Sick of the Disc

[ZEE]

hi.

[Unimatrix11]

well, arriving in cairo, or london, or amsterdam, or... was a lot more pleasant to say the least... and i wasnt talking waiting FOR the flight but for the controls AFTER arrival... the flight was done. and guess what: i didnt hijack it. My lugguage had already been scanned, my documents checked and all those things you have to do when boarding a plane had already taken place. The only reason they had pulled me out of the line (along with every arab-looking guy in the non-US-ciitzen-queue), was because i played exactly by the rules, by leaving the country before half a year had elapsed and dared to return only two weeks later - without a return ticket on me. That had cost me quit a bit of money, but was still better than going through the month-long, expensive process of applying for a visa for the states. And then this obligatory question of how i was gonna pay for my living while being there - i always felt tempted to say:"dude, first: thats none of your business, second: i am from germany, not from central africa - i certainly dont need your dollars... - if anything it is me who brings in some money to your economy - yes you can thank me now, a*****e". And then you have to tell them, where you will be staying as well. Why ? What if i dont like the hotel that i originally booked and go somewhere else ? Do i have to tell you ?

Point is: As soon as you arrive, you get a pretty good impression of how welcome and free you are in the states as a guest, and how low they think of you and of how high they think of themselves.

Once you leave the airport and dont have do deal with the authorities its different tho - americans in general are pretty friendly - nowhere else did strangers in a gas-station ask me how i was... this all is not to say americans were arrogant a**** as a whole.

[wodan11]

Wiglaf and Krill, you guys should stop arguing precedent and rationale.

We can say "go ahead and break the law, they won't prosecute you, or if they do, the chances of them being successful are miniscule". That doesn't change the fact that this is encouraging someone to break the law, and it wouldn't save them from having to pay $umpty-ump on defense attorneys.

Or, we could say "that law makes no sense because blah blah blah". Just because we disagree with the law doesn't change the fact that it's the law. Nobody said the people running governments have a particular foundation in reality, and their lack thereof doesn't stop them from passing these laws.

If you wanted to organize a petition or write your government, go for it, but Poly has asked that you not do it here.

Wodan

[Unimatrix11]

Yeah, one of the stupidest quotations i ever read was "an unjust law is no law at all"

[Asmodeous]

I know it is becoming legal in many countries, but it is still illegal in many countries and specficially in the US.

No it isn't, you are misinformed. If you own the software and can produce the physical, purchased software then it falls under "Acceptable Use", which is both law and legally precidented.

If you do not have the ability to produce the physical, purchased software, then yes, you are stealing.

Me.

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11 ... i actually had my luggage searched (they pulled me out, cause i had returned after merely two weeks, without a return-ticket on me...

It's the same for us US citizens too. Not having a round-trip ticket puts a flag on you. I drove with my wife from Paso Robles (CA) to San Jose for a seminar. She continued on to see relatives, and I flew back with a one-way ticket. I went through the whole search thing. No big deal when they explained why.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by wodan11
Wiglaf and Krill, you guys should stop arguing precedent and rationale.

We can say "go ahead and break the law, they won't prosecute you, or if they do, the chances of them being successful are miniscule". That doesn't change the fact that this is encouraging someone to break the law, and it wouldn't save them from having to pay $umpty-ump on defense attorneys.

Or, we could say "that law makes no sense because blah blah blah". Just because we disagree with the law doesn't change the fact that it's the law. Nobody said the people running governments have a particular foundation in reality, and their lack thereof doesn't stop them from passing these laws.

If you wanted to organize a petition or write your government, go for it, but Poly has asked that you not do it here.

Wodan

Yeah, one of the stupidest quotations i ever read was "an unjust law is no law at all"

Again, no law prohibits a legitimate owner from using a private no cd hack. EULA's attempt to prohibit this, but no law, including the DMCA, does, or has any real power to.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

Again, no law prohibits a legitimate owner from using a private no cd hack. EULA's attempt to prohibit this, but no law, including the DMCA, does, or has any real power to.

Even if true in the US (I'm not sure, but I'm willing to grant), I'm not sure it's true in all countries, and regardless, it's missing some context. It's not just a single owner, it's a single machine.

Wodan

[wodan11]

Actually, I just looked at the license agreement in the manual. Each of us has agreed to this license, and are subject to the terms and conditions. When we install the software, we have to click that we have read and agree to it all.

Thus, we agree to not duplicate, modify (using a no-CD hack certainly qualifies as modification), etc.

Therefore, we would be subject to civil prosecution and penalties. Not criminal, probably, but certainly civil.

Wodan

[Wiglaf]

Any company retarded enough to sue because a legitimate user has a no-cd crack would be laughed out of court because there's no material loss to the company + the fact that their EULA has as much right to tell me I can't modify my own software as my car dealership has to tell me I can't install a new sound system in my car.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Any company retarded enough to sue because a legitimate user has a no-cd crack would be laughed out of court because there's no material loss to the company + the fact that their EULA has as much right to tell me I can't modify my own software as my car dealership has to tell me I can't install a new sound system in my car.

See this post please.

Wodan

[Aro]

Originally posted by snoopy369
One thing I will note - you can buy D2D Beyond the Sword, and not require a disc, even if you bought Disc Civ4 Vanilla. You need a disc to play the original or warlords, but not BtS... so if you wanted to buy BtS anyway, you should consider direct2drive (or Steam, I imagine Steam works the same way).

In a very similar way.

[Wiglaf]

See this post please.

Wodan

You still seem to be confusing the EULA contract with law. Yes, technically by clicking 'okay' at install you agree to the publishers terms. By violating these terms by using a no-cd crack, though, you are not breaking any law, nor are you liable for any civil penalty, so long as you are the sole legitimate user of the software. Legally you are protected by the fair use provison, as is spelled out explicitly in the digital millenium copyright act, and no obscure section in a pages-long EULA that no one reads can change that.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
hmm, krill, you are stronger than me, apparently - i dont find it easy to snap a CD at all. I stand there, with my head turned, my eyes half closed, holding the CD as far away from me as i can, clench my teeth, doing "nnnngggghhh"-sounds and snorts and all it does is bend a bit...

But in fact, i did bring CDs to the states once - but i had checked them in... on arrival, i actually had my luggage searched (they pulled me out, cause i had returned after merely two weeks, without a return-ticket on me - after having been in the states for half a year - gosh i almost crapped my pants in that office - this guys dont know no fun, and it was me, who just stood in line for two hours, after a 9 hour flight - and i did miss my connecting flight).

Right now, i´d advise ANYBODY just to not go to the states at all unless you really have to, cause the authorities treat you like s***, you stand in line forever under gigantic flags and are suspected to be a criminal right away and you are being treated that way - they say it´s the land of the free, but you feel like you are going to prison, having to give fingerprints and a biometric foto being made - couldnt have been worse in Tempelhof (Berlin) in 1936 or so... - US-citizens get through right away tho... it´s rediculous - or rather erie... the arrival in america gives most germans goose-bumps of the worst kind these days... (this was in denver 2006)

Well... I love a lot of things about USA, but their security policies are very intimidating... So, every time I have the opportunity to spend money with a trip, I go to Europe…

They have intimidating policies too, and I don’t would expect anything different from migration authorities in any place of the world – it’s their nature - but not like our American friends.

And how efficient to prevent terror all this would be? You can be very secure without so much... Harassment.

Anyway, Bush Era is ending. And this may or may not mean anything.

Back to the subject… Like the security policies, the anti-piracy policies in USA are very intimidating to me. RIAA is prosecuting a guy who has 2000 songs in his computer… All of them ripped from his own CDs. All.

In fact, I think this is a good thread. Nothing illegal was done or wrote here, and the discussion is very interesting.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


You still seem to be confusing the EULA contract with law.

Okay, let's talk about that, then.

What do you mean by "law"? Most people interpret that to mean subject to criminal prosecution. Is your interpretation different from that?

Yes, technically by clicking 'okay' at install you agree to the publishers terms. By violating these terms by using a no-cd crack, though, you are not breaking any law

Sure you are. You have a contract with the publisher, which you chose to intentionally disregard.

nor are you liable for any civil penalty

This is totally a misleading statement.

Liability for a civil penalty is determined in a court of law, and the judge can assign any penalty he feels like. Yes, he is subject to guidelines and restrictions (precedent, mostly). However, he is totally free to act outside those guidelines and restrictions, and the judge will couch his judgment in legalese and provide some sort of justification.

The fact that it went to court usually means there is an interpretation either way. The prosecution will argue one interpretation, and give precedent for that. The defense will argue another, and give precedent for that. (This is where hefty $ bills for attorneys comes in.) The judge will then decide based on the competency and how convincive each side is, and will decide one way or the other.

If one party disagrees with the judge, they can appeal, which of course costs yet more $ for the attorneys.

Wodan