Spore/Mass Effect Requires A Virgin Sacrifice on Western Coast of Easter Island

[KallDrexx]

You keep saying you can't be bothered by society's laws, the rights of others, and paying for what you recieve, which makes you both a criminal and a sociopath.

I agree with the sentiment that pirating is illegal, immoral, etc...

The only problem I have is you keep arguing in absolutes.  Everyone breaks the law in one form or another.  Take driving for instance, everyone has done a rolling stop on small interceptions, everyone has knowingly gone over the speed limit, everyone has gone closer to the car in front of them then the legal limit (it has been shown that if all cars would follow speeding and distance laws then our highways would be backed up and gridlocked so bad it would make traveling even worse).  Even if you don't drive, there's always jaywalking.

There is not one person in the world who has not broken any laws.  The question (and this is a serious one) is where do you draw the line between which laws are ok to casually break and which ones aren't?  Again, I'm not condoning pirating nor those who pirate, but let's be real about human nature for a second.

[Venkman]

This is a fascinating thread. Mostly because the indignation on both sides proves why a) companies seek to DRM the hell out of everything; and, b) why some publishers won't sell to entire countries due to their decades-long rampant piracy tendencies. Now, on that second point, I think that's shotgunning the person to cure their nasal itch, but whatevs. It is what it is.

DRM-free and-yet-successful Sins of Solar Empire does not prove DRM isn't needed any more than Club Penguin proves the whole PC industry must become constant-connected Flash gaming in order to thrive (I know CP and DRM are different, but they share the call-home thing). The same people bitching about DRM are logged into Steam every day while those not bitching are buying music on iTunes, and were before they started transitioning away from DRM. This debate is approaching dogma.

[Tebonas]

We are at an entirely different parallel discussion, though. The "you have x installs" retardedness.

[Morat20]

We are at an entirely different parallel discussion, though. The "you have x installs" retardedness.

Hey, I agree --  that's fucking stupid.  And I might not buy the game because of it.

I feel my only moral choices are to either put up with the shit that comes with the game and buy it and play it, or...decide the shit that comes with it is too much, and not buy it and not play it.

Backup copies, personal use copies, things like that -- totally different set of moral arguments.

[Kail]

Personally, I think both piracy and anti-piracy measures are retarded.  The problem is that as a legitimate user, I see pirates getting better versions of the same software I'm using for free.  I've tried voting with my wallet, all it means is that I don't get to play the games that all the pirates are playing.  I'm tired of taking a moral stand, or whatever, in the name of getting my point across to the game companies.  I tried that, and it didn't work.  At this point, I'd be happy to just play a damn game once in a while.

I'm more than willing to buy a game, more than willing to (hypothetically) even pay more for a version with some special features I want.  But the version with the features I want is the pirated version, the one I'll be able to run three, four years down the road.  So what the hell am I supposed to do?  I can continue to refrain from buying these things, in which case the companies will almost certainly continue to ignore me and I won't get to play the game.  Or, I can pirate it, in which case the companies will still ignore me, but I'll at least be playing the game.

Right now, I'm really on the fence.  I want to get Spore, one way or another.  I don't want to break the law to do it, but I also don't want to end up holding a $50 DVD that won't fucking run because some idiot decided that fucking over legitimate customers makes great business sense.

[Krakrok]

Is it somehow "less bad" to steal from a corporation than from an individual?

Yes. It is morally wrong that unaccountable immortal corporations have equal or more rights than individuals. At this point everyone should have their own corporation to protect themselves.

[Morat20]

Right now, I'm really on the fence.  I want to get Spore, one way or another.  I don't want to break the law to do it, but I also don't want to end up holding a $50 DVD that won't fucking run because some idiot decided that fucking over legitimate customers makes great business sense.

Speaking just for myself -- I find it totally ethical to legimately purchase the game, but play a cracked copy. You BOUGHT the game you played. You paid the creators.

My only real problems with that scenario is I find it rare to find a good cracked copy that doesn't run into issues upgraded, reinstalling, or patching sooner or later.

As I said -- I suspect Steam, or some other form of central licensing system -- is the DRM future for games. If you tie the license to a unique ID/password, then you can ONLY lose access if someone manages to break into your account. If the system does game archiving (and even better, builds in emulation for older games to run better in newer OSs) so that I could, for instance, pay 5 bucks and get a copy of Master of Magic (with royalties flowing to whomever still owns the title) or pay Steam/Steam-equivilant a dollar for all some old SSI Gold Box games, that would be the best of both worlds.

Your games are always "there" (via Steam), you can download them and play them wherever you go, so long as you're only playing ONE copy of it at a time. Does it really matter if you have 5 copies of Spore installed over five seperate PC's if only one is authorized at a time?

About the only hassle would be the need for internet connectivity to utilize -- Steam's authorize/deauthorize process could use some work, but does handle it even if your internet provider is down.

[eldaec]

Is it somehow "less bad" to steal from a corporation than from an individual?

Yes. It is morally wrong that unaccountable immortal corporations have equal or more rights than individuals. At this point everyone should have their own corporation to protect themselves.

Corporations are owned by groups of individuals.

They only have rights to save the rigmarole of the owners suing you individually.

[Stephen Zepp]

I have a bad habit of arguing "meta-issues", i.e. one level removed from the core argument itself--in this case, I'm arguing ethics, not breaking the law.

I don't give a shit if people pirate software, in and of itself. I don't care that people willfully break laws, if the know they are doing wrong.

What I'm arguing so heatedly about is the appearance that those that pirate software as a "lesson to the developers" are justifying their actions by claiming (outright, or just through their actions) that society's laws (from a moral/ethical perspective, I'm not talking legislation at all)  don't apply to them--in effect, Schild and others are arguing that it's not wrong to steal (software in this case), if you don't like how the property is provided.

I'm of the belief that morality and ethics isn't a spectrum--an act is either moral, or immoral, and a rationale/moral compass that indicates to individuals they can pick and choose their ethical guidelines based on personal preference is a very scary thing indeed.

In this particular case, those justifying pirating software because they don't like how the provider enforces software protection can use that same argument to apply to any particular ethical dilemma, and be justified in their own eyes. From a morality perspective, that is logically equivalent to justifying any act, for any (selfish) reason.

That scares the shit out of me from a purely societal perspective--individuals that are raised with this sort of ethical rationalization process move on to doing crazy, stupid, destructive things to the society as a whole.

A lot of my concern here is reinforced by an episode of CSI I watched the other day, called Fannysmackin'.

At the end, the characters hold a brief discussion on society and morality, and here's the key quote that puts it in perspective for me:

Grissom, however, states that "Our moral compass can only point us in the right direction, it can't make us go there. We live in a society that preaches 'Do whatever you want, we won't tell' and that includes killing someone. This city is built on the foundation that you can do whatever you want. You can even kill somebody, and apparently you don't even have to feel bad about it."

[Venkman]

We are at an entirely different parallel discussion, though. The "you have x installs" retardedness.

I agree, but I was responding to the overarching "you're not allowed to steal"/"I don't care as long as I don't get caught" debate.

DRMs are not designed to screw people. Their purpose is to ensure folks get their money back. They are needed in the PC world because the general belief* is that an unprotected CD/DVD-ROM is a copied CD/DVD-ROM. That means the publisher doesn't get their money back. That means their staff doesn't get paid. That means their partners don't get their cut. And that means their licensors (engines, IP, etc.) don't get theirs either. It's the same for music and videos.

Yes, to Margalis' point, these companies can just find a new business to get into. Welp, by and large they already have. Most of the dollars in the industry outside of MMOs go to companies that design for PC as an after thought, or if their development pipeline allows for PC porting and their distribution channels make it just as easy to sell (be it retail or digital). And I separate MMOs because whether it's Flash-based xtrans or download/purchased subscription, this models works extremely well on PCs and is still largely exclusive to them (for reasons not directly related to this discussion).

In the meantime, we'll see more bad practices, and the rise of embedded or bracketed advertising, and along the way, the continual decline of PC titles at retail as the migration to digital continues.

Ultimately though, nobody is really to blame. All of media is going through this sort of self-questioning, which is why companies like Sony and Microsoft are evolving from controlling the hardware to controlling the end-to-end experience of media distribution. The information has always been the most important thing. It's the channels that are evolving.

* statistically arguable, but it's an easy sell to publishers

[Krakrok]

That scares the shit out of me from a purely societal perspective--individuals that are raised with this sort of ethical rationalization process move on to doing crazy, stupid, destructive things to the society as a whole.

All of those same people run corporations too and none of us are as dumb as all of us.

To bring your own quote back to you, It's not wrong to buy a law (copyright and patents in this case), if you don't like how the law is worded. Media corporations are hypocrites and I can't stand hypocrites.

[Tebonas]

Yes, there are laws and there are laws. Some legislation is simply bought by lobbies. You must obey them as a citizen, but you don't have a moral obligation to follow them. You moral compass doesn't break just because some corrupt politicians took money to make something unlawful!

[Azazel]

Actually, buried beneath a lot of crap, most of us here are operating at the post-law and order stage of morality.

In short, we obey the law when it coincides with our moral beliefs, and disobey it when it conflicts. (In short, we hold personal morality superior to societal morality). The moral calculus is more complex than that -- I might find a given law immoral, but feel that the results of flagrantly disobeying it are worse for society at large, and thus choose the 'lesser' of two evils. I might find a law immoral, and break it, but takes steps to minimize the impact of doing so -- like, say, only lighting up a joint in private and not doing it in front of cops.

Or I might find a law so morally repugnant that I would flagrantly violate it, accepting punishment in the hopes of having the law changed.

Excellent post, and it pretty well sums up my own stance in regard to laws and morality.

Since everyone else here is happily taking examples that have nothing to do with the specific argument, I'll do the same with the above statement on laws vs personal morality. If you were to go to an fundamentalist islamic country, would it then become "morally right" to stone someone to death for infidelity, execute someone for being homosexual, cut off their hands for stealing, etc? What if those are the laws of the land? Do they supercede your own personal morals on what is "right" versus "wrong"?

It's at least as relevent as the "copying IP = stealing a car" argument.

[eldaec]

DRMs are not designed to screw people. Their purpose is to ensure folks get their money back. They are needed in the PC world because the general belief* is that an unprotected CD/DVD-ROM is a copied CD/DVD-ROM. That means the publisher doesn't get their money back. That means their staff doesn't get paid. That means their partners don't get their cut. And that means their licensors (engines, IP, etc.) don't get theirs either.

In this case, that depends on whether you see the secondary market for original software as something the publisher has any rights over.

Because the form of DRM we are talking about does jack shit to prevent warez.

[IainC]

Since everyone else here is happily taking examples that have nothing to do with the specific argument, I'll do the same with the above statement on laws vs personal morality. If you were to go to an fundamentalist islamic country, would it then become "morally right" to stone someone to death for infidelity, execute someone for being homosexual, cut off their hands for stealing, etc? What if those are the laws of the land? Do they supercede your own personal morals on what is "right" versus "wrong"?

See here you're conflating agreeing with the law with agreeing with the punishment which isn't the same thing. I would believe it is wrong to steal whether I lived in a fundamentalist Islamic state or not. However I wouldn't agree that cutting someone's hands off was a justifiable punishment, in the same way that I believe murdering people is wrong but I am opposed to capital punishment. And no, to forestall the inevitable 'Aha!' I don't agree that a law forbidding homosexuality is morally right but that again is not relevant. Having limited rights in the purchase of a video game is not even remotely in the same league as being oppressed for your sexual alignment.

All I'm seeing in this thread from a lot of people is bullshit justifications for why they should be allowed to steal someone's work. Media companies are all 'evil hypocrites', they 'buy laws', they have more rights than individuals and so on.

Bollocks frankly. They have exactly the same rights as any other content creator. If you create an original work as an individual you have the same rights over the use and exploitation of that work as Disney do over their IP. You can choose to give it away for free or you can choose to try and make a living from licencing it but that's your choice as a creator and not up to a random consumer to decide if he wants to use your work but reject your terms for doing so.

Copyright laws need to be changed to reflect the world of convenient transfer of large amounts of data. Current law is mostly a band aid slapped onto obsolete legislation passed before large scale peer to peer copying of very large files became possible. I have no doubt that it will change as the current rules are bad for creators and consumers alike, in the meantime breaking it doesn't make you a hero.

[Selby]

To me this is such a non-issue.  If you want the game, buy it.  If you dislike the copy protection, crack it after having bought it.  If this is too much effort for you or if you don't want to support the companies for putting copy protection in their games, don't buy it and don't pirate it.

[Stephen Zepp]

Actually, buried beneath a lot of crap, most of us here are operating at the post-law and order stage of morality.

In short, we obey the law when it coincides with our moral beliefs, and disobey it when it conflicts. (In short, we hold personal morality superior to societal morality). The moral calculus is more complex than that -- I might find a given law immoral, but feel that the results of flagrantly disobeying it are worse for society at large, and thus choose the 'lesser' of two evils. I might find a law immoral, and break it, but takes steps to minimize the impact of doing so -- like, say, only lighting up a joint in private and not doing it in front of cops.

Or I might find a law so morally repugnant that I would flagrantly violate it, accepting punishment in the hopes of having the law changed.

Excellent post, and it pretty well sums up my own stance in regard to laws and morality.

Since everyone else here is happily taking examples that have nothing to do with the specific argument, I'll do the same with the above statement on laws vs personal morality. If you were to go to an fundamentalist islamic country, would it then become "morally right" to stone someone to death for infidelity, execute someone for being homosexual, cut off their hands for stealing, etc? What if those are the laws of the land? Do they supercede your own personal morals on what is "right" versus "wrong"?

It's at least as relevent as the "copying IP = stealing a car" argument.

One of us missed something in his meaning--hopefully he will clarify.

I took what he said as it being a bad thing that we took our own morality over the societies' morality, not a good thing--but you seem to think he's agreeing wth you, implying it's fine and dandy to do so.

Morat?

[Tebonas]

Why do you keep mixing morality and law as if they were interchangeable?

[IainC]

Why do you keep mixing morality and law as if they were interchangeable?

How do content creators not have a moral as well as a legal right to protect their creations?
How do you have a moral right to take their work without their permission?

Legally there's no argument, or there shouldn't be. Morally it seems pretty clear to me as well tbh, but then I don't subscribe to the 'stealing = sticking it to the man' meme that a lot of people here apparently do.

[Krakrok]

All I'm seeing in this thread from a lot of people is bullshit justifications for why they should be allowed to steal someone's work. Media companies are all 'evil hypocrites', they 'buy laws', they have more rights than individuals and so on. Bollocks frankly. They have exactly the same rights as any other content creator.

I disagree. Since you addressed some of my main points I'll respond. Corporations colluding with the state to legislate a business model is fascism. It's as simple as that. The moral idea behind copyright and patents which was to enhance society has been subverted for greed. I'm not justifying anything. Fraud and piracy are a cost of doing business. They should deal with it and include it in their operating costs or find a new business; that's what the rest of us do. They shouldn't be allowed to rape the culture of a society because they are afraid of change and "it's always been that way".

I actually don't have a problem with DRM. DRM is snake oil which tricks greedy executives to fuck their own customers. It's stupid but the market will weed it out eventually; as long as it isn't legislated. Simple things that keep honest people honest like serial numbers and checking that the CD is in the drive are fine. It's when a company adds DRM that blatantly says "you are a criminal" or that assumes the company will continue to exist 3 years down the line that I have a problem with it. If you couch the DRM as providing additional features (by providing an account that you have to log in to which is tied to your game purchase) then I have no problem with it and neither does anyone else. The customer has to opt to allow the transaction. Automatically phoning home is very very bad even if effectively they are the same thing.

It may seem like individuals have the same rights as multinational corporations in regards to the law in the United States but that is not the case. Normal people can not afford in most cases to protect their interests legislatively or via the court system.

The up side is that people are going to continue to do whatever they want with regards to imaginary property and media corporations will adapt eventually or die. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

[Kail]

How do you have a moral right to take their work without their permission?

Depending on your view on morality, you could have have such a moral right when performing such an action would have a net positive outcome, I.E. the positive effects outweigh the negative effects.

The positive outcomes of pirating a game you're not going to buy are obvious: the person gets to play the game that they otherwise wouldn't.  Fun, whoo.

The negative outcomes are more nebulous, though.  If you're not buying the game anyway, then the negative financial impact on the dev is zero.  Other negative effects would be difficult to identify, given that the consumer's impact on a game designer's life is pretty minimal.  The average pirate doesn't know Will Wright or anyone on his design team, and aside from giving them money or not, I can't see them making the devs any happier or sadder.  There's the tiny possibility of something bad happening to the pirate (E.G. prison) but generally that isn't the main reason people argue against software piracy.

So, if you're a utilitarian, you're stuck with a situation in which you have a small positive outcome and almost no negative outcome (or a very nebulous one).  Or so it seems to me.

[Margalis]

Notice how none of the red names has said shit about EULAs other than to rationalize away the immorality of selling products that do nothing?

This is about money, nothing more. It's not about morality or the law, it's about people looking to get theirs.

Stephen Zepp lecturing about morality? This is a man who thinks invading another country and killing hundreds of thousands of people is ok. Sorry if I don't take his lectures too seriously. I don't have blood on my hands for downloading Ultimate X-Men.

Read a software EULA sometime. It essentially says that the software doesn't have to do anything at all, and can fuck up your system as much as it wants. They could sell you an empty box and according to the EULA it would be ok. You could buy MS Word and instead of being a Word Processor it could be Minesweeper and they'd be in the clear. Or it could be a utility that erases your drives and that would still be ok.

If your EULA says you can literally sell me an empy box then why should I pay you?

And no, cars are not the same. Cars don't come with an agreement that says they aren't required to move or have wheels or can explode at any time without liability. Here is the WOW EULA as an example:

THE GAME (INLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE GAME CLIENT AND MANUAL(S)) IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF CONDITION, UNINTERRUPTED USE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NONINFRINGEMENT.
...
 NEITHER BLIZZARD NOR ITS PARENT, SUBSIDIARIES OR AFFILIATES SHALL BE LIABLE IN ANY WAY FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND ARISING OUT OF THE GAME OR ANY USE OF THE GAME, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY AND ALL OTHER DAMAGES OR LOSSES. FURTHER, NEITHER BLIZZARD NOR ITS PARENT, SUBSIDIARIES OR AFFILIATES SHALL BE LIABLE IN ANY WAY FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE TO PLAYER CHARACTERS, VIRTUAL GOODS (E.G., ARMOR, POTIONS, WEAPONS, ETC.) OR CURRENCY, ACCOUNTS, STATISTICS, OR USER STANDINGS, RANKS, OR PROFILE INFORMATION STORED BY THE GAME AND/OR THE SERVICE. BLIZZARD SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INTERRUPTIONS OF SERVICE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ISP DISRUPTIONS, SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE FAILURES, OR ANY OTHER EVENT WHICH MAY RESULT IN A LOSS OF DATA OR DISRUPTION OF SERVICE. IN NO EVENT WILL BLIZZARD BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. In no event shall Blizzard's liability, whether arising in contract, tort, strict liability or otherwise, exceed (in the aggregate) the total fees paid by you to Blizzard during the six (6) months prior to the time such claim arose. You hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold Blizzard harmless from and against any claim, liability, loss, injury, damage, cost or expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees) incurred by Blizzard arising out of or from your use of the Game. Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitations may not apply to you.

What a fucking joke. "FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE" translates into "this game doesn't actually have to be a game."

I'll ask again: if your game doesn't have to actually do anything at all, doesn't have to work, can erase my computer or literally be an empty box why should I pay for it? Not a trick question.

Edit:

The up side is that people are going to continue to do whatever they want with regards to imaginary property and media corporations will adapt eventually or die. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Bingo. Welcome to the 21st century. The funy thing is, most F13 members want to give these people money. As long as they don't insist on selling crippleware.

[Azazel]

One of us missed something in his meaning--hopefully he will clarify.

I took what he said as it being a bad thing that we took our own morality over the societies' morality, not a good thing--but you seem to think he's agreeing wth you, implying it's fine and dandy to do so.

Morat?

I'd suggest that it doesn't actually matter what Morat's intent in his post was. I agree with what he said and it applies to me. I consider myself a moral enough person, and my personal morality is something I value more than society's morals, laws and rules.

There are plenty of things done in law and by governments that I disagree with, that I think are immoral. There are other things that I don't see as neccessarily immoral yet are illegal or go against licencing statements. For an example of illegal, we'll take jaywalking. Morally wrong? Yeah, it's technically a public safety law, but even the cops don't take notice unless they're on jaywalking revenue duty.

For an example of the second one, how about showing a DVD to a class in a school setting? I don't know about the US, but most videos/dvds here have a screen of bullshit about how they're not to be used for "public exhibition", which they define as including on oil rigs and in schools. I do that one regularly without having any moral qualms.

And I for one don't think stealing - sticking it to da man. When I violate copyright it's because:
1) I'm downloading tv shows that aren't available locally. Which I may or may not buy later when it becomes available on DVD. (and I do) I don't bother with downloading movies, since they always come out to rent before too long.
2) I want to listen to an album, which I may or may not buy later. (and I do)
3) Showing a DVD to a class. Technically a violation?
4) When I make a video/animation with the kids and use copyrighted music to soundtrack it (non-commercial work, but still, it's technically a violation).
5) I don't pirate game software anymore, haven't for a few years now. I do apply cracked .exes now and then though so I can keep my discs safe. That's neither here nor there though.

[Phildo]

This thread is tedious so I'm skipping to the end.  I only read half of the first page.

Has anyone made the point about how the game is basically setting its own life to end at the exact moment that the verification servers go down?  Are the DRM companies going to provide verification indefinitely?  Or are they going to charge you another $20 for a new copy when you want to play the game in ten years?

For example, I purchased the strategy guide for Final Fantasy IX.  Go ahead and laugh.  But the guide only contained about 1/4 of the information and for the rest it advised me to go to playonline.com.  If you go there now, it's only information on Final Fantasy XI.  Oops, the book I paid $20 for is now virtually useless.  Fortunately, I know how to find this information elsewhere on the internet, but the fact is that by tying the product to an outside service instead of making it fully functional on its own, it guarantees that it will one day become useless.  Potentially MUCH sooner than if the company had just left off the overzealous DRM.

Apologies if this point has already been made, it was the first one that really jumped out as needing to be said.

Also, happy to step into the morality ring if I can get a recap so I can own you with my superior morals without retreading ground?  Go!

[Stephen Zepp]

Margalis, learn to fucking read, please. I already said that I don't get one freaking cent from product sales. It has nothing to do with money, but nice try.

Then, learn to think. Given your, and others willingness to decide yourself the morality of stealing, it's simply following your logic to it's final conclusion that Bush can invade whatever country he wants, morally. It's amazingly hypocritical to think that you can decide something is moral against society's norms, yet he can't.

There are no symmetry breaks in morality--you can't say "at this level, this applies, but at this level, that applies".

Either individuals can decide if an act is moral or not, or they can't. Period. I say they cannot. You obviously think they can, unless it's Bush.

[Megrim]

You do realise that you can just as easily be proven wrong in your stance on morality, as you think yourself proven right. Morality is a very flexible idea.

However, this still doesn't answer how EA's proposed DRM is going to increase revenue, provide a good service to paying customers and stop pirates.

[Kitsune]

Software companies have become steadily more abusive as the years have gone by.  Copy-protection has gone from laid-back to draconian, intrusive in-game advertisements have become more commonplace, EULAs are more one-sided and restrictive, and our friends at Blizzard are currently trying to use EULAs to destroy whole swaths of consumer rights.  As the saying goes, I vote with my dollars.  I don't buy anything that has in-game ads, or uses copy-protection that I consider excessive (StarForce, I'm looking at you here).  I'm not compelled to steal such things; I simply go without.

However, I am diametrically opposed to more than one publisher now as a result, and eventually that's going to turn into a clash.  I'm going to be configuring IPSec to block the ad servers that are trying to plaster Fanta ads all over Bioshock 2, for example, and the EA executives are going to try to claim that such behavior is against the law.  It will say in the EULA that I'm forbidden from blocking the ads, and EULAs are binding law, of course, and an EA exec will state in interviews that unscrupulous people like myself are stealing their money by not seeing their ads on my computer in the game that I bought.  They'll push for some legislation to brand me a criminal, and they'll buy enough senators to pass it, and then I'll be a criminal.

[Margalis]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how charging money for a product that doesn't do anything and can wreck your machine is moral.

Zepp wants this to a philosophy 101 argument because the details are embarrassing. GarageGames Torque EULA is nearly a direct copy/paste of the WOW one:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LICENSEE. SHOULD THE SOFTWARE PROVE DEFECTIVE IN ANY RESPECT, LICENSEE AND NOT LICENSOR OR ITS SUPPLIERS OR RESELLERS ASSUMES THE ENTIRE COST OF ANY SERVICE AND REPAIR. THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. NO USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER.

TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR OR ITS SUPPLIERS OR RESELLERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY AND ALL OTHER COMMERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF, AND REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL OR EQUITABLE THEORY (CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) UPON WHICH THE CLAIM IS BASED. IN ANY CASE, LICENSORS ENTIRE LIABILITY UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED IN THE AGGREGATE THE SUM OF THE FEES LICENSEE PAID FOR THIS LICENSE (IF ANY). SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THIS EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE. LICENSOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF CONTENT PROVIDED BY LICENSEE OR A THIRD PARTY THAT IS INCORPORATED WITH THE SOFTWARE AND/OR ANY MATERIAL LINKED THROUGH SUCH CONTENT.

His company charges $150 for a game engine that may not actually be a game engine and may not be fit for the purpose of creating games. If you load it onto your computer and it's a 200 byte program that erases your drive that's fair game. Clearly he has the moral high ground here.

The "morality" here is that it's ok to rip off consumers.

[Azazel]

I'm going to be configuring IPSec to block the ad servers that are trying to plaster Fanta ads all over Bioshock 2, for example, and the EA executives are going to try to claim that such behavior is against the law.  It will say in the EULA that I'm forbidden from blocking the ads, and EULAs are binding law, of course, and an EA exec will state in interviews that unscrupulous people like myself are stealing their money by not seeing their ads on my computer in the game that I bought.  They'll push for some legislation to brand me a criminal, and they'll buy enough senators to pass it, and then I'll be a criminal.

Interestingly, there are laws in place here in Australia that resulted in EA having to pull the dynamic ads out of BF2142 in the local version here.

[Stephen Zepp]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how charging money for a product that doesn't do anything and can wreck your machine is moral.

Zepp wants this to a philosophy 101 argument because the details are embarrassing. GarageGames Torque EULA is nearly a direct copy/paste of the WOW one:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LICENSEE. SHOULD THE SOFTWARE PROVE DEFECTIVE IN ANY RESPECT, LICENSEE AND NOT LICENSOR OR ITS SUPPLIERS OR RESELLERS ASSUMES THE ENTIRE COST OF ANY SERVICE AND REPAIR. THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. NO USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER.

TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR OR ITS SUPPLIERS OR RESELLERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY AND ALL OTHER COMMERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF, AND REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL OR EQUITABLE THEORY (CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) UPON WHICH THE CLAIM IS BASED. IN ANY CASE, LICENSORS ENTIRE LIABILITY UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED IN THE AGGREGATE THE SUM OF THE FEES LICENSEE PAID FOR THIS LICENSE (IF ANY). SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THIS EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE. LICENSOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF CONTENT PROVIDED BY LICENSEE OR A THIRD PARTY THAT IS INCORPORATED WITH THE SOFTWARE AND/OR ANY MATERIAL LINKED THROUGH SUCH CONTENT.

His company charges $150 for a game engine that may not actually be a game engine and may not be fit for the purpose of creating games. If you load it onto your computer and it's a 200 byte program that erases your drive that's fair game. Clearly he has the moral high ground here.

The "morality" here is that it's ok to rip off consumers.

Four things:

1) There is no morality issue whatsoever here--you have the choice of purchasing or not purchasing. No one is holding a gun to your head, or in any way forcing this on you--but in the reverse case, you steal.

2) All EULAs for all products contain boilerplate legalese--and quite frankly, they aren't enforceable in most states in the US at least. Most states have laws that explicitly disallow waiving Fitness for a Particular Purpose or Warranty of Merchantability.

3) The discussion has nothing to do with contract negotiations or attempted enforcement.

4) Two wrongs still don't make a right. Even if it was immoral for those EULAs to somehow be forced on you, it's a separate ethical situation, and totally unrelated to stealing software.

Nice strawman attempt though.

Here's a direct question for you--as far as I remember, you are a software developer. Following your line of logic, it's perfectly all right for anyone that contracts for your services (either as a full time employer, or a contractor directly) to refuse to pay you--and with your logic, that's perfectly ethical.

Are you seriously supporting that position, or are you just spouting off to be an ass?

[Mosesandstick]

1) There is no morality issue whatsoever here--you have the choice of purchasing or not purchasing. No one is holding a gun to your head, or in any way forcing this on you--but in the reverse case, you steal.

EULAs are 'forced' upon you, the only reprieve is that legally (if I remember correctly) you are allowed to return goods because of the EULA. I've never done so but I imagine people have encountered problems if they tried to do so.

Copyright protection is also generally 'forced' upon consumers; 99.9% of consumers probably have no idea what the DRM is going to do their computers. I've never had the bravery/stupidity to read a EULA but I'm guessing they don't specify what the copy-right protection will actually do but its more of a blanket "no matter what happens, not our fault, tee-hee!"

I'm not defending piracy with this statement, but defending EULAs and copyright mechanisms is just retarded.

[Azazel]

Nice strawman attempt though.

Here's a direct question for you--as far as I remember, you are a software developer. Following your line of logic, it's perfectly all right for anyone that contracts for your services (either as a full time employer, or a contractor directly) to refuse to pay you--and with your logic, that's perfectly ethical.

Are you seriously supporting that position, or are you just spouting off to be an ass?

Oh. Both sides of the argument are skipping most of the posts where the other side makes a perfectly good point and just replying to the silly shit and tangents because they're easier to "score" off. Why did I get a reply to the easy part I wrote about local laws in islamic countries and yet a lot of the harder stuff to argue against that I write gets skipped over?

Here's a point I've been trying to make - About 70% of my PC games (yes, those shelves are doble-stacked), and most of my console stuff that's still in action (most PS2, PS1, 3DO, SNES, N64 stuff is packed away):






If you're making people like me (which I would suggest are the majority of f13 posters) refuse to buy your game, (or even decide to pirate it as an alternative) due to the DRM then you're fucking doing it wrong.

[schild]

Dude, you're doing it wrong. Look at your bookshelf!

[Azazel]

In what sense? PC shit gets shoved in the bookshelf. "in action" console games get piled in the lounge room, they used to all fit in that blue box.

[Stephen Zepp]

1) There is no morality issue whatsoever here--you have the choice of purchasing or not purchasing. No one is holding a gun to your head, or in any way forcing this on you--but in the reverse case, you steal.

EULAs are 'forced' upon you, the only reprieve is that legally (if I remember correctly) you are allowed to return goods because of the EULA. I've never done so but I imagine people have encountered problems if they tried to do so.

Copyright protection is also generally 'forced' upon consumers; 99.9% of consumers probably have no idea what the DRM is going to do their computers. I've never had the bravery/stupidity to read a EULA but I'm guessing they don't specify what the copy-right protection will actually do but its more of a blanket "no matter what happens, not our fault, tee-hee!"

I'm not defending piracy with this statement, but defending EULAs and copyright mechanisms is just retarded.

Pay attention man--refuting the validity of an argument does not equate to supporting the position the argument was aimed against. Nowhere did I defend EULAS or copyright mechanisms--I said they weren't part of the discussion at hand (hence being a strawman).

It's not forced on you in any way, shape, or form. You can willingly choose to not enter the contract. Developers/publishers however cannot "choose" to have you not steal their property.