! And if they want to claim otherwise, they need to go through the legal system. But until that point, I'm innocent until proven guilty.
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
@izzion I didn't say that either. I said that violating Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence is unacceptable.
Asking for a software key as proof of purchase to unlock software is not "vigilantism" nor is it violating due process or any of these other terms you learned from your John Gresham reading.
-
@The_Quiet_One Yes it is, because the default state is "locked out." Therefore, I'm treated as a criminal by default until I can prove my innocence to the satisfaction of whatever arbitrary criteria some arbitrary person came up with.
The Law Does Not Work That Way.
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
Now don't start that again...
My analogy is literally about stealing your wallet, or are you going to say that taking property out of someone's pocket isn't theft?
-
@Yamikuronue It's a false analogy, because copying is not theft.
If you steal my wallet, I've lost the wallet. If you make a copy of my wallet, I haven't lost anything.
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
The Law Does Not Work That Way.
But you said yourself, this has nothing to do with the law. If your point is that you don't want to be treated like a criminal, I hear you on that; I happen to agree. But that's not grounds for making something illegal.
-
@masonwheeler So you're not even reading my posts. Got it.
-
@Yamikuronue said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
But you said yourself, this has nothing to do with the law. If your point is that you don't want to be treated like a criminal, I hear you on that; I happen to agree. But that's not grounds for making something illegal.
My point is that this has nothing to do with the law, but it needs to. Extralegal enforcement of the law is grounds for making something illegal. That's why we have laws against vigilantism.
So you're not even reading my posts. Got it.
I am; I just don't see how most of it applies because you keep talking about stuff that's not relevant to the topic at hand.
-
@masonwheeler You're the only one who says this is "enforcement of the law" and not merely "overreacting to perceived threats". If Sony showed up at your house to arrest you, you'd have a leg to stand on here. Sony putting features nobody wants into their own product is more like "a dumb idea". Sony rooting your PC is somewhere in between.
-
@Yamikuronue OK, how is it not "enforcement of the law"?
- Piracy is a violation of the law.
- A person who is found guilty of obtaining something illegally loses access to it.
- The sole purpose of DRM is to cause you to lose access to the product if you cannot demonstrate that you obtained it legally, in an extralegal manner.
Are any of the above statements inaccurate?
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
The sole purpose of DRM is to cause you to lose access to the product if you cannot demonstrate that you obtained it legally, in an extralegal manner.
The sole purpose of DRM is to prevent someone obtaining something without paying for it. You're assuming it's punitive, rather than preventative.
Besides which, a person who is found guilty usually loses more than the item.
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
The sole purpose of DRM is to cause you to lose access to the product if you cannot demonstrate that you obtained it legally
This is not the sole purpose of DRM. It's often used to prevent the product being used in ways the creator doesn't want, which is exactly how the mod from the OP works.
-
@Yamikuronue said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
The sole purpose of DRM is to prevent someone obtaining something without paying for it.
No it's not, because in order for DRM to take effect, by definition you've already obtained it. It's to prevent you from using it.
You're assuming it's punitive, rather than preventative.
When dealing with consequences of breaking the law, that's a distinction without a difference.
Besides which, a person who is found guilty usually loses more than the item.
...as do all too many victims of DRM.
-
@coldandtired said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
It's often used to prevent the product being used in ways the creator doesn't want, which is exactly how the mod from the OP works.
Yup. And that makes it even more problematic.
There's a reason it's called "copy-right" rather than "access-right" or "usage-right."
-
@RaceProUK said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
GOG sells games with DRM now
#citationneeded
(Unless you count a CD key as DRM...)
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
There's a reason it's called "copy-right" rather than "access-right" or "usage-right."
Except DRM is not called copyright.
-
@coldandtired It's used to enforce copyright, and legitimized by the DMCA.
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
@The_Quiet_One Yes it is, because the default state is "locked out." Therefore, I'm treated as a criminal by default until I can prove my innocence to the satisfaction of whatever arbitrary criteria some arbitrary person came up with.
The Law Does Not Work That Way.
Yes it does. You are not in a court. Innocent til proven doesn't apply between private parties.
Before you get on a plane, you must present a boarding pass.
Before you return an item for a refund, you must present a receipt as proof of purchase.
If you leave a store and the alarms go off because someone forgot to deactivate the tag, you must present proof of purchase
If you call a locksmith to help you out because you locked yourself out of your house or car, you must prove ownership.
In all of these cases you, in your own words, are "treated like a criminal"
This isn't a court, so of course the constitutional innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here any more than a private forum banning someone for what they say isn't illegal due to the first amendment. The private provider of the software has the right to allow it to behave ANY WAY THEY WANT TO besides actually screwing with your computer outside the bounds of the software.
-
@Unperverted-Vixen said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
@RaceProUK said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
GOG sells games with DRM now
#citationneeded
(Unless you count a CD key as DRM...)
Hmm… I can't find where I read about that now. Either that, or I was getting confused with the Humble Store, which does sell games with DRM.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
Yes it does. You are not in a court. Innocent til proven doesn't apply between private parties.
That's the whole point, though: Enforcement of the law belongs in a court, and not between private parties.
Before you get on a plane, you must present a boarding pass.
Just out of curiosity, how'd you manage to get to the gate without one in this day and age?
Before you return an item for a refund, you must present a receipt as proof of purchase.
I've actually managed to return stuff without one before, because they knew they had sold it to me.
If you leave a store and the alarms go off because someone forgot to deactivate the tag, you must present proof of purchase
More than once I've had one of those stupid alarms go off, because the cashier messed up (or occasionally just because it felt like going off for some random reason, even though I didn't have any of the store's merchandise in my possession, paid-for or otherwise). Invariably when I look over at the cashier, they just make some apologetic gesture or comment and wave me out.
If you call a locksmith to help you out because you locked yourself out of your house or car, you must prove ownership.
OK, this one I have no personal experience with. It's the next best thing to impossible for me to lock myself out of my car, though, because I have a wireless keyfob rather than a traditional metal key, which means I can't forget the key in the ignition because it never leaves my pocket. :D
This isn't a court, so of course the constitutional innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here any more than a private forum banning someone for what they say isn't illegal due to the first amendment.
What does the first amendment have to do with extralegal enforcement of copyright law?!?
-
They are still no DRM according to their FAQ.
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
@The_Quiet_One said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
Yes it does. You are not in a court. Innocent til proven doesn't apply between private parties.
That's the whole point, though: Enforcement of the law belongs in a court, and not between private parties.
You keep using the word "enforcement." Enforcement would be if they literally arrested pirates. They are simply requiring you to provide proof of legitimate ownership before you can use it. There's nothing illegal about that.
Before you get on a plane, you must present a boarding pass.
Just out of curiosity, how'd you manage to get to the gate without one in this day and age?
Actually I did once accidentally go to the wrong flight due to my haste in making a connection. I had the wrong pass for that flight, which they were able to catch because of that awful presumption you hate that I didn't belong there.
Before you return an item for a refund, you must present a receipt as proof of purchase.
I've actually managed to return stuff without one before, because they knew they had sold it to me.
Okay? And? Just because you've found exceptions to the rule doesn't make my point any less valid. Some software doesn't have DRM. Do I win now?
If you leave a store and the alarms go off because someone forgot to deactivate the tag, you must present proof of purchase
More than once I've had one of those stupid alarms go off, because the cashier messed up (or occasionally just because it felt like going off for some random reason, even though I didn't have any of the store's merchandise in my possession, paid-for or otherwise). Invariably when I look over at the cashier, they just make some apologetic gesture or comment and wave me out.
Yep, and if it happened at a bigger place where the cashier was out of sight they would have required proof of purchase. And they are in the right to do so.
If you call a locksmith to help you out because you locked yourself out of your house or car, you must prove ownership.
OK, this one I have no personal experience with. It's the next best thing to impossible for me to lock myself out of my car, though, because I have a wireless keyfob rather than a traditional metal key, which means I can't forget the key in the ignition because it never leaves my pocket. :D
Oh so your car locks you out unless you have your key fob? Imagine that. Must kill you to think an inanimate object thinks you are a criminal.
This isn't a court, so of course the constitutional innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here any more than a private forum banning someone for what they say isn't illegal due to the first amendment.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
You keep using the word "enforcement." Enforcement would be if they literally arrested pirates.
...or took other arbitrary action against them at their sole discretion for their perceived lawbreaking. That's literally the very definition of vigilantism!
Actually I did once accidentally go to the wrong flight due to my haste in making a connection. I had the wrong pass for that flight, which they were able to catch because of that awful presumption you hate that I didn't belong there.
You mean the check that's in place to benefit you, which is exactly what it did by preventing you from ending up like that poor French woman from last week?
DRM, by contrast, does nothing whatsoever to benefit me. Its entire purpose is to act against my interests.
Yep, and if it happened at a bigger place where the cashier was out of sight they would have required proof of purchase. And they are in the right to do so.
What sort of store are you thinking of, where the doors are out of sight of the registers? Because I'm not familiar with any such place, no matter how big. Even the largest of stores, such as Toys 'R' Us or Home Depot, has the registers right there in front of the doors.
Oh so your car locks you out unless you have your key fob? Imagine that. Must kill you to think an inanimate object thinks you are a criminal.
Nope. It locks out everyone else because I am forced by necessity and circumstance to leave it sitting around in public areas, and like the airport ticket scanning, I accept the lock as a minor inconvenience that primarily exists to benefit me. This is 100% different from software on both points: I never leave my computer sitting around in public places, and DRM acts against my interests and does nothing to benefit me.
Thanks for playing. Please come again!
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
@The_Quiet_One said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
You keep using the word "enforcement." Enforcement would be if they literally arrested pirates.
...or took other arbitrary action against them at their sole discretion for their perceived lawbreaking. That's literally the very definition of vigilantism!
Software doing something you don't want isn't illegal.
Actually I did once accidentally go to the wrong flight due to my haste in making a connection. I had the wrong pass for that flight, which they were able to catch because of that awful presumption you hate that I didn't belong there.
You mean the check that's in place to benefit you, which is exactly what it did by preventing you from ending up like that poor French woman from last week?
DRM, by contrast, does nothing whatsoever to benefit me. Its entire purpose is to act against my interests.
Your interests of installing software without paying for it, you mean?
Yep, and if it happened at a bigger place where the cashier was out of sight they would have required proof of purchase. And they are in the right to do so.
What sort of store are you thinking of, where the doors are out of sight of the registers? Because I'm not familiar with any such place, no matter how big. Even the largest of stores, such as Toys 'R' Us or Home Depot, has the registers right there in front of the doors.
A lot of bigger stores have over 20 register lanes. Unless they have aircraft hanger doors, they aren't all going to be within sight of the exit. Of course, this is the second time you've dodged the question, so I'm just going to assume you don't actually have anything to say in response.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
Software doing something you don't want isn't illegal.
But privately enforcing the law is.
Your interests of installing software without paying for it, you mean?
I mean nothing of the sort. I'm not a pirate. I'm simply someone who's offended by being treated like a pirate by default when no evidence exists that I've broken the law, because I haven't.
Seriously, what part of "not my problem unless you can demonstrate I'm part of the problem" don't you understand? Is "wanting to stay out of the crossfire between developers and pirates and not become collateral damage" really such a difficult motivation for you to grasp?
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
@The_Quiet_One said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
Software doing something you don't want isn't illegal.
But privately enforcing the law is.
IT. IS. NOT. ENFORCING. THE. LAW.
There's no action taken against you. You aren't arrested. You aren't shot. It's a support ticket resolved with "WORKS AS DESIGNED."
I'll repeat this another time: A software developer can write software that does whatever they want as long as it doesn't adversely affect the system. If the software doesn't do what you want, whether it's because it's got DRM, has a bug, you don't meet the requirements, or it only works for a limited period of time, that's fully within the software developer's discretion. They designed the software, and they get to dictate how it operates.
I mean nothing of the sort. I'm not a pirate. I'm simply someone who's offended by being treated like a pirate by default when no evidence exists that I've broken the law, because I haven't.
Seriously, what part of "not my problem unless you can demonstrate I'm part of the problem" don't you understand? Is "wanting to stay out of the crossfire between developers and pirates and not become collateral damage" really such a difficult motivation for you to grasp?
Is "As a developer, I can let the software pop up whatever prompts I want" such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
Just out of curiosity, how'd you manage to get to the gate without one in this day and age?
Does it matter? They still ask you to present it, despite you supposedly not being able to get there without one.
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
I've actually managed to return stuff without one before, because they knew they had sold it to me.
That just means you proved you purchased it by a different means (familiarity with the clerk).
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
Invariably when I look over at the cashier, they just make some apologetic gesture or comment and wave me out.
And yet the gate is there, and it scans everyone. The gate automatically treats everyone as a criminal and reacts when it detects someone who they believe broke the law. It pretty much behaves like drm.
You are exaggerating what (reasonable) DRM like the one being discussed in this thread does. It does not enforce the law, since the penalty for copyright infringement tends to imply hefty fines and possibly jail time, and the companies that use DRM don't send people to arrest you or charge your credit card when they detect a misuse of the product. It tries to enforce the owner's rights while running in your machine. The owner is free to require a key being provided before the program runs, what they can't do is damage your computer to try to accomplish it.
I don't personally believe it's that effective, but I would not outlaw it since then you are getting the government involved in what I can program a computer to do. That feels like a greater loss of freedom (since the government has men with guns to enforce it's rules) than a private company making their product less usable. And leaving the decision up to the companies gives those that don't mistreat their customers a competitive advantage.
If DRM served no purpose at all, companies that didn't use it should be able to outperform those that do and eventually it would fade out by itself. That this doesn't happens would indicate that it is serving some function. And your argument that the government has to step in to preserve your interests in the name of freedom is hypocritical. You just dislike the fact that evidence doesn't seem to support your idealized world, so you want to resort to violence to force everyone to pretend that it does.
-
@izzion said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
Your position is, once something (someone's software) is in your physical property, regardless of how it got there, you have absolute right to do whatever you want with it.
That's actually somewhat true, within governmental regulations. Well, if we mean you bought it, not if you're just borrowing it or whatever.
@izzion said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
Which makes it a fair analogy that if a guest was in your house, you could make them do what ever you want because hey, they're in your property.
E_PEOPLE_ARE_NOT_PROPERTY
This falls into the exception mentioned above: you didn't buy those things, so they're not yours, thus you can't do whatever you like with them. But if you bought that person's wallet off them? You can do pretty much whatever you like with it now.
@izzion said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
But to say that software makers have no right to use technical copy protection mechanisms to prevent people from stealing their property is even worse in the other direction. Does the US Government not have the right to put counterfeit protection mechanisms in currency? Do handbag manufacturers not have the right to put hidden identifying marks in their goods to make it easier to identify Chinese knockoffs? Do you not have the right to arm the car alarm in your new vehicle, to make it more difficult for someone else to steal?
These aren't really equivalent. For one, most of those are just making the fake easy to identify. But more importantly, there are two components here: The thing with the DRM, and the thing you own that the thing with DRM runs on. It might be more like if your food did a license check on your microwave when you try to cook it.
-
@Kian said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
I don't personally believe it's that effective, but I would not outlaw it since then you are getting the government involved in what I can program a computer to do. That feels like a greater loss of freedom (since the government has men with guns to enforce it's rules) than a private company making their product less usable, and it gives those that don't mistreat their customers a competitive advantage.
That's the point I'm trying to make. Not to mention, the government has a fucking horrible track record of enacting tech-related laws, thinking they know how computers work.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
IT. IS. NOT. ENFORCING. THE. LAW.
How is it not?
There's no action taken against you.
How is locking me out of something that I presumptively own not "action taken against me"?!?
I'll repeat this another time: A software developer can write software that does whatever they want as long as it doesn't adversely affect the system.
How does locking me out of something that I presumptively own not adversely affect the system?
Is "As a developer, I can let the software pop up whatever prompts I want" such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
No, it's simply incorrect. Your right to do so ends where my rights to not be treated as a criminal without due process of law begin. Period.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
That's the point I'm trying to make. Not to mention, the government has a fucking horrible track record of enacting tech-related laws, thinking they know how computers work.
...chief among them the DMCA, which allows for DRM and DMCA takedowns, both of which are horrendous extralegal violations of common sense and people's rights.
-
@izzion said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
You know what else is NOT illegal? Using force, potentially even deadly force, to stop someone who is in the act of stealing from within your private property.
Not necessarily. In the US it varies by state. If the thief doesn't actually present you any danger of bodily harm you're not necessarily allowed to use deadly force against them.
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
I said that violating Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence is unacceptable.
Like "free speech", those are obligations on the government, not individuals.
-
@Dreikin
Yes, hence the words "potentially even". Doesn't change the underlying point, which is taking "extralegal" actions (assaulting someone) to prevent them from stealing your private property is explicitly legal, even if there's limits to how much assault you can do depending on the degree of danger of bodily harm they're threatening.
-
@Dreikin But it is an obligation on individuals to not engage in private enforcement of the law, in large part to ensure that Due Process doesn't get violated by private individuals.
-
@izzion And even assuming, for the sake of argument, that this concept applies in the digital realm, what "degree of harm" does piracy do?
(Hint: the vast majority of pirates are people who cannot afford the software in question, and therefore would not have purchased it anyway if there was no pirate copy available.)
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
@The_Quiet_One said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
IT. IS. NOT. ENFORCING. THE. LAW.
There's no action taken against you.
How is locking me out of something that I presumptively own not "action taken against me"?!?
You own the rights to use the software. You do NOT own the software. If you did, then you could make copies yourself and sell them as your own. You pay for software to run on your computer, and the developer gets to show whatever pretty pictures, input boxes, and anything else they want on your screen until you terminate the program.
I'll repeat this another time: A software developer can write software that does whatever they want as long as it doesn't adversely affect the system.
How does locking me out of something that I presumptively own not adversely affect the system?
See above. Plus, when I say "the system" I mean setting your CPU on fire, disabling other software or your OS, etc. Sony's rootkit bullshit, for instance, was something that required legal action.
Is "As a developer, I can let the software pop up whatever prompts I want" such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
No, it's simply incorrect. Your right to do so ends where my rights to not be treated as a criminal without due process of law begin. Period.
The law itself disagrees with you. Otherwise, pretty much every software company would be in court right now.
Again, private parties are allowed to treat you as a criminal, as long as they don't act as law enforcement. And, no, locking you out of your software is not acting as law-enforcement. It's a "this is how the software works" thing. Period.
-
@Kian said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
If DRM served no purpose at all, companies that didn't use it should be able to outperform those that do and eventually it would fade out by itself. That this doesn't happens would indicate that it is serving some function.
Don't be ridiculous. This statement comes with a whole host of unspoken assumptions, most of which are flat-out wrong. For example:
- all other factors are necessarily equal, and the only meaningful differentiating component is the presence or absence of DRM
- software developers and publishers are purely rational
- software buyers and users are purely rational
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
You own the rights to use the software. You do NOT own the software.
I own that copy of the software. Locking me out of it is obviously "action taken against me."
If you did, then you could make copies yourself and sell them as your own.
No, because that would be a copyright violation. It's no different from owning a book.
The law itself disagrees with you.
Unless you intend to argue that there's no such thing as an unjust law, anywhere, I don't see how that's relevant. The DMCA is simply wrong, and it needs to be repealed.
-
@masonwheeler said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
@The_Quiet_One said in Mod maker thinks he's the police:
You own the rights to use the software. You do NOT own the software.
I own that copy of the software. Locking me out of it is obviously "action taken against me."
No it isn't. You're using the software as it was designed. Whether it requires you to enter a software key, or whether it requires you to play the game to its conclusion in order to watch the awesome end scene, or whether it simply shows you a happy face and says "have a nice day!" that's what you paid for. You got parts of the software you like, and you got parts that you don't like. That's true for just about any software out there.
The law itself disagrees with you.
Unless you intend to argue that there's no such thing as an unjust law, anywhere, I don't see how that's relevant. The DMCA is simply wrong, and it needs to be repealed.
Well, if you're so confident that it violates the constitution, as "innocent until proven guilty" is protected by, let's have the supreme court contest it. From what you apparently think, it should be a slam dunk.
