In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
Because you're holding it.
The problem with using real-world property theft as an example of why copyright infringement is wrong is that real-world property can only be in the hands of one person at a time, whereas copyrighted content can be copied ad nauseum and the original owner is still holding it. For that reason, they operate on completely separate systems of laws, a fact which you do not seem to grasp.Yes, yes, I'm the delusional one here. Don't accept any jobs where you're in charge of maintaining software licenses is my advice.
The lazy troll, having realized he is out of his depth, quietly exits stage left.
That would be a really good post, rhyme and all, if you were actually correct.
-
@anonymous234 said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
And if you are right, and people "wisen up" and just download cracked software without any repercussions or risk for criminal or civil suits, then what is the software company's incentive to produce anything at all?
He hasn't argued that licenses shouldn't exist.
It's worse. He's virtually arguing that they don't exist.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@loopback0 said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Why would you be? It's like some guy on the street standing next to an open car door offering to let you drive but it's not his car and he just broke into it and offered it to you completely unbeknownst to the owner.
You wouldn't download a car...
Not if I didn't have legal permission to do so.
Oh yes, I would, even if cared about copyright a lot.
The very hypothetical benefit to humanity of having no scarcity at all would far outweigh any problems with ignoring copyright.
But of course, that's arguing on a completely different level.
-
@topspin said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
But of course, that's arguing on a completely different level.
Like, arguing on @pie_flavor's imaginary licenses-don't-matter level, yes.
-
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I'm not entirely sure that one would fly in court.
But you're absolutely confident everything you have yourself said would?
No, just reasonably. It's been a while since I read the DMCA and I wasn't paying attention to most of the cracking stuff because I was more focused on the automated liability.
-
@Kian said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I'm allowed to download copyrighted works; I'm just not allowed to distribute them.
Why do you think you're allowed to download copyrighted works in the first place? Downloading implies making a copy (the one now sitting in your hard drive). You don't by default have the right to make copies of things for yourself. That's what copyright means, the right to copy. Which you don't have unless you get a license.
You're mixing up the right to make back-ups, which you do have once you've acquired a license for the work, with the right to have a copy in the first place.
Pro tip: you're not allowed to go into a bookstore and take pictures of every page of the books there either.
No. If you download something, you are not considered the one making the copy. The service is the one making the copy, and the service isn't liable so the uploader gets considered the one making the copy.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
Because you're holding it.
The problem with using real-world property theft as an example of why copyright infringement is wrong is that real-world property can only be in the hands of one person at a time, whereas copyrighted content can be copied ad nauseum and the original owner is still holding it. For that reason, they operate on completely separate systems of laws, a fact which you do not seem to grasp.Yes, yes, I'm the delusional one here. Don't accept any jobs where you're in charge of maintaining software licenses is my advice.
The lazy troll, having realized he is out of his depth, quietly exits stage left.
No, you're still posting.
Look, I'm not the retard suggesting people can launder software licenses via the Internet.
No, you're the retard saying you can't.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
Because you're holding it.
The problem with using real-world property theft as an example of why copyright infringement is wrong is that real-world property can only be in the hands of one person at a time, whereas copyrighted content can be copied ad nauseum and the original owner is still holding it. For that reason, they operate on completely separate systems of laws, a fact which you do not seem to grasp.Yes, yes, I'm the delusional one here. Don't accept any jobs where you're in charge of maintaining software licenses is my advice.
The lazy troll, having realized he is out of his depth, quietly exits stage left.
No, you're still posting.
Look, I'm not the retard suggesting people can launder software licenses via the Internet.
No, you're the retard saying you can't.
So in the parallel universe where Discourse is good, no one needs to pay for software either? Weird.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
Because you're holding it.
The problem with using real-world property theft as an example of why copyright infringement is wrong is that real-world property can only be in the hands of one person at a time, whereas copyrighted content can be copied ad nauseum and the original owner is still holding it. For that reason, they operate on completely separate systems of laws, a fact which you do not seem to grasp.So, let's take this full circle:
What incentive does anyone have to purchase a license for software at all? Are you saying they are fools? And if you are right, and people "wisen up" and just download cracked software without any repercussions or risk for criminal or civil suits, then what is the software company's incentive to produce anything at all?
And before you go onto the old "they make money off of services" that doesn't work for video games. Plus it incentivizes poor business practices such as providing software that's so obtuse and confusing you have to buy their service package to make sense of it all.
Companies should provide products that users are willing to pay money for. Sometimes I'll pirate a game, play it for an hour, and buy it if I liked it (pro tip if you're making a video game: make a demo!). The studio loses nothing if I didn't like it, because if I couldn't pirate it, I just wouldn't have played it. Meanwhile, the reason why it's a bad idea to pirate everything is because viruses are rampant everywhere, and usually you end up sticking with a few trusted torrent authors, and torrenting is illegal because you're uploading. In the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop, even if they'd win, and the primary disincentive remains the huge potential for viruses.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@anonymous234 said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
And if you are right, and people "wisen up" and just download cracked software without any repercussions or risk for criminal or civil suits, then what is the software company's incentive to produce anything at all?
He hasn't argued that licenses shouldn't exist.
It's worse. He's virtually arguing that they don't exist.
Of course they exist. It's just that you're only bound by them if you agree to them. Are you saying that software should be implicitly licensed and you shouldn't have to agree to terms for them to apply to you?
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@anonymous234 said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
And if you are right, and people "wisen up" and just download cracked software without any repercussions or risk for criminal or civil suits, then what is the software company's incentive to produce anything at all?
He hasn't argued that licenses shouldn't exist.
It's worse. He's virtually arguing that they don't exist.
Of course they exist. It's just that you're only bound by them if you agree to them. Are you saying that software should be implicitly licensed and you shouldn't have to agree to terms for them to apply to you?
Bless your heart. I hope you never have to grow up.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
It's just that you're only bound by them if you agree to them.
Which you have to do to use the software. It's usually in the first paragraph of the license, and reads something like "Your use of the Software is dependant upon acceptance of these Terms and Conditions". Handwaving away the part of the software that makes you accept that doesn't change the fact that you HAVE to accept the license to use the software, and using the software is an implicit agreement with the terms of the license.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
It's just that you're only bound by them if you agree to them.
Which you have to do to use the software. It's usually in the first paragraph of the license, and reads something like "Your use of the Software is dependant upon acceptance of these Terms and Conditions". Handwaving away the part of the software that makes you accept that doesn't change the fact that you HAVE to accept the license to use the software, and using the software is an implicit agreement with the terms of the license.
But if I download it from the internet, and it's got a custom installer, then I've installed it without agreeing to any license agreement and thus am not bound by its terms.
-
@pie_flavor No, you're not. If you use the software, you're agreeing to its license terms, including any penalties for obtaining the software through an unapproved method. End of line.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor No, you're not. If you use the software, you're agreeing to its license terms, including any penalties for obtaining the software through an unapproved method. \n
Wow, licenses just get magically invoked whether or not I explicitly agree with them? That sounds incredibly prone to abuse.
Where am I supposed to find this intrinsically invoked license? The software typically doesn't show it to you after install, unless you go hunting for it.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor No, you're not. If you use the software, you're agreeing to its license terms, including any penalties for obtaining the software through an unapproved method. \n
Wow, licenses just get magically invoked whether or not I explicitly agree with them? That sounds incredibly prone to abuse.
Against people who will download cracked software from the Internet and that
Hitlerthey've done nothing wrong?
-
@boomzilla Yeah, or against anyone else. Are you seriously arguing that you shouldn't worry about a law being applied to you, it'll only be used against these guys you don't like?
-
@pie_flavor Have you never heard the stories of Microsoft or Oracle taking companies to task for running unlicensed software?
MS license audits are famous for their ferocity. If they get a whiff that you're running unlicensed software in your organization, the lawyers will descend upon you like locusts, and then you'll be paying the most expensive cost for each possible license violation.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
it'll only be used against these guys
you don't likewho broke it?FTFY
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla Yeah, or against anyone else. Are you seriously arguing that you shouldn't worry about a law being applied to you, it'll only be used against these guys you don't like?
I'm just saying that your entire argument is retarded and sounds like the sort of thing people come up with late at night in their dorm rooms when they are not sober. Then they either join the Democratic party or they become slightly embarrassed that they ever came up with such ridiculous ideas.
-
@boomzilla Republicans are the ones for copyright reform nowadays, aren't they? And the Democrats are the ones who bow to Hollywood and Disney?
Also, 'I'm just saying' doesn't actually answer my question.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
Because you're holding it.
The problem with using real-world property theft as an example of why copyright infringement is wrong is that real-world property can only be in the hands of one person at a time, whereas copyrighted content can be copied ad nauseum and the original owner is still holding it. For that reason, they operate on completely separate systems of laws, a fact which you do not seem to grasp.So, let's take this full circle:
What incentive does anyone have to purchase a license for software at all? Are you saying they are fools? And if you are right, and people "wisen up" and just download cracked software without any repercussions or risk for criminal or civil suits, then what is the software company's incentive to produce anything at all?
And before you go onto the old "they make money off of services" that doesn't work for video games. Plus it incentivizes poor business practices such as providing software that's so obtuse and confusing you have to buy their service package to make sense of it all.
Companies should provide products that users are willing to pay money for.
That's unrelated to the question you were asked.
Sometimes I'll pirate a game, play it for an hour, and buy it if I liked it (pro tip if you're making a video game: make a demo!).
That's also unrelated to the question you were asked.
The studio loses nothing if I didn't like it, because if I couldn't pirate it, I just wouldn't have played it.
Guess what - this isn't what you were asked either!
Meanwhile, the reason why it's a bad idea to pirate everything is because viruses are rampant everywhere, and usually you end up sticking with a few trusted torrent authors, and torrenting is illegal because you're uploading.
And neither is this. You really should've made a new topic at this point.
In the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop
Adobe sues Forever 21 for stealing Photoshop
Company made it much harder to share copies of Photoshop and other software in 2013 — and many have turned to piracy to get hold of it
even if they'd win, and the primary disincentive remains the huge potential for viruses.
We're not talking about viruses. We're talking about whether using software without license is legal.
Besides, pirated software is perfectly safe if you know what you're doing, and know what to avoid. Trust me, I'm Polish.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Have you never heard the stories of Microsoft or Oracle taking companies to task for running unlicensed software?
MS license audits are famous for their ferocity. If they get a whiff that you're running unlicensed software in your organization, the lawyers will descend upon you like locusts, and then you'll be paying the most expensive cost for each possible license violation.
Yeah, but you have to agree to the audits in the first place via another license. If you only ran unlicensed software and never agreed to any of the licenses, there's not a damned thing they could do about it.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Republicans are the ones for copyright reform nowadays, aren't they? And the Democrats are the ones who bow to Hollywood and Disney?
Who knows? Who cares? Is there a more boring topic? It doesn't make your ideas about ignoring licenses any less retarded.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Have you never heard the stories of Microsoft or Oracle taking companies to task for running unlicensed software?
MS license audits are famous for their ferocity. If they get a whiff that you're running unlicensed software in your organization, the lawyers will descend upon you like locusts, and then you'll be paying the most expensive cost for each possible license violation.
Yeah, but you have to agree to the audits in the first place via another license. If you only ran unlicensed software and never agreed to any of the licenses, there's not a damned thing they could do about it.
It's true, if you steal and never get caught you never get punished. Brillant!
-
@pie_flavor What part of "Your use of the software IS AN IMPLICIT AGREEMENT OF THE LICENSE REQUIRED TO USE THAT SOFTWARE, EVEN IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT" are you failing to understand?
-
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
Because you're holding it.
The problem with using real-world property theft as an example of why copyright infringement is wrong is that real-world property can only be in the hands of one person at a time, whereas copyrighted content can be copied ad nauseum and the original owner is still holding it. For that reason, they operate on completely separate systems of laws, a fact which you do not seem to grasp.So, let's take this full circle:
What incentive does anyone have to purchase a license for software at all? Are you saying they are fools? And if you are right, and people "wisen up" and just download cracked software without any repercussions or risk for criminal or civil suits, then what is the software company's incentive to produce anything at all?
And before you go onto the old "they make money off of services" that doesn't work for video games. Plus it incentivizes poor business practices such as providing software that's so obtuse and confusing you have to buy their service package to make sense of it all.
Companies should provide products that users are willing to pay money for.
That's unrelated to the question you were asked.
Sometimes I'll pirate a game, play it for an hour, and buy it if I liked it (pro tip if you're making a video game: make a demo!).
That's also unrelated to the question you were asked.
The studio loses nothing if I didn't like it, because if I couldn't pirate it, I just wouldn't have played it.
Guess what - this isn't what you were asked either!
Yeah, it was more of an XY question.
Meanwhile, the reason why it's a bad idea to pirate everything is because viruses are rampant everywhere, and usually you end up sticking with a few trusted torrent authors, and torrenting is illegal because you're uploading.
And neither is this. You really should've made a new topic at this point.
In the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop
Adobe sues Forever 21 for stealing Photoshop
Company made it much harder to share copies of Photoshop and other software in 2013 — and many have turned to piracy to get hold of it
You the person, not you the bigcorp.
And if Forever 21 pirated Photoshop, odds are they agreed to a license agreement still.even if they'd win, and the primary disincentive remains the huge potential for viruses.
We're not talking about viruses. We're talking about whether using software without license is legal.
I was asked about incentives.
Besides, pirated software is perfectly safe if you know what you're doing, and know what to avoid. Trust me, I'm Polish.
Yes, I know what I'm doing too at this point.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Republicans are the ones for copyright reform nowadays, aren't they? And the Democrats are the ones who bow to Hollywood and Disney?
Who knows? Who cares? Is there a more boring topic? It doesn't make your ideas about ignoring licenses any less retarded.And yet you're still posting in it. That's an easy fix, by the way.
Also, nice. 'You're categorically wrong.' 'Who cares? You're boring.' You sound like Elon.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
but you have to agree to the audits in the first place via another license.
All my software are licensed and I never agreed to an audit
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Have you never heard the stories of Microsoft or Oracle taking companies to task for running unlicensed software?
MS license audits are famous for their ferocity. If they get a whiff that you're running unlicensed software in your organization, the lawyers will descend upon you like locusts, and then you'll be paying the most expensive cost for each possible license violation.
Yeah, but you have to agree to the audits in the first place via another license. If you only ran unlicensed software and never agreed to any of the licenses, there's not a damned thing they could do about it.
It's true, if you steal and never get caught you never get punished. Brillant!
What?
-
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor What part of "Your use of the software IS AN IMPLICIT AGREEMENT OF THE LICENSE REQUIRED TO USE THAT SOFTWARE, EVEN IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT" are you failing to understand?
That part. There's a reason the installer prevents you from installing until you check the agreement box, you know. You are not bound by any terms you don't explicitly agree to. Implicit 'by using this you' agreements are only valid if they or a link to access them are clearly visible without user prompting.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Republicans are the ones for copyright reform nowadays, aren't they? And the Democrats are the ones who bow to Hollywood and Disney?
Who knows? Who cares? Is there a more boring topic? It doesn't make your ideas about ignoring licenses any less retarded.And yet you're still posting in it.
Wait, when did this thread become about copyright reform?
That's an easy fix, by the way.
Also, nice. 'You're categorically wrong.' 'Who cares? You're boring.' You sound like Elon.I said that the subject to which you were trying to change to was boring. It's fun goading you into making obviously stupid posts.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Have you never heard the stories of Microsoft or Oracle taking companies to task for running unlicensed software?
MS license audits are famous for their ferocity. If they get a whiff that you're running unlicensed software in your organization, the lawyers will descend upon you like locusts, and then you'll be paying the most expensive cost for each possible license violation.
Yeah, but you have to agree to the audits in the first place via another license. If you only ran unlicensed software and never agreed to any of the licenses, there's not a damned thing they could do about it.
It's true, if you steal and never get caught you never get punished. Brillant!
What?
I know right? Your argument looks really dumb.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Republicans are the ones for copyright reform nowadays, aren't they? And the Democrats are the ones who bow to Hollywood and Disney?
Who knows? Who cares? Is there a more boring topic? It doesn't make your ideas about ignoring licenses any less retarded.And yet you're still posting in it.
Wait, when did this thread become about copyright reform?
When you brought Democrats into it.
That's an easy fix, by the way.
Also, nice. 'You're categorically wrong.' 'Who cares? You're boring.' You sound like Elon.I said that the subject to which you were trying to change to was boring. It's fun goading you into making obviously stupid posts.
I don't even have to goad you; you just do it.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Republicans are the ones for copyright reform nowadays, aren't they? And the Democrats are the ones who bow to Hollywood and Disney?
Who knows? Who cares? Is there a more boring topic? It doesn't make your ideas about ignoring licenses any less retarded.And yet you're still posting in it.
Wait, when did this thread become about copyright reform?
When you brought Democrats into it.
What?
That's an easy fix, by the way.
Also, nice. 'You're categorically wrong.' 'Who cares? You're boring.' You sound like Elon.I said that the subject to which you were trying to change to was boring. It's fun goading you into making obviously stupid posts.
I don't even have to goad you; you just do it.
Says the guy who thinks he can just ignore stuff to make it legal.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Republicans are the ones for copyright reform nowadays, aren't they? And the Democrats are the ones who bow to Hollywood and Disney?
Who knows? Who cares? Is there a more boring topic? It doesn't make your ideas about ignoring licenses any less retarded.And yet you're still posting in it.
Wait, when did this thread become about copyright reform?
When you brought Democrats into it.
What?
Exactly.
That's an easy fix, by the way.
Also, nice. 'You're categorically wrong.' 'Who cares? You're boring.' You sound like Elon.I said that the subject to which you were trying to change to was boring. It's fun goading you into making obviously stupid posts.
I don't even have to goad you; you just do it.
Says the guy who thinks he can just
ignore stuffnot agree to license agreements to make itlegalnot legally binding.FTFY. This is a pretty well established concept.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
This is a pretty well established concept.
If you don't agree to the license, what gives you the right to use it?
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I don't even have to goad you; you just do it.
Says the guy who thinks he can just
ignore stuffnot agree to license agreements to make itlegalnot legally binding.FTFY. This is a pretty well established concept.
Um, actually, I agreed with you originally on this. And an important part of this is that you don't get the legal right to use the software.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I don't even have to goad you; you just do it.
Says the guy who thinks he can just
ignore stuffnot agree to license agreements to make itlegalnot legally binding.FTFY. This is a pretty well established concept.
Um, actually, I agreed with you originally on this. And an important part of this is that you don't get the legal right to use the software.
I have the legal right to download software from a website if the website authorizes me to. I have the legal right to run programs that are on my computer. I may sign away these rights by agreeing to a license agreement, but if I do not agree to something, then I am not bound by it.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I have the legal right to run programs that are on my computer.
Where does that right comes from, if not from the license agreement?
Software is protected by copyright. You need a license to use it.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I have the legal right to download software from a website if the website authorizes me to.
OK.
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
. I have the legal right to run programs that are on my computer. I may sign away these rights by agreeing to a license agreement, but if I do not agree to something, then I am not bound by it.
Yes, and those BSA fines are just a figment of the imagination.
-
@pie_flavor Your "altered version" nonsense won't hold up in court. The court will ask the company involved whether their license is presented as part of the STANDARD installation. They will say yes, because the STANDARD installer does. Your argument is invalid.
-
@TimeBandit said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I have the legal right to run programs that are on my computer.
Where does that right comes from, if not from the license agreement?
Software is protected by copyright. You need a license to use it.
No, that's a brainworm. I don't need a license to read a book, or listen to a song. A license is required in order to copy it. Software must specifically be written to make the license necessary. Software does not automatically have a license by virtue of being software.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
Because you're holding it.
The problem with using real-world property theft as an example of why copyright infringement is wrong is that real-world property can only be in the hands of one person at a time, whereas copyrighted content can be copied ad nauseum and the original owner is still holding it. For that reason, they operate on completely separate systems of laws, a fact which you do not seem to grasp.So, let's take this full circle:
What incentive does anyone have to purchase a license for software at all? Are you saying they are fools? And if you are right, and people "wisen up" and just download cracked software without any repercussions or risk for criminal or civil suits, then what is the software company's incentive to produce anything at all?
And before you go onto the old "they make money off of services" that doesn't work for video games. Plus it incentivizes poor business practices such as providing software that's so obtuse and confusing you have to buy their service package to make sense of it all.
Companies should provide products that users are willing to pay money for.
That's unrelated to the question you were asked.
Sometimes I'll pirate a game, play it for an hour, and buy it if I liked it (pro tip if you're making a video game: make a demo!).
That's also unrelated to the question you were asked.
The studio loses nothing if I didn't like it, because if I couldn't pirate it, I just wouldn't have played it.
Guess what - this isn't what you were asked either!
Yeah, it was more of an XY question.
It really wasn't. It just looks like this to you because you moved the goalposts from X to Y without telling anyone - with X being the law and Y being what rationalizations pirates use to justify piracy. The question was about the law - it would be nice if your answer was about the law too.
Meanwhile, the reason why it's a bad idea to pirate everything is because viruses are rampant everywhere, and usually you end up sticking with a few trusted torrent authors, and torrenting is illegal because you're uploading.
And neither is this. You really should've made a new topic at this point.
In the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop
Adobe sues Forever 21 for stealing Photoshop
Company made it much harder to share copies of Photoshop and other software in 2013 — and many have turned to piracy to get hold of it
You the person, not you the bigcorp.
Minnesota Woman Ordered to Pay $222,000 in Music Piracy Case
Appeals court rules on RIAA lawsuit involving 24 songs
And if Forever 21 pirated Photoshop, odds are they agreed to a license agreement still.
Let me get this straight: you're claiming that the deciding factor in finding whether someone has violated copyright or not, is whether they clicked "agree" in installer?
even if they'd win, and the primary disincentive remains the huge potential for viruses.
We're not talking about viruses. We're talking about whether using software without license is legal.
I was asked about incentives.
Not getting viruses isn't a very good incentive. By which I mean it doesn't work on most people.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Your "altered version" nonsense won't hold up in court. The court will ask the company involved whether their license is presented as part of the STANDARD installation. They will say yes, because the STANDARD installer does. Your argument is invalid.
But it's not what they did that counts, it's what I see. They might be absolved of liability on their part because they made a good-faith effort to provide the license, but that doesn't automatically mean I'm bound by the terms of an agreement I didn't agree to.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
A license is required in order to copy it. Software must specifically be written to make the license necessary. Software does not automatically have a license by virtue of being software.
You didn't read the same law as me (and everybody else)
-
@TimeBandit said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
This is a pretty well established concept.
If you don't agree to the license, what gives you the right to use it?
The PirateBay License™ requires no agreement.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
They might be absolved of liability on their part because they made a good-faith effort to provide the license, but that doesn't automatically mean I'm bound by the terms of an agreement I didn't agree to.
Yes, telling the judge that you don't know the law is usually a good way to get out of trouble.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
Because you're holding it.
The problem with using real-world property theft as an example of why copyright infringement is wrong is that real-world property can only be in the hands of one person at a time, whereas copyrighted content can be copied ad nauseum and the original owner is still holding it. For that reason, they operate on completely separate systems of laws, a fact which you do not seem to grasp.So, let's take this full circle:
What incentive does anyone have to purchase a license for software at all? Are you saying they are fools? And if you are right, and people "wisen up" and just download cracked software without any repercussions or risk for criminal or civil suits, then what is the software company's incentive to produce anything at all?
And before you go onto the old "they make money off of services" that doesn't work for video games. Plus it incentivizes poor business practices such as providing software that's so obtuse and confusing you have to buy their service package to make sense of it all.
Companies should provide products that users are willing to pay money for.
You are so naive to think most people aren't cheapskates who would get around paying for something if they could.
Sometimes I'll pirate a game, play it for an hour, and buy it if I liked it (pro tip if you're making a video game: make a demo!).
Hey, that's fine. But you're still naive if you think people are going to make a purchase if they don't have to. Hell, I'd say some would not do so out of laziness even more than being cheap. Filling out a billing form for online checkout is tedious.
Meanwhile, the reason why it's a bad idea to pirate everything is because viruses are rampant everywhere, and usually you end up sticking with a few trusted torrent authors, and torrenting is illegal because you're uploading.
Ok, but that's a seriously weak argument to make. That's like saying stealing animals from a zoo shouldn't be illegal because there's a good chance you'll get killed by the very animal you're stealing.
In the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop, even if they'd win, and the primary disincentive remains the huge potential for viruses.
How could they win under your own assertions? You yourself are making the claim there's no license agreement broken if they downloaded a crack. You're contradicting yourself now. Make up your damn mind.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Yes, telling the judge that you don't know the law is usually a good way to get out of trouble.
Ignorantia juris excusat.
