OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

There Under Fire

And the Tracker Sites

For those of you who may use Bit-Torrents for lagit purposes, the linked to sites might be of interest. I don't think they are going after lagit uses, but are going after pirate crap. Just interesting news that I thought I would post.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Jailers against pirates. It's amuzing, that both are natural attributes of the world of proprietary content. Endless story.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

It is always better to own the DVD than to say just have a boot leg copy of it on your PC. Duhhhhhhhhhh. What are they so damn afraid of? Next thing you know, they will be going after the hard drive industry for making HD's that can hold large numbers of ripped DVD movies. LOL this will never end.

OBTW, do you ever wonder if the play writes and composers of the 19th century were alive today what they might say about copywrite and intellectual properties pirating? (Since their works have been pirated so heavily by the same corporations that are now crying foul.)

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

RIAA can certainly jail or fine kazaa, emule, BT creators and server owners. But they will never be able to disallow programmers all over the world to write something like this.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Attempting to sue the makers of a product that has both Leagal and illeagal uses when somebody uses the product for an illeagal end is a VERY VERY BAD IDEA.

Consider a kitchen knife. It can be leagally used to cut animal flesh (steak), vegetables, or tough pLastic packaging. It can also be illeagally used to mug people. Should a mugging victim (or the family of a dead mugging victim) be able to sue the knife manufacturer for the illeagal use of a knife by a mugger?

Consider a rope. It can be leagally used to secure loads, restrain animals, or play with. It can also be illeagally used to restrain people. Should a kidnapping victim (or the family of a dead kidnapping victim) be able to sue the rope manufacturer for the illeagal use of a rope by a kidnapper?

Consider Bittorrent (and similar stuff). It can be used leagally to distribute large demos, home movies, or even put on a fee-based system for distributing large, fully-functional software programs. It can also be used to illeagally distribute ripped DVD or CD images. Should a copyright infringement victim (or their representitives) be able to sue the Bittorrent programmers for the illeagal use of Bittorrent by copyright violators?

Consider a handgun. It can be leagally used to stop a rapist, stop a murderer, or hunt food. It can also be illeagally used to shoot (relative) innocents. Should a shooting victim (or the family of a dead shooting victim) be able to sue the gun manufacturer for the illeagal use of a gun by a(n attempted) murderer?

Is there really a way to say "yes" to one or two of the above, without giving lawyers room enough to make the other two or three stick? What do you think would happen to ANY economy if suddenly everyone that made anything that was could be used for an illeagal purpose suddenly got sued for the illeagal actions of THIRD PARTIES? I can understand making stuff that doesn't have any significant leagal use illeagal. But you know, it's reasonably simple to turn a microwave into a maser for arson where you don't need to be within 100 feet of the target to set it on fire (Added features! Invisible beam! Accelerant free - no traces at the arson site! Easy to make it look like an electrical fire!). It's trivial to bypass the safties on a pneumatic nail gun so that it fires nails through the air at people rather than through wood. A college textbook makes a dandy club. There is very little that can't be turned to illeagal use. I don't like the precident RIAA's trying to re-set.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Don't forget to sue the makers of that ever-popular shoe-grade cement.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Uh, from the sounds of it, they aren't suing the makers of bittorrent, only sites that offer illegal movie downloads.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Jack:
That was one of the best Posts since a while. I really like how you illustrated things. Thumbs up for you.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

OK, so suppose they somehow stop everyone from using P2P apps. What will people do?

Why, they'll burn all those mp3s on to a DVD and mail them to their friends, of course.
Is the RIAA going to outlaw the postal service? How many mp3s can you get on a DVD anyway?

Or maybe ppl will just meet up and swap the contents of their ipods.
Should they outlaw ipods?

Pretty soon wireless technology will be so seamless and pervasive, and mobile storage so great, that you'll be able to run local file-shares with nearby phones, laptops and mp3 players - You'll step onto a crowded train or bus, and half a dozen people on there will have files up for swaps via bluetooth or similar and your own device will start sharing automatically (and more-or-less anonymously). What they gonna do about that?

They can't fight technology, technology moves too fast.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Before I start this post, I want to stress that I'm not trying to make anyone angry or annoyed.

Okay, everything said and considered about the rediculous moves of the RIAA. But what about their side? What would you do if you were in their place? They have to protect their livelyhood, their job and their future.
I think we have to place ourselfs in their shoes for once and look at the possiblities they have. We (the people who use the extensive technology available to share their music and such) are condeming them, the music (just one of the examples of course) they produce and the bands they represent to death. We're ruining a whole branch of industry.

At the same time we're giving live another new branch of industry; a branch to prevent the swapping, exchanging and sending of the protected goods.

Edit: Typo's!

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

The problem Timstone is that RIAA is working in the wrong way... if they want to preserve their way of life, there are better strategies than simply suing everyone that posta a link in the net...

Just to point an example: instead of going after everyone that post in the net mp3, why not make mp3 musics available in the net by a low price (1 or 2 dollars each music) as some artists are doing?

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Yeah, look that is what I meant. I want to hear a few better strategies for the RIAA.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

I myself us p2p programs, but not only for pirating sake.... in fact i only use p2p when i simply can´t find the song/music/program to buy... since i don´t live in the US or Europe (i live in Brazil) i don´t have access to buy a lot of programs and games

you will not belive how long i had to wait for a friend in Miami to send me an original cd of SEIV Gold (after i found a pirated copy of SEIII), and i´m having nightmares about how much time i will have to wait until SEV arrives to me since my friend in not in the US anymore but back in Brazil, but i simply don´t accept pirating SEV, since Aaron is one of the few 'good guys' we find in the game industry nowadays...

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

I could serve as the middleman. No problem.
Just remind me when the game is out, I tend to forget those things. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Jack, that was a good post, however, it's not as cut and dried as all that. Gunmakers have in fact been sued, succesfully in some cases. Tobacco companies have been sued. And not just by smokers families, but by people who were affected by second-hand smoke. Automakers have been sued regarding vehicle accidents, which were ultimatly caused by someone breaking a law like speeding or running a red-light, but there may have been some flaw or poor design decision that contributed to the amount of damage from the accident. Drug companies get sued over doctors mis-prescribing their products. And at least some of the families of 9-11 victims considered, not sure if they actully went forward with it, suing the airlines and aiplane maufacturers over what the terrorists did. All of these are examples where a product with legal uses was used illegally or incorrectly by a third party and the manufacturer was held, or was attempted to be held partially liable.

The arguments that get made are whether the manufacturer made a sufficent effort to design the products with safeties to prevent their misuse.(guns, autos) Or if the end Users were given siffucent warning and instruction about how to use them safely and legally. (autos, tobacco) Or wehter the manufacturer participated in irrisponsible margeting practices in order to increase their sales with no thought given to the end result. (gun shows, unlicensed dun dealers, and kick back backs to doctors to increase prescription sales.)

It's kind of difficult to imagine a rope or kitchen knife being made perfectly safe from misuse and still have it be useable for it's primary purpose. However, if the kitchen manufacturer were marketing knives to kids to drive up sales they'd be dragged into court in a heartbeat. And if it was found that the microwave manufacturer hadn't made a reasonable effort to prevent the kind of tampering you described, they could probably expect to get a visit form a lawyer if such a thing were happening very often.

At this point the Mpaa isn't going after the bit-torrent programmer, but I could very easily see them attempting to do so in the future.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

serious? so can you send an e-mail to me at stevaoaccadrolli@uol.com.br so i have your e-mail to contact you when the game comes out to arrange details?

Thanks Timstone! I now can sleep less troubled at night! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

BTW: i´m posting my e-mail in public so anyone of this forum that wants can contact me...

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Makinus, have you purchased anything from Shrapnel since SE4 Gold? I thought they got those international shipping probelms straigtened out. I could be wrong though.

Geoschmo

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif Umm.. yeah... I don't understand. You go to the website, you see that's it's available, you order it, it shows up at your house, you install it on your computer, you play the game.

Please explain to me where a p2p comes into this tried and true process (?!)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gifTurin

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

There's a bit of a difference between people getting hurt from misleading advertising, bizarre leagal practices, or defective products and people getting harmed due to 3rd party intent. Of course, we are kinda headed in the direction I was warning about at present already, aren't we?That actually applies to pretty much anything. Nothing in this world is perfectly safe. Hasn't been since The Fall.Guns aren't marketed to kids; neither are knives. Both show up in your standard Saturday Morning Ninja Cartoon (knives more than guns, Last I looked (been a while though)). You can get some guns (only a small percentage of guns are purchased in this manner) with no waiting period or background checks at the comparatively rare gun shows or kinves under similar circumstances at the comparatively common supermarkets, malls, or infomercials (a high percentage of knives are purchased in this manner). Knives are marketed to kids as much as guns are (if not more - ads for knives appear on TV, and kids do watch TV), and are much more readily available. There isn't really much that can be done about it - removeal of (or drilling a few holes in) the casing, one component removed and it's ready to go. Besides, it's effectively untraceable. There is no way to tell how often it's used, unless you want to guess at some percentage of electrical or unknown specific cause fires. Unless the perp starts bragging about how it was done, about the only clues to the cause are the microwave itself (which can be reassembled, or torn apart further and discarded) and perhaps some tire tracks on the street. A car parking for a few minutes on the side of the road isn't suspicious - a lot of people stop and check maps.Last paragraph of the second link in this thread (empahsis added):They may not currently be suing the programmers, but they are trying to make it possible.

Honestly, I suspect RIAA (and others) will keep at it until something like what ended the commie trials happens.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

If you deal with pirated content you don't have to order it and PAY for it. That's the main difference.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

The law is full of many apparently disconnected things that do apply here. They end up asking "was reasonable effort made to comply with the law". It comes up in everything from mean dogs, to icey sidewalks, to stores displaying adult material, etc etc. What is reasonable effort or unreasonable effort. In the case of things like P2P software, or reMailer software, or disc copying software, its going to come up as an effort to change the direction from writing it so that NO accountability can possibly be done to writing in some ability for accountability.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Going after the BT sites is only a peice of the picture. Take a good look at the DMCA, here's a link to an excellent analysis. In a nutshell, the big corporations want you to have no fair use rights. Look at your game collection, how many of us make a back-up copy just as soon as we buy a game? Well if your games were movie dvds or music cds and RIAA/MPAA had their way those back-ups would be illegal.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Somebody will have to explain to me why this is a bad thing. Why do we assume that we have an inalienable right to make copies of software, even for backup purposes?

I'm trying to make a corellation to some other product we use in our lives, but it doesn't really translate well. We don't have magic boxes that we can stick our shirts and dishes into and have instantaneous perfect duplicates come out the other side.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

geo they are not perfect duplicates.

A mp3 is not a perfect duplicate
Nor is a divx

With compression there is loss.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Geo, I do not buy games. I license the software. This is clearly stated in the EULA. As this license confers the right to use the software, with the restrictions stated in the EULA, my rights of use are not, in my opinion, tied to a specific piece of medium, but the code contained on the medium. Wether I use that code when it is contained on a cd I bought or one I copied (From a cd I bought) is irrevelent to the cd manufacturer and the content creater, as long as I do not give any of the cd's containing that code away.

Plus, many EULA's specifically give the user the right to make a backup copy.

In contrast, if I buy a toy, I do not license the use of it, I buy that object, and thereafter it is my responcibility, including any breakage it suffers.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Because I purchase it. Seller offers me some commodity for a certain price, and I agree with it and pay him money to obtain an inalienable right to use it at my own discretion. This is a basic principle of market. Now I can use, destroy, present, resell or keep it. All restrictions to my intentions towards this commodity are artificial obstacles which violate my rights to a certain extent.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Interestingly Narf and Aiken you are both disagreeing with me, but you seem to be making arguments that are exactly opposite of one another. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Narf you say that you aren't buying a physical object, but a license. And the license allows you to make backup copies. This is correct in many (most?) cases and I have no disagreement to it. However, the original point being made was that the content providers seem to be moving towards eliminating that as a feature of the licensing. And there are the myriad shades of grey now involving what does or does not constitute fair use under the current licenses.

Aiken, you seem to be taking the opposite side of the argument. Going so far as to call it a "commodity" and saying you have the right to do with it whatever you want, even destroying it. This is true of the CD the software comes on of course, but is it true of the software on the CD? DO you have the right to copy it and then destoy the original?

It's not a commodity really is it? If you destroy a shirt you bought you can't use the backup copy of the shirt. In that case you aren't really buying the shirt as much as you are buying the labor, materials and skills neccesary to make the shirt for you. If you destroy the shirt and make your own, you aren't doing anything wrong. But that will take time and effort on yoru part.

But if you copy software, you aren't doing the same thing as making your own software. There is no labor, no skill invested on your part. You are pressing a button and making a copy. So it's clearly not the same thing as every other product and commodity you might purchase.

Tesco, your point isn't really a legal one but a technical issue. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, but I don't see how it applies to the question.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

You missed one of my points: I am not licensing the cd, I am licensing the software.

Also, the whole licensing scheme (To the best of my knowledge) arose because people argued that, because they had bought the software, they had the rights to make copies and distribut them. This is absurd, as is the whole licensing scheme. Aiken's arguements focused on how it should work; I was pointing out how it worked.

Your point about copying software leads to the question of wether I owe the company that made the cd copy I bought .99c for the cd I would otherwise have bought. The software is not involved, as I already demonstrated I have a license to use it.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Well, my point was theoretical, while Narf's one was practical. And from the point of view of classic economics, various EULAs are just contracts of general tenancy. But their prevalence doesn't mean it's the best way of "selling" software. For consumer of course. Software companies are pretty happy with their licenses.

It's all about our _technical_ inability to reproduce material goods quickly and precisely. It doesn't change the commodity nature of software. Take a book, and make a copy of this book with a copying equipment. Your work is incomparably easier than process of writing this book by author, but you have a copy of this book and it's legal (not sure about US, though http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ). Also, the process of copying with a computer can involve writing thousands lines of code, and heavy programming wizardry. Does it mean that this method is more legal than click-n-drool actions?
Also I can never buy an actual information, I can buy a copy of this information tightly associated with material carrier (cd, tape, or computer system itself). And this total of carrier and copy of an information is what I call "commodity". So if I make a backup copy of cd, it will be a copy of a copy of sofware/information. So where's the original? The original is shared amongst the brains of creators of this information, computer storages, paper notes etc. It's virtual and it doesn't exist in a single tangible form.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

I am certain that you can work something out with GameFront.com on this issue.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Ditto. Excellent post Jack. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Simply put Geoschmo, we do not. That is clearly outlined and stated in all software licenses. It is our responsibility to read the included documentation when we install and use software. If the software is acquired illegally, then you have no excuse to be using it and are running the risk for doing so. That said, many people opt to use pirated software as opposed to buying it.

I do think though, that out dated software should be considered low priority and therefore encouraged to be traded freely. It is a win win situation for the manufacture. They interest people in their old software, while positioning themselves to sell more new software to those who like their old software.

Ask yourself this question, all those programs you have boughten over the years, how many of them do you still use? Why allow them to go to waste? You can sell the copies to a second hand store, or do what many people have done, and interrupted the law to mean that they can publish copywrited software on a P2P network.

I for one do not like to obtain things via p2p. I simply feel that I should pay for them so that I have ownership over the right to use it. I do not own the software or the program, but I do own that copy and am responsible for it. In that way, I do back up my copies, or buy a second copy when I can afford it. I simply believe that if I am going to pay $50.00 plus for something that can be damaged or destroyed very easily, I want a spare. Like a spare tire so to speak. However that does not mean that I want to use someone else’s used or spare tire.

JMHO and 2 cents worth.

(Spelling errors)

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

All these companies are going to have to change their plan of attack. I really can't see this legal crusade leading them anywhere but to the alienation of a lot of people.
They obviously can't stop the creation and proliferation of these P2P programs, and they are foolish to think they can.
I mean, not only would they have to deal with stopping every programmer on Earth from making them, but they'd also have to go about suing people internationally.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

The rule of thumb is:

He with the money wins. Its all about how much justice you can afford to pay for. And in thier case, the RIAA, SBA, and such, have very deep pockets.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Another rule of thumb is:
The law only works while people in general feel some need to obey it.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

I think the whole problem comes down to two things: too many lawyers and too much money. Basically, whenever you install a piece of commercial software, you agree to an EULA (End-User License Agreement, if memory serves). This is a contract between you, the user, and those involved in the creation of the software, in which you agree not to do anything that would in any way hurt the profits of the company. That's all it boils down to. If you actually muddle through an entire EULA, you'll actually find out that if, for example, you have a PC and a laptop, you can't actually install the software on both computers, even if you will be the only one using the software, and even if you will never use the software simultaneously on both machines, you are still expected to pay for two copies of the software.

I totally agree that programers, artists, manufacturers and yes, even marketers, deserve to be compensated for their efforts, I honestly believe that the whole piracy issue has been blown WAY out of proportion. I'm sure we've all heard the quote of the billions of dollars that piracy costs the music/movie/game industry every year, and at face value, it looks pretty staggering.

But stop and ask yourself one question: Where do they get that figure from?

Easy, they take the estimated number of pirated copies of music/movies/software that exists, multiply it by the average cost of said media, and you have yourself this figure of billions of dollars of lost profit. This is, however, making a very large assumption: That if unable to obtain a pirated copy, every pirate would go out and pay for it. Which is entirely untrue. A vast majority of pirates download illegal copies of software, etc because they simply can't afford to buy it legally. Ergo, if free illegal Versions weren't available, then the pirates just wouldn't pay for them.

That's a bit like saying if someone tapes a CD of a band I hate and gives it too me, then that's cost the band money. Sure, I now have a copy of their album I didn't pay for, but if it hadn't been given to me, I would have never, ever bought it. Therefore, it's not lost money to the band, because either way they never would have gotten my money. I know that's not a perfect analogy because people who pirate media do actually want it, but it's the best I could come up with.

Now, to be sure, there ARE people who could afford it who pirate anyway, for the thrill, to be rebellious, or just because they're too cheap to actually pay. But mostly, pirates are motivated by purely financial reasons.

Now, I'm not saying I condone piracy or any shape or form, nor do I believe lowering the cost of media will help stop it (if someone can't afford $60 for a game, $40 is probably still out of their range). The vastly over-inflated claims of lost profits really just grates on me, as does the fact that the corporates come up with just boil down to, 'We're making money, but we could be making MORE money.'

At the end of the day, piracy, like any crime, will happen no matter how Draconian the anti-piracy laws get. Every effort should be made to protect developers (especially smaller ones), but quite frankly, this notion of prosecuting people who provide a utility for a legal reason when others use it for illegal purposes is absolutely ridiculous and whoever came up with it should be dragged outside and shot. If things keep going this way, we'll soon be able to sue people for making something that COULD be used illegally, even if nobody acutally does. And wouldn't that be fun?

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

The problem here is Geo's point -has nothing to do with piracy-. Its making backup copies of software you own. I for example have..hmm, I think 4 SE Gold discs.

You can't apply the shirts logic to software because its a completely different idea. You buy a shirt to have..the shirt. Not the tags, not the packaging. The CD is just an extension of the packaging.

Software liscenses, BTW, are legally probably worth much less than the time it takes to click them. Many include illegal clauses, add conditions after the fact to a sale (illegal), and/or can't even be read until after you've bought and opened the software. All of that makes it seriously questionable if they can be enforced.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

AgentZero is absolutely right about installing the same software on two different computers, it is illegal unless the license allows for it. This also applies to music cds, you can rip the cd to mp3s (legal for now) to play on a portable mp3 player but you can't use both the mp3s and the cd at the same time.

My problem is that the RIAA and the MPAA are trying to eliminate "Fair Use" from copyright law. "Fair Use" allows you to make a backup or to even transfer from one type of media to another provided, as above, you do not make use of more than one at a time. The DMCA does allow for "Fair Use" but also says that if the media is encrypted it is illegal to break that encryption. The MPAA is heavily pushing that point. According to them you may not make a back-up copy of a dvd because it is encrypted material. If the RIAA has its way they will do the same to music cds making it (in their veiw) illegal to rip those mp3s for your portable player.

The law has become so convoluted and contradictory that people don't know what they can and can not do with their legally purchased media. Does anyone out there have wireless speakers hooked up to their entertainment system? If you do you could actually be charged for committing a crime, rebroadcasting of copyrighted material. If you play your music too loud and your neighbors complain you could be charged under the same law for public performance of copyrighted material. These sound silly and are extreme examples but they are true none the less.

I've wandered away from the oringinal topic here but it upsets me to see my rights eroding away before my eyes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Actually, you are right on track with where I hijacked the original topic to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Basically your comment here is the crux of my question. And I intentionally say question here instead of argument. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a particular position, because I don't know what I beleive on the whole topic. This is one area I flip-flop on a lot.

What I am asking is, do you have a right that you are losing here? Is making of backup copies, or transfering your content from one media to another neccesarily a right you have? Or is it permission you have been given through the license agreement. Permission can be taken away quite legitimatly. Rights can be suppresed of course. You can be prevented from exercising them through some illigitimate means. But they are still your rights. That's what I mean when I ask if this is an inalienable right.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

There has been a ruling in Missouri (in early October 2004) that EULAs are actually enforceable, if you have given your agreement (you should be fine before clicking the Ok button). I think the case was about Blizzard and reverse engineering, which was forbidden by the terms of the licence.

So EULAs can be used in courts, though I believe a district ruling is not enough to be applied to the whole federation; still, it may be used as a precedence I guess. But don't quote me on that, since I am no lawyer.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Hmm... would that imply that if you found a way to skip the "I agree" portion of the installation (say you copied a CD image to your HD, found the text of the EULA, altered it, then burned a CD off the new image and installed) you'd be in the clear? I've suddenly got this strange desire to tinker....

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Another reason to read before you sign.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

How do you sign a CD?

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

According to some EULA's, clicking the 'I Agree' button is the same as your legal signature.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Which in reality it isn't... most EULAs contain illegal clauses...

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Most EULA's also have "playing the game means you agree to this"

Which happens to absurd..

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

That's a good point. You can't agree to the EULA of a store bought game or app until after you've purchased it. If you don't agree to the EULA you've just wasted your money because you can't return opened software.

By legal precedent, yes. According to Title 17 Chapter 1 of the US code, also yes.

Inalienable, well... depends on who you ask. Some hold that it is a part of free speech and therefor it would be. I'm not sure if I would take it that far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Wikipedia has a page on EULA:

Software license

It says:

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

So if they don't follow correct procedures with the EULA the license is no good and you can do whatever you want with the software? I'd hate to see that go to court in today's legal environment.

Re: OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents
 

Not whatever you want, as copyright and patent are law still in full effect as applicable, but the standard stuff you would be both able and permitted to do with a book you purchased, yeah.