Class action suit half life 2

[BigMac]

BigMac, no offense, but your logic isn't very logical. I suppose in your opinion no one should ever overclock any component of their PC either and if they do then their PC should report to a remote server and be deactivated permanently?

No offense taken.

There are some differences between hardware and software so you cannot set up the perfect analogy between them. Biggest difference is, you can make a perfect digital copy of the software you own. Actually, that is not even correct, do you do not own software as you do hardware, you buy a license to use the software, and there are conditions for using that license. I think it is perfectly understandable and acceptable to take measures, in the software itself or otherwise, that detect EULA infringements and even counteracts it.

With hardware, it is usually not a profitable supposition to copy it, it is cheaper to buy another one. Also with hardware you own physical property, which is different than having a license for use. Usually there are lots of limitations in the product instructions for use, that you will loose your warrantee if you modify the product. Also, if the product contains specific intellectual property then this is guarded by patents. (software can be patented as well).

In short, it is a bit like comparing apples with pears, they're both fruit, and you like the one, the other or both, but they're definitely not the same thing. When you buy software, you buy an idea, basically, with little material cost, none if you download it directly from the net. You can compare it with buying a movie, music, or a book, which is why software falls under copyright law. I would find it acceptable, if a publisher were to publish a book that cannot be copied, as long as this is clearly communicated to potential buyers. It is then up to the customer whether he wants to make such a purchase.


BigMac

<A HREF="http://www.p3int.com/product_center_NWO_The_Story.asp" target="_new">New World Order</A>

 

[Kronos]

"Fair Use" laws make clear the right of a purchaser to make backups of purchased software for their own use. The lust by corporations for ever greater profits and the desire by the present probusiness american government makes for a probusiness supreme court that betrays the "rights" of individual purchasers to a proper action as regards "fair use" interpretation. To wit...one government branch lies and the other two swear to its validity. Such rancor in government has led to calls by some elected officials for software that corrupts P2P users computers.

I want to die like my Grandfather...in my sleep...not screaming in terror like his passengers.

 

[BigMac]

If backups were just made for personal use, we would not be in the mess we're now in. Btw, you can make as many backups as you like of your software bought via Steam.

If it were possible to differentiate between copies made for personal use (like copying a piece of purchased music to all your portable devices) and copies made with malicious intent then I'm sure this would be utilized and allowed. Also i think it is reasonable to charge differently for content you are allowed to use indefinitely or content that you can only use on one specific location or for a fixed time period.


BigMac

<A HREF="http://www.p3int.com/product_center_NWO_The_Story.asp" target="_new">New World Order</A>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Biggest difference is, you can make a perfect digital copy of the software you own.

How nice of you to bring up a point that I never did, nor has anyone else. No one here is arguing for theft, so there's no point in debating that. Without your reliance on that your posts would be much shorter.

you do not own software as you do hardware

<i>That</i> is completely untrue. You <i>do</i> purchase software. In the U.S. at the very least, music, software, even books and printed media all work relatively the same way. You aren't purchasing the original work. You're purchasing content derived from the original. Once purchased, you <i>own</i> that content, but not the original.

It compares very much the same as a computer processor and the blueprints, patents, etc. that went into it. When you purchase a processor you aren't buying the original. You're buying a copy of derived media. Purchasing it doesn't give you the right to distribute content based on the original. It only gives you the right to do with your copy of the content as you please.

So whether it is OCing a processor, adding a spoiler to your coupe, modding HL2, or transferring Bach from your CD to MP3 files, you own that content and have every legal right to do these things.

you buy a license to use the software, and there are conditions for using that license

Sorry, but that's so not true. Most EULAs won't even hold up in a court of law because they themselves aren't legal. Licenses are not laws, and are certainly not legally binding contracts. They're more like terms and conditions of a warranty. Follow them and you'll recieve fixes and support. Don't follow them and it's "use at your own risk".

In short, it is a bit like comparing apples with pears

Only to the ignorant. To the educated it's more like comparing a Red Delicious to a Gala. Your problem is that you don't seem to know the difference between license and content. Copyright law protects content. Licenses are imaginary rules made up by companies to define <i>terms of support</i> that actually aren't <i>legally</i> binding. There's no signature. And in fact in many states minors couldn't even sign them if there were.

So if I were to crack my copy of HL2 so that I never had to see Steam again, what I am doing is in fact throwing my technical support for HL2 out the window. I may never see an update if Valve doesn't want to supply one to me. I may never recieve a response should I email them with a question. But I have done nothing illegal, because I purchased my content.

EULA's on the other hand are often questionably moral at best and in some cases have even been outright illegal. So have various 'protection' methods that have trodden upon my legal rights to use content that I have purchased. I just don't have the financial resources to buy favorable political clout to pass inane laws like the DCMA that supposedly make it illegal in certain cases to actually use my legal rights. However since my legal rights were established first, so long as I remain within my legal rights while breaking the DCMA I remain protected by my first-given rights.

<i>That's</i> the law.

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>

 

[BigMac]

I sense some hostility in your post which I find uncalled for but to each his own. I think Wolfy was right in feeling unjustly attacked because I did not read his post carefully, you on the other hand have no such reason as far as I can tell. Either you get impatient with me because you are smarter than me (or think so at least), or you feel threatened in some way. Either way, it's not very functional (if you try to convey your view on things that is). Moving on to content now...

The issue about the perfect copy is relevant in this discussion, at least in the sense for people to get an understanding of what they are buying. You are buying the rights to use an idea, I know you disagree with that but that is why EULA's and software licenses exist. You may not like them, but they do have a legal status, until you contest one because you think it contains illegal claims. Until a judge agrees with you, the EULA or any other licensing agreement stands as it is accepted by the customer. And before the software gets installed the installer makes sure you do accept the EULA or it will not install.

Sorry, but that's so not true. Most EULAs won't even hold up in a court of law because they themselves aren't legal. Licenses are not laws, and are certainly not legally binding contracts. They're more like terms and conditions of a warranty. Follow them and you'll recieve fixes and support. Don't follow them and it's "use at your own risk".

You will have to back up your claim that most EULA's will not hold up in court. If you cannot affort the legal battle yourself (and who can affort such things?) you will have to provide adequate jurisprudence to back your claim. Can you quote some here? I assure you there would be such jurisprudence, if not initiated by angry consumers, then surely there would be jurisprudence on cases where a company sought to enforce the EULA via court and was rejected.

The EULA describes the terms, and if one of the terms is that you're not supposed to change the software by any means, that is a legal construct. If you disagree, don't agree to the EULA. Of course you wont be able to install the software either, unless you hack the installer itself or get the software from someone who did so. Do we agree on the fact that that is illegal (hacking the installer, or getting a hacked version)?

Only to the ignorant. To the educated it's more like comparing a Red Delicious to a Gala. Your problem is that you don't seem to know the difference between license and content. Copyright law protects content. Licenses are imaginary rules made up by companies to define terms of support that actually aren't legally binding. There's no signature. And in fact in many states minors couldn't even sign them if there were.

Agreeing to a contract by clicking a button is just as valid as a verbal agreement or a signed agreement in a court of law. Of course a verbal agreement is harder to prove than a signed agreement but in terms of law they're all legally binding. To me it looks like you are inventing your own kind of law to suit you.

If I buy a software package, with three fixed licenses, do you really think it is legal to hack one of them and use those other versions (without company warranty)? Think again. Replace fixed licenses with floating for all I care.

Just to make my point more understandable, what is the economic value of the goods you are purchasing? Obviously the processor represents an economic value in itself. Software, as content, the bits so to speak, in itself has no economic value. You can copy it indefinitely with 0 production costs (except for some hardware write off). The economic value of the software is in the right that you have of using it for your purposes. Those rights are ruled by Copyright laws.

Closing off, I have no opinion on the DMCA, I'm not a USA citizen and I do not live there either. I've heard lots of (unfavorable) comments about it but I've never read it myself.


BigMac

<A HREF="http://www.p3int.com/product_center_NWO_The_Story.asp" target="_new">New World Order</A>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

The issue about the perfect copy is relevant in this discussion, at least in the sense for people to get an understanding of what they are buying.

Actually, it has no relevence whatsoever, but obviously that is beyond you.

You are buying the rights to use an idea

You see, this is where you have everything wrong. You aren't buying 'rights' at all. You're buying content. There's a huge difference.

I know you disagree with that but that is why EULA's and software licenses exist. You may not like them, but they do have a legal status, until you contest one because you think it contains illegal claims.

You've got it bass ackwards I'm afraid. They have no legal status, period. To my knowledge one has not been decided upon by a judge one way or the other, ever. And software companies know this, which is why they always make sure to settle any case out of court where any EULA's validity might be questioned (or worse, decided upon) by the time the case has finished.

Until a judge agrees with you, the EULA or any other licensing agreement stands as it is accepted by the customer.

In an accidental way, you hit it right on the head. The strength of the EULA stands only as long as it is accepted by consumers. We've all just assumed that they're legal and valid. Hardly anyone even realizes that they don't have to put up with this nonsense. And so the EULA seems to stand. It doesn't stand for any legal reason. It stands for the same reason that the common PC is such a target for virii. The average computer user is too unaware. (To put it nicely.)

You will have to back up your claim that most EULA's will not hold up in court. If you cannot affort the legal battle yourself (and who can affort such things?) you will have to provide adequate jurisprudence to back your claim.

And I call the reverse. Provide one case where an EULA that trample's the user's rights has gone to court and been judged valid to the user's detriment. The simple fact is, there aren't trials that go <i>either</i> way because these things don't survive trials. Software companies are too worried that they might to let it happen. They fight hard to settle out of court as soon as any such (every such) trial looks to not go their way.

Do we agree on the fact that that is illegal (hacking the installer, or getting a hacked version)?

I would assume that you believe it to be illegal. If so, then no, we don't agree. There <i>are</i> legal means and reasons.

Agreeing to a contract by clicking a button is just as valid as a verbal agreement or a signed agreement in a court of law.

Actually, it isn't. There are a number of differences and there are gaping grey areas in the law regarding this.

To me it looks like you are inventing your own kind of law to suit you.

Maybe that's because you don't seem to actually know US law.

If I buy a software package, with three fixed licenses, do you really think it is legal to hack one of them and use those other versions (without company warranty)?

I'm not entirely following what you mean by "use those other versions", but if I am understanding you correctly, then yes, it is perfectly legal. Not only that, but it is done quite often.

Just to make my point more understandable, what is the economic value of the goods you are purchasing? Obviously the processor represents an economic value in itself. Software, as content, the bits so to speak, in itself has no economic value.

That's a nonsensical question. The economic value is exactly what it is. What you're talking about is production value, which is a completely different thing. That aside, the production value is still above zero, and even if somehow in some magical world it weren't, that still wouldn't impact the economic value any. The value is in the content, not in the delivery medium.

And that's where you keep screwing up. You keep ignoring the simple fact that what you're purchasing is content, not the delivery medium.

The economic value of the software is in the right that you have of using it for your purposes. Those rights are ruled by Copyright laws.

Actually, you've got that <i>really</i> screwed up. The economic value is in the content and the <i>author's</i> rights are ruled <i>in part</i> by copyright laws. Just as the owner's rights are <i>in part</i> protected by fair use laws.

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>

 

[TeeTewl]

The thing that pissed me off was I thought I was buying a game that I could take home load and play. I didn't get that. I wanted to play the game on a PC that will never be online. I didn't get that. Nowhere on the box is it clearly written that you have to have a steam account. I took it back and actually got money back for opened software that was against their policy (Meijer's) when I explained this to the section mgr.

Gort, Klaatu nicto barada...Patricia Neal

 

[sweatlaserxp]

I still haven't purchased HL2 for the exact same reason. Until we get DSL set up at my apartment, I can't play it. Lame.

<A HREF="http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/landing/landingIndex.jsp?id=dumb01&mature=accept" target="_new">DumbLand</A>