What no one has tackled, becuase i assume it is an arguement without flaw, is the simple fact: When you purchase digital media you enter into an agreement that you will not duplicate the media. Game over. Thats it. If you don't like the terms you don't purchase it.I have yet to see a videogame that presents me with an EULA
before I buy it.
Nor have I seen an audio CD do that.
Not a video DVD.
Nor a Blu-Ray video.
Nor a game console.
Nor a videogame for said console.
Ever.
Nobody's tackled that
because it's not how it works.
If you don't agree to the EULA, you don't get to use the product... however you've already bought it, and stores are notorious for not taking software returns once the box has been opened (
which needs to be done before the EULA can be viewed).
I am not aware of any case where an EULA (not a TOS) with a game or other sort of digital media has been legally enforceable. If you can find me a court case where that happened (and pull up the actual court documents stating so, and showing the verdict), I'll change my tone a bit. I won't give in, however, as being made to agree to an EULA for a product you've already paid for (or forgo use of it) can be seen as a contract
under duress, which voids it (especially in the case of such expensive software as photoshop).
This is written on the back of my Heavy Rain case:
Software license terms available at www.us.playstation.com/support/useragreements and in-game. Similar statements can be found on the products that you listed. So the terms are available before purchase huh? Wild, I know. The Red Dead Redemption case even goes so far as to state:
For use only with Xbox 360® entertainment systems with “NTSC” designation. Unauthorized copying, reverse engineering,transmission, public performance, rental, pay for play, or circumvention of copy protection is strictly prohibited. Maybe these terms could be more expressly written in some cases, but I can't imagine anyone would suggest that pirates
pirate in order to advocate for stronger expression of terms.
You can also throw copyright law into the mix, namely copyright infringement. Reproduction of copyrighted material violates the rights of the copyright holder. Unless you want to pretend like you didn't know the media was protected when you bought it or act as though the idea of copyrights in general is foreign to you. Nonetheless, Ignorantia juris non excusat (Obligatory fancy talk/Look how smart I are).
As far as a legal precedence being set in court, you might be right or you might not be. I'm not going to waste my time researching it because frankly it is beside the point. Legality and enforceability are separate issues.
To be completely honest, I'm a philosophy major and I view the legal issues as simple premises. The actual issue at hand is of a moral nature. The question essentially is this: Is the piracy of non-essential goods right or wrong? If it is "right" then what is the justification? If it is "wrong" then why has the proposed crackdown created all this ruckus?
You are so busy looking for a legal loop-hole to justify your actions that you have forgotten to assess your actions independent of the system. Are you really willing to allow legality to decree what is and is not moral?
It's cool, we are pirates for various reasons. But for the love of God people, let's stop pretending like our actions are justified. Be an adult and simply admit that piracy is wrong, but its rewards far outweigh the diminutive burden that it places on your conscious.
QUOTE(Rydian @ Jun 24 2010, 02:07 PM)