Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: A Dinosaur Game Is Coming To Linux

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    That doesn't sound right. Here is my understanding, with the usual caveats that IANAL although I do work with them on a regular basis

    Making a photocopy of a single newspaper article is a copyright violation and is technically stealing - it's just hard to detect and rarely prosecuted.

    Building and selling copies of a Ferrari Enzo would be a trademark violation not copyright - don't think cars are subject to copyright law (other than the owners manual and the firmware in the various computers). Building your own copy is a grey area where you probably could be prosecuted under trademark law but most companies would settle for making you take off any badges and logos.

    Burning a copy of an install disk is a copyright violation, except to the extent that the license agreement allows it. Most agreements allow you to burn a backup copy but not for installation on more than one computer. A more appropriate comment would be "thank you for helping me steal software my friend, I owe you a beer".

    They say a good friend is one who will help you move a dead body. That doesn't make moving a dead body legal either

    The important thing to understand here is the distinction between what is legal and what you can often do without being prosecuted, whether the gap comes from lack of law enforcement resources or concerns about bad PR. Getting away with something does not make it legal.

    There are ongoing efforts to codify "reasonable" scenarios where using copyrighted material without the author's approval is allowed, with names like "fair use" or "fair dealing" depending on jurisdiction. One could argue that "fair use" doctrine should be extended to allow activities such as posting a copy of a newspaper article on your office door, but I don't believe even that is allowed under fair use today. It seems unlikely that your other examples would ever be allowed.
    Last edited by bridgman; 01-01-2010 at 03:02 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,598

    Default

    "Primal Carnage is a multiplayer first person shooter where players must work as a team to complete game mode dependent objectives."

    I do not like team play multiplayer games, maybe they should add a single player part too - or at least deathmatch without teams.

    Of course online only games could be easyly protected - just verify the serial online. It is unlikely that somebody could play on official servers when this check is enabled.

    But in order to make this attractive the game must really rock...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    "thank you for helping me steal software my friend, I owe you a beer".
    Stealing is taking someone else his/her property from him/her. When I copy a Mac OS X disc, I do not take away Apples property. I just don't chose to buy it from them. Can't you see? You're drowned in a delusion. Like most people are. The fact that you make money by making software, doesn't make you dictate the rules of how things are done in my country. And thank god it doesn't. The software industry isn't hurt by piracy, but by an insane, just not working business model. And this industry somehow thinks that it is above the law. This, sick, industry is delusional and thinks it operates above the law. It thinks it can dictate ethics. To this industry I kindly say: FUCK... YOU...

    They say a good friend is one who will help you move a dead body. That doesn't make moving a dead body legal either
    I didn't expect a troll post from you. What you are doing here is essentially equating the copying of sequence of xPU instructions with murder, murder. I can't think of a more outrages troll post than this. Congratulations...

    The important thing to understand here is the distinction between what is legal and what you can often do without being prosecuted, whether the gap comes from lack of law enforcement resources or concerns about bad PR. Getting away with something does not make it legal.
    Nice trolling, but you fail, horribly. In my country (I truely hope this is the same for yours) a court functions as a testbed for the law. If different judges, repeatedly, rule against these practises, then it is not getting away with something ilegal, but making something that was stamped as ilegal, effectively legal.

    There are ongoing efforts to codify "reasonable" scenarios where using copyrighted material without the author's approval is allowed, with names like "fair use" or "fair dealing" depending on jurisdiction.
    There are... But well... I still maintain the right to copy software for my own gain, without redistributing it or helping others redistribute it.

    One could argue that "fair use" doctrine should be extended to allow activities such as posting a copy of a newspaper article on your office door, but I don't believe even that is allowed under fair use today. It seems unlikely that your other examples would ever be covered.
    This is not the case in my country, but if it were in your country than I can only conclude that your country is/was being ruled by a bunch of total idiots. Hands down.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    I didn't expect a troll post from you. What you are doing here is essentially equating the copying of sequence of xPU instructions with murder, murder. I can't think of a more outrages troll post than this. Congratulations...
    No, I equated it with moving an already dead body, since that happened to be a commonly used example of what good friends would be willing to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Nice trolling, but you fail, horribly. In my country (I truely hope this is the same for yours) a court functions as a testbed for the law. If different judges, repeatedly, rule against these practises, then it is not getting away with something ilegal, but making something that was stamped as ilegal, effectively legal.
    Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I was not saying that these cases were tossed out by the courts (in which case I agree that would be grounds for reviewing and possibly revising the relevent laws), I was saying that infractions were too hard to detect in the first place so usually neither the police nor the courts knew about what you did and so were not able to take action against you.

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    There are... But well... I still maintain the right to copy software for my own gain, without redistributing it or helping others redistribute it.
    I would be interested in knowing what law grants you that right - or do you feel it is an "ethical right" no matter what the law says ?

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    This is not the case in my country, but if it were in your country than I can only conclude that your country is/was being ruled by a bunch of total idiots. Hands down.
    Just to be clear, are you saying that any government which does not allow people to copy commercial software they do not own, for their personal use, is a bunch of idiots ?

    Are you saying that commercial software development should stop immediately and that all software should be developed for free by unpaid volunteers ? Otherwise I don't get your argument - you want software development to be funded by "someone" but you are also saying that every country should allow people to use that software without paying. Who pays for the software development under that scenario ?

    There are some efforta slong the lines of "business should pay for stuff and subsidize individual users in the process" but that doesn't scale particularly well these days either.
    Last edited by bridgman; 01-01-2010 at 03:40 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    No, I equated it with moving an already dead body, since that happened to be a commonly used example of what good friends would be willing to do.
    Helping moving a dead body equals helping somebody getting away with-, in other words not being punished for-, murder. This is morally wrong. Befriending someone that likes to take away other peoples lives, and helping him, is indeed an acvt of very good friendship, but horribly wrong. But I can see what you were going for there

    I was saying that infractions were too hard to detect in the first place so usually neither the police nor the courts knew about what you did and so were not able to take action against you.
    OK, but I still fail to see what fair use had to do with me being allowed to copy a videogame disc for my personal use. Fair use, in my country, is based around being allowed to distribute works of parts, modifications and/or blendings of copyrighted material, for which one doesn't not hold a complete copyright.

    I would be interested in knowing what law grants you that right - or do you feel it is an "ethical right" no matter what the law says ?
    The absence of a law that sais that one may only do what is discribed in laws. I have the right to do that which hasn't been forbidden, for I do not live in a twisted dictatorial country and/or a country that has secret laws.

    Just to be clear, are you saying that any government which does not allow people to copy commercial software they do not own, for their personal use, is a bunch of idiots ?
    Are you seriously asking me to question that a country that makes one go to jail for a lifetime if you would get caught three times in a row for copying newspaper articles for your office wall isn't rules by a bunch of idiots?

    Are you saying that commercial software development should stop immediately and that all software should be developed for free by unpaid volunteers?
    No. Not at all. I was just having a rant against an industry that lobbies for laws that put you in jail if you copy software for personal use, without stealing (you mind want to check the meaning of the word stealing in a respected dictionary), just because their business model doesn't work. How does that makes me be against earning money with closed source software? It doesn't. If I would hate closed software so much than I wouldn't buy and copy it for my own, personal use.

    There are some efforta slong the lines of "business should pay for stuff and subsidize individual users in the process" but that doesn't scale particularly well these days either.
    Last time I checked the software industry was still a multi-billion dollar market, exceding all global earnings of music and movies combined.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,907

    Default

    1. Copyright infringement is not equal to stealing
    2. But it's still bad
    3. And politicians/riaa are even worse.

    I think that about sums up my feelings on the matter. OSS advocates should be very wary about dissing copyrights, since it's the entire foundation of the GPL.

    If you're going to play the game, pay for it. But then go ahead and crack the DRM afterwards if it's bugging you.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    OK, but I still fail to see what fair use had to do with me being allowed to copy a videogame disc for my personal use. Fair use, in my country, is based around being allowed to distribute works of parts, modifications and/or blendings of copyrighted material, for which one doesn't not hold a complete copyright.
    Can you check what you said here ? It doesn't sound right - talks about fair use referring to distribution, which probably isn't what you meant to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    The absence of a law that sais that one may only do what is discribed in laws. I have the right to do that which hasn't been forbidden, for I do not live in a twisted dictatorial country and/or a country that has secret laws.
    That's why I asked. Most countries start with a basic copyright law which prohibits any duplication of copyrighted works without the author's permission, then add specific exceptions such as "fair use".

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Are you seriously asking me to question that a country that makes one go to jail for a lifetime if you would get caught three times in a row for copying newspaper articles for your office wall isn't rules by a bunch of idiots?
    There are two completely different "three strikes" laws floating around, and you may be confusing them. In the US, and possibly other countries, repeated convictions for major (usually violent) crimes lead to sharply increased penalties, and the "third strike" can dump you in jail for a long time.

    The "three strikes" laws in the media today are somewhat different - three electronic copyright violations for personal use can lead to having your internet access taken away. That seems less severe to me -- or maybe that's what you meant by "lifetime imprisonment"

    Copyright violation for personal use is generally treated as a civil offence (fine or short imprisonment), while copyright violation for commercial use (distribition) may be treated as a criminal offence and bring higher penalties. Copying a newspaper article for your office door would presumably be treated as a civil offence at most, although I don't know many places that would even bother charging you let alone convicting you for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    No. Not at all. I was just having a rant against an industry that lobbies for laws that put you in jail if you copy software for personal use, without stealing (you mind want to check the meaning of the word stealing in a respected dictionary), just because their business model doesn't work. How does that makes me be against earning money with closed source software? It doesn't. If I would hate closed software so much than I wouldn't buy and copy it for my own, personal use.
    If countries make it legal for everyone to duplicate copyrighted software for personal use, who do you think is going to buy that software and pay for development ?

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Last time I checked the software industry was still a multi-billion dollar market, exceding all global earnings of music and movies combined.
    Sure, but do you think that would hold up if laws were changed the way you proposed ? Or do you expect that copyright laws will stay as they are and that everyone will continue to feel they are ruled by idiots ? That seems more likely to me

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    1. Copyright infringement is not equal to stealing
    2. But it's still bad
    3. And politicians/riaa are even worse.
    Nobody has ever said that copyright is wrong. I however have said that some laws that are there to enforce it are wrong.

    Politicians are not wrong either. There are however bad and good ones. I don't think that the world is better of with anarchy.

    OSS advocates should be very wary about dissing copyrights, since it's the entire foundation of the GPL.
    The only reason the GPL is even out there is because there is no way of putting ones work in the public domain before the author of a work is deceased. Don't forget that without copyright, reverse engineering would be legal and thus there wouldn't even be the need for enforcing the share of source code under the same license in order to enforce freedom.

    If you're going to play the game, pay for it. But then go ahead and crack the DRM afterwards if it's bugging you.
    I am not playing the game. I am just being opportunistic and not breaking any laws. I am a selfish bastard when it comes to objects, not people and not money. I like FLOSS. Not only because it's gratis.but also because it's sharing. The source code of Quake 2 was long released under the GPL before I bought the retail product...

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    @Bridgman: I'll come back to you later as this discussion is starting to tire me (and I mean that only literaly) because it's already late here. I typed my last post before yoy posted your reply

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    The only reason the GPL is even out there is because there is no way of putting ones work in the public domain before the author of a work is deceased.
    Not true. I'm pretty sure you can release something as public domain if you want, and even if you couldn't licenses like the BSDs are much closer than the GPL. It exists to make sure that companies can't copy that code and use it for their own purposes without giving anything back. I don't want to get into a BSD vs GPL flamewar or anything, but there is a big difference between the two licenses.

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Don't forget that without copyright, reverse engineering would be legal and thus there wouldn't even be the need for enforcing the share of source code under the same license in order to enforce freedom.
    Reverse engineering is legal. Or at least it is here in the US, which has some of the strictest laws, so I assume it is everywhere else as well. Are you talking about patents here rather than copyright?

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    I am not playing the game. I am just being opportunistic and not breaking any laws.
    Ok, now I'm confused. You're going to download the game just for fun and then not play it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •