Dominus wrote:

The reason why I think most warez ARE bad has already been brought up: They are often shitty rips that break things left and right and you have those people with no clue running here thinking it is perfectly legal.

This.

You do not need to get into any debates about the morality of it. As far as VOGONS is concerned, noobs have come here looking for help with their ripped, hacked, cracked or other warez modifications frequently create issues that never plagued the original copies. It creates a troubleshooting nightmare that often cannot be replicated you your own legitimate copy. The other point is we don't want the board to be associated as a warez site. This is for the legal protection of the owners and the devs.

Personal opinions are beside the point. I wish that copyright law was different. I think that these properties should fall into public domain after a reasonable period of time, not held in perpetuity, but that is not the world we live in. So we do have to give deference to the law, whether we agree with it or not. Whining about it does not change that simple fact. There is also no reason to get indignant about other sites that host it. If they want to take the risk, oh well. We just don't have to support it here.

SquallStrife wrote:

ElectricMonk wrote:

So even when I purchased games that came on 5-1/4" floppies, and have no access to another floppy drive, I'm not entitled to download that game I already own to play in Dosbox/ScummVM for nostalgia sake?

Yes. That's actually exactly right. You're not entitled at all. Just like you're not entitled to torrent TV episodes because you think the price of Cable/Satellite is too high, you're not entitled to torrent movies because your local cinema is getting it a few days/weeks after premiere, and you're not entitled to torrent DVD rips because your disk is scratched.

The only thing you're entitled to is the copy you bought in 1980-something. If you can't access that because you're unwilling to spend the money on appropriate hardware, then in the eyes of the law, tough titties.

That's not technically accurate...

When you buy a piece of software you're also buying a license to use said software. The license is what makes you legally able to use said software.

If you own a copy of the software, but can't run it due to hardware restrictions regarding the media itself, then downloading copies of the software from elsewhere is technically illegal, but using the copy you downloaded IS legal because you still have a license to use said software, and no one's ever going to have a fit over a technicality like that unless they're somewhat crazy or insane. :P

Many license agreements actually spell out permissions regarding backups. Typically the agreement states that license holders may keep a single backup for the purpose of restoring the state of the software should the original media fail, but the reason the notion of backups are in a license agreement at all are so that people can continue to use a piece of software and continue to enjoy using it so that when the company makes MORE software, the user will go out and buy it, knowing how good the company's software is. :B

The irony is that most licenses are non-transferable, meaning once you become the license holder for buying a piece of software, no one else is allowed to take possession of that license from you, thus if you want to get SUPER-ULTRA-RIDICULOUSLY-NO-ONE-WILL-EVER-CARE technical, it's illegal to use pre-used software being sold on eBay, in a used game store, even stuff a friend just casually gives you 'cause he doesn't want it anymore, because the license isn't supposed to transfer.

It's actually quite the mess when it comes down to it. It's a big part of the reason why I like Steam's approach of tying purchases to user accounts instead of specific computers, because it means the licenses work the way they're supposed to, allowing a user to always have access to the software regardless of anything... unless of course the software developer/publisher lays even MORE DRM on top of that which does computer-specific detection. :P

It's difficult to reduce training/experience in copyright law (several years) to understand complex issues and definitions to opinion pieces by non-experts. The discussion will repeat the same debates over word definitions without a deeper understanding of the court cases which shaped the current law, and this doesn't include the differences of laws among nations. It's reasonable to apply common sense that a currently sold game must be bought or that downloading 1000 commercial games from a web site is not condoned by societies that value business. However, at some point the debate is more about debating then it is about resolving an issue, especially since archive.org has a clear policy on their web page to resolve matters of intellectual property.

PeterLI wrote:

There are more important things to worry about in life IMO.

/\ This /\

Really- it is an archive of what the internet really was and if we decide that we or anybody else has the right to "edit" for content- then what is the point? Just let it be. If there were legitimate commercial value to be had, I am quite confident that there would have already been a lawsuit in order to milk the last dime out of it.

When you buy a piece of software you're also buying a license to use said software. The license is what makes you legally able to use said software.

I appreciate your views on paying authors for their work, and I would certainly pay for your work if I ever decided to buy your completed game, but the legal side of things aren't as clear cut as you make them sound. You make one erroneous assumption when you throw around the word 'license', namely, that someone who purchases software is actually agreeing to a license in the first place when he purchases the software. "OK" buttons in programs at the end of license agreements are not lawfully binding.

You also assume that the American Legal System has the wherewithal to actually lawfully enforce digital proprietry. A good analogy is satellite piracy. Isn't it the responsibility of the satellite provider to block the signal from getting into your home in the first place? Basic American Law says it is, and that's a good thing.

Software is not a tangible object. Ultimately, it is all Ones and Zeroes. You can't legally prevent people from 'stealing' ones and zeroes. I in no way advocate mass piracy, but it is the responsibility of the software manufacturer to protect their product, and smaller companies have done this for ages with all sorts of hardware/software protections.

I could write a whole lot more of my thoughts on this topic, but I don't want to write an essay here for obvious reasons.

mockingbird wrote:

I appreciate your views on paying authors for their work, and I would certainly pay for your work if I ever decided to buy your […]
Show full quote

When you buy a piece of software you're also buying a license to use said software. The license is what makes you legally able to use said software.

I appreciate your views on paying authors for their work, and I would certainly pay for your work if I ever decided to buy your completed game, but the legal side of things aren't as clear cut as you make them sound. You make one erroneous assumption when you throw around the word 'license', namely, that someone who purchases software is actually agreeing to a license in the first place when he purchases the software. "OK" buttons in programs at the end of license agreements are not lawfully binding.

You also assume that the American Legal System has the wherewithal to actually lawfully enforce digital proprietry. A good analogy is satellite piracy. Isn't it the responsibility of the satellite provider to block the signal from getting into your home in the first place? Basic American Law says it is, and that's a good thing.

Software is not a tangible object. Ultimately, it is all Ones and Zeroes. You can't legally prevent people from 'stealing' ones and zeroes. I in no way advocate mass piracy, but it is the responsibility of the software manufacturer to protect their product, and smaller companies have done this for ages with all sorts of hardware/software protections.

I could write a whole lot more of my thoughts on this topic, but I don't want to write an essay here for obvious reasons.

*nods* I know all this, I was just trying to simplify my logic as best as I could and I probably oversimplified that particular aspect of how buying the software and agreeing to the license for using it aren't the same thing... but then it just gets more head-breakingly confusing. x_x;

Gemini000 wrote:

Manuals is sort of the same boat... but a little less treacherous since, If you own a game, you should have access to its documentation, but then if you don't own a game... why would you even need the documentation in the first place?

Yeah, it's still a violation of copyright, but companies aren't typically going to pursue copyright claims against the manuals to consumer products for the simple fact that it would be extremely difficult to prove copying the manual damages the company's ability to profit from their products. Granted, it would be different if the company actively sold replacement manuals for high end software and someone else came along and tried to sell knockoffs for cheaper, but not every company did the whole replacement manual thing and extremely few companies do now.

Nintendo successfully sued Blockbuster Video over illegally copying manuals.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-08-13/b … ter-video-games

mockingbird wrote:

When you buy a piece of software you're also buying a license to use said software. The license is what makes you legally able to use said software.

I appreciate your views on paying authors for their work, and I would certainly pay for your work if I ever decided to buy your completed game, but the legal side of things aren't as clear cut as you make them sound. You make one erroneous assumption when you throw around the word 'license', namely, that someone who purchases software is actually agreeing to a license in the first place when he purchases the software. "OK" buttons in programs at the end of license agreements are not lawfully binding.

You also assume that the American Legal System has the wherewithal to actually lawfully enforce digital proprietry. A good analogy is satellite piracy. Isn't it the responsibility of the satellite provider to block the signal from getting into your home in the first place? Basic American Law says it is, and that's a good thing.

No, American law does not say that. If you are caught descrambling a satellite TV signal without paying, you go to jail. How is a satellite television company supposed to block the signal going to non-subscribers while still being able to send it to subscribers? That's the very basis of how satellite television works. The satellite beams the signal over the coverage area and the subscribers descrambler boxes make it viewable. The only way to prevent non-subscribers from receiving the signal is to stop transmitting altogether.

sliderider wrote:

Nintendo successfully sued Blockbuster Video over illegally copying manuals.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-08-13/b … ter-video-games

Which seems stupid when you first think about it, until you think about it some more and realize, "Yeah, Nintendo is losing money because of this."

Initial Thought
Early games pretty much required the manual to know how to play the game, so for sake of rentals a manual should be included to help people play the game. Problem though is that manuals often get lost or not returned, so using photocopies instead means there'll always be a manual to go with the game so it can be played properly.

Once You Think About it Some More
Blockbuster's photocopying of the manuals gives people something they can swipe and keep after being charged money for it. Blockbuster is essentially charging people money to get a facsimile of a copyrighted work. Charging people money for a duplication of someone else's copyrighted work is DEFINITELY going to get the copyright holder's attention! :P

sliderider wrote:

No, American law does not say that. If you are caught descrambling a satellite TV signal without paying, you go to jail. How is a satellite television company supposed to block the signal going to non-subscribers while still being able to send it to subscribers? That's the very basis of how satellite television works. The satellite beams the signal over the coverage area and the subscribers descrambler boxes make it viewable. The only way to prevent non-subscribers from receiving the signal is to stop transmitting altogether.

There's a difference between legal and lawful. They can invent any law they want, doesn't mean it's lawful.

Satellite providers had exactly that problem up until a few years ago, when they instituted a completely new scrambling method that prevents piracy for the most part.

But back to the word 'license'... License literally means permission. And you cannot purchase permission to use something you already posses... With an automobile, you can get stopped for using what you already own without a license because it's easy to enforce, but with software, all they've been able to do is send BSA bureaucrats to raid businesses. I don't see that happening to individuals. If the idea of software as a commodity is going to work, there has to be good will between the programmer and the customer.

Dominus wrote:

After trying to deliberately misleading me you are deliberately misreading me (at least I hope it's deliberate)... I never said […]
Show full quote

ElectricMonk wrote:

You made a blanket statement that "First of, you never *have* to. No one forces you to break the law. You are NOT entitled to play any game you want to.", so I cited my specific issue in this case.

But whatever. No point arguing, since you've already made up your mind that "warez = bad".

After trying to deliberately misleading me you are deliberately misreading me (at least I hope it's deliberate)...
I never said or do actually think "warez = bad" (at least not in the way you think).
I'm just stating the fact that warez are illegal. A torrent with all ScummVM games is illegal, there is no grey area there.

The reason why I think most warez ARE bad has already been brought up: They are often shitty rips that break things left and right and you have those people with no clue running here thinking it is perfectly legal.

You weren't being deliberately mislead OR misread.

At this point, arguing about this is like pissing in the wind. You've already made up your mind, as have I.

I'm just floored the topic hasn't been locked already, because nobody is going to change anyone else's opinion on the subject. Time for us to move on to a different subject, methinks.

You weren't being deliberately mislead OR misread.

Oh, I was hoping that you misread me deliberately, that you still misread me is sad and I'm really sorry for you.

Dominus wrote:

You weren't being deliberately mislead OR misread.

Oh, I was hoping that you misread me deliberately, that you still misread me is sad and I'm really sorry for you.

And that was called for because? I offered to move on, and yet you had to get one last parting shot in. Nice.

It's all been said before and will be again...until it's LOCKED.

Wondering if we should sticky a thread with links to all the "abandonware" threads on VOGONS.....