caross73

[quote]The work is not independent of the media or each one would not have it's own unique license as the case with Windows. I can't take my friends copy of Windows and install it using the license from my scratched disc. [/quote] Really? You called Microsoft and asked them? Because where I'm from, that key is all you need. You can even install the Professional version off the Home DVD if you have the license number. I suppose I could call up their EULA and check, but I

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="55" id="2643046"]Bugs.[/quote] Where? On the beach or in the grass. Don't the settler's have mosquito netting? [e digicons]:d[/e]

[quote who="PoSmedley" reply="142" id="2643004"] You're the only person who has ever questioned it or 'pressed' it in all the time it has been up. [/quote] Your the only one who accused me of being dishonorable and biased for viewing a license as exactly what it is - a right to use a particular work that is independent of the media its shipped on. I am well aware that in practice (almost) nobody brings suit against fan art. Not that they can't and I have (I think) a pretty clear

[quote who="PoSmedley" reply="140" id="2642990"] You aren't making a striking commentary on pop culture. Your point could have been made without using someone elses media as inspiration I'm afraid I don't get it And that is frequently the issue with parody...not every person 'gets it' and some are even offended. (eg. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies - some see as an assault on great literature) The beauty is that not every person has to. &

[quote]Ah....good old English comprehension....out the window as always....[/quote] Yes, the old I'm not threatening you but here's a nice threat. Whatever.

By that same loose interpretation of the criteria, Penny Arcade's McFarlane's Strawberry Shortcake was protected fair use - they thought it was a parody (definitely more so than yours, too bad it was a parody of only ONE of the parties involved). It was a grey area. They still got a cease and desist for sullying the good name of Strawberry Shortcake and Hallmark. You aren't an academic writing a research paper. You aren't making a striking commentary on pop culture. You aren't educati

[quote]When Stardock's accepted and established interpretation of what constitutes Infringement of Stardock's copyright/s is found to occur there's a quite efficient, silent solution....[/quote] Are you accusing me of something? I thought we were having a nice friendly discussion of grey areas in the law. I bought my Stardock media legitimately through Impulse. Kind of hard to infringe when they just let you download it to your account again. But seeing as how you are experts

Actually, no, its not fair use, just like slash fiction you wrote yourself using their characters isn't fair use, but its nice of them to turn a blind eye. If you couldn't recognize their IP you might have a point, but hey, then it wouldn't be such a cool avatar. As you said, no honor among thieves and everyone bends over backwards to say why their use is okay and everyone elses is wrong. [quote]And yeah, you would be stealing my right to a second sale.[/quote]<

By the way Po, nice shiny copyrighted avatar - er - derivative work. You license that media from House(TM) and Paramount(R)?

Hey, when everything I say is interpreted in the manner of 'you're a damned no good pirate' with no 'honor' (seriously, I grew out of thinking paladins were anything short of mindless zealots 20 years ago). I tend to dance a little. "I'm talking about the way people like to dance around what their interpretation of it is and defend or excuse what they think is their right to steal and how the expression is so true...'There is no honor among thieves'." Tell me what

[quote who="Jafo" reply="124" id="2642837"] Deal....[/quote] I do, just not always necessarily the way you and Disney and Microsoft et al., think you're entitled to have me deal. And I doubt you're as squeaky clean as you seem to think you are. But I still pay and have paid for everything I use. Go figure. I'm still using software that is no longer supported from companies that no longer exist.

[quote] Reproducing digital media costs 0.00? The money that goes into software development for just one game would entitle them to ask a lot more than a mere $80.00 for your first copy.[/quote] You already paid for all that with your one (and only) license. No where in the EULA does it say this license is revoked the moment you scratch your CD. For all you know, that scratch eliminated a SINGLE BIT. So yeah, you should have to pay full price to replace it. Absolutely. Because

Enjoy your straw man much, Po? He's not the internet's friend, he's mine. [quote]What, pray tell, empowers the modern me-generation to expect some kind of FREE replacement?[/quote] Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that producing the digital replacement costs $0.00 and the ones that already paid for a 'license' aren't rubes. @Jafo They don't sell 'media', they sell licenses. So you can't expect me to go to them to replace 'media'. Especially when their l

[quote]f I ruin my DVD or music CD (scratches, etc.) I have never viewed it as my right to just go and download an illegal copy or ask someone to burn me a copy of theirs. I don't know where people get this. You don't go and steal a new pair of jeans when you bust the knees out in the first pair.[/quote] This quote above is the only reason I am here - not to defend piracy which damages companies (like Stardock) that I happen to want to stick around. At its core, copyright is about

[quote]The legal recourse is to require replacement from the vendor. Internet download is typically NOT an authorised replacement avenue.[/quote] I'm not saying it is. Hold the distributors responsible, just as they are doing. Every one of those torrenter's clearly violated the distribution right because of the nature of torrent. But what if the vendor no longer produces the media? What if the vendor has terrible customer service? What then? Something I am very concerne

And in the Nintendo case, I absolutely agree. Whether he intended it or not, he distributed the media and he had no right to do so and had incurred huge civil liability. Civil cases are ALL ABOUT harm. In civil cases, you need to show damages. In a case of someone restoring media already owned, its a sheer technicality that the distribution right is being violated. And you'd be crazy to take a case to court of someone (who had a license) restoring a damaged CD when their

Yes, I'll give you that under Section 117 of the copyright act, he (my friend) is infringing on the exclusive distribution right in that scenario. He's not competent to judge that I have a license unless he's a licensed distributor. However, I have a license to use the software. The fact that someone else broke the civil law doesn't have anything to do with my license unless the license explicitly states that I'm not allowed to use the software if the media is damaged. Federal, crimin

I think you both need to read up on the law. I think the EFF has a primer. I purchased a license to use the product. How I come by the actual bits is irrelevant so long as I hold that license. If I make those bits available to others, particularly others who do not have a license, that is where I can be found liable. You aren't entitled to be paid twice for your IP just because a copy was made for someone who was already entitled to a copy. If we're licensed for 20 machines, we still

Its not piracy if I already bought a license to watch it / run it / listen to it. Its the act of distribution. I never purchased a right to distribute, only the copyright holder has that right. The media being damaged is irrelevant. What if I repaired the media. Did I pirate it then? You want to get my friend in trouble, feel free, but I personally did nothing wrong by restoring the media. If you don't believe me, go look up the legislation. I'm even entitled to make a backup fo

None of the Fallouts can compare to Wasteland, you posers. [e digicons]^_^[/e]

[quote]Just because we paid for something doesn't give us the right to illegally replace it after we broke it.[/quote] Um, I pay for a license to use the software, not for the media it comes on. If it can be argued that I don't own the software, it can also be argued that I have a right to use it regardless of what I did to the media, because the physical media is not the same as the license. That said, I don't have a license to distribute it in the process of obtaining a new

[quote]I have never encountered such despicable behavior anywhere else...[/quote] Clearly he's never driven his, or any other, car during rush hour.

[quote who="Bill_Door" reply="34" id="2642595"] It is a 4x game with rpg elements, did you think it was supposed to be a rpg? As for Dwarf Fortress, I don't think anyone gets attached to dwarves, people throw them in magma pits regularly.[/quote] Well, what it is , is a beta that I haven't played. The person I was replying to seemed to think it was an RTS or an RPG. I am very attached to my dwarves. I want them to be happy, produc

When you get right down to it, Master of Magic was all about Mr. Two Spell Points getting killed by Mr. Forty Attack, throwing down cities and adding buildings to them, trying to gather enough spell points to cast the spell of ultimate victory while your enemies tried to dismantle your empire. It was a lot of fun, and the graphics are extremely dated (256 color, 320x240 VGA) and sparse by comparison. As far as immersion goes, this is more immersive already, since the former migh

As long as we are committed to being off-topic: So-called 'adventurers' have entered the forbidden dungeon of Ithyrl, unleashed the long-banished demon Kroxir, and killed themselves in the process. ..or.. So-called 'adventurers' have entered the forbidden dungeon of Ithyrl and unleashed the long-banished demon Kroxir, who killed them.