[Meksilon]

That's great Toefur. Why don't you upload an example (you can use the free service of http://zippyimages.com)? By the way m0ds, I forgot to mention. If you read my site where I outlined all the errors I picked up you might get the impression someone had to watch it a few times to pick them up. So it should be noted that at the time (and even now) I'd only seen the movie twice - and I picked up every error there the first time. In fact I may have only seen it once when I posted it on my site, yes I think that's right. But now I've still only seen it twice.

Daniel

[DaveGilbert]

Originally Posted by Meksilon

In fact why don't I just outline what I believe? I believe in individual's rights before the rights of corporations.

So the president of a corporation isn't an individual? The writer who thought up the story isn't an individual? What about the programmers, artists and musicians who spilled blood, sweat and tears into making it come to life? Don't they have rights too? Shouldn't they be protected?

Originally Posted by Meksilon

I believe that we should be legally allowed (AT LEAST) the following rights in regards to all forms of software (regardless of EULA's):

You believe it should be allowed, so therefore it is okay? That is brilliant! I believe something too. I believe I should be legally allowed to kill people that I find annoying, so I am going to go murder my boss right now! I'll just ignore all the laws put in place to prevent me from doing so. When I am arrested, I'll tell the judge that it was a stupid law. What a concept!

Originally Posted by Meksilon

* The right to make back-up copies.
* The right to install the program an unlimited number of times on an unlimited number of PCs (only one copy of the program will be run at one time).

I think you're confusing the word "right" with the word "priviledge." It's a priviledge to make backup copies, or to install the software on other computers more than once. I wouldn't say it's a god-given RIGHT to do so.

Originally Posted by Meksilon

* * The right to edit (hack) the program.

If I spent years making a game - putting my heart and soul and money into creating something great - I want to make damn sure it is protected. I wouldn't want some punk kid hacking into it and mucking about with my creation. I don't care if the kid was going to make it "better." Maybe I like it the way it is. If I don't want you futzing with it, I should be allowed to stop you. Wars have been fought over over side believing they are "better" than the other.

Originally Posted by Meksilon

* The right to distribute the hack to other owners of the game. An example might be GoSierra which is a program designed to hack old Sierra games so that they can run with music and sound on faster PCs. The program (although it wasn't written by Sierra) was even given full recognition by Sierra themselves by hosting the file (though they stopped doing that now).

Well good for Sierra. They accepted this file, and made it available. That is their right. Maybe another company would NOT accept that file, and they would promply unleash hordes of lawyers to sue the creator of the hack. This is also their right. Again, this goes back to corporations having the rights to protect their own intellectual property. The corporation created it, so they can do whatever they want with it. Seems only fair.

Originally Posted by Meksilon

Now if that's disrespecting copyright, so be it. But I do not advocate redistribution ("pirating") of the program itself. Though we are told by both the music and software industries that this is stealing - it is not. It is merely a breach of copyright, but in this case it would be a violation of the rights of the copyright owners. So I'm quite happy to stay within the rights I have defined for myself above.

Dude, your wisdom eclipses the sun. I never knew that I could define my own separate set of rights and laws! This opens up all sorts of possibilities. I've already written my first law. "The American government will pay the annual sum of six million dollars to David Lewis Gilbert of New York City, NY. Starting immediately. Failure to do so will result in seizure of property or imprisonment." Sweet!

[dave_minall]

well it would have been best to keep it hush hush IMHO

[Meksilon]

Originally Posted by DaveGilbert

So the president of a corporation isn't an individual? The writer who thought up the story isn't an individual? What about the programmers, artists and musicians who spilled blood, sweat and tears into making it come to life? Don't they have rights too? Shouldn't they be protected?

Look, if they retained rights to the game they created it may be different, but they didn't. And even if they did I would still expect to enjoy my rights as previously outlined. I believe they should be my rights no matter what, and they override the rights of the owner. If we're talking legally I don't believe that any of my rights violate Australian Law.

Originally Posted by DaveGilbert

You believe it should be allowed, so therefore it is okay? That is brilliant! I believe something too. I believe I should be legally allowed to kill people that I find annoying, so I am going to go murder my boss right now! I'll just ignore all the laws put in place to prevent me from doing so. When I am arrested, I'll tell the judge that it was a stupid law. What a concept!

My rights are not in violation of law.

Originally Posted by DaveGilbert

I think you're confusing the word "right" with the word "priviledge." It's a priviledge to make backup copies, or to install the software on other computers more than once. I wouldn't say it's a god-given RIGHT to do so.

No, it is a RIGHT. No matter what they put in the EULA I always retain the right to make back-up copies and re-install - even if they were to put "if you make back-up copies of this software then you will not be allowed to register your software, or to receive updates, or to enjoy support" in the EULA - that text is viod (in other words it's rubbish). Like when I go into a shop past a sign that tells me I have to open my bag for inspection upon leaving the store - I have every right to refuse, they cannot search it against my will.

Originally Posted by DaveGilbert

If I spent years making a game - putting my heart and soul and money into creating something great - I want to make damn sure it is protected. I wouldn't want some punk kid hacking into it and mucking about with my creation. I don't care if the kid was going to make it "better." Maybe I like it the way it is. If I don't want you futzing with it, I should be allowed to stop you. Wars have been fought over over side believing they are "better" than the other.

What you don't understand is that if there was a legal battle over it I'm confident it would be on my side. Just like I can tape TV shows and Movies shown free-to-air without breaching copyright, so too can I modify a program - if it is my desire to do so. I'm not a fan of copy-protection at all. Copy protection such as SecuRom I believe violates my rights. The same thing goes for Macrovision and DVD-Region Encoding.

Now DVD publishers will tell us that DVDs are only licensed for use with patent-compliant DVD-Players/software. Well, our sheep-loving friends at New Zealand have made it illegal to sell DVD Players that are not Multi-Region. That means they have passed a law that states every single DVD Player sold in their country has to violate the Patent. Here in Australia we do not honour the patent either, I don't think a law has passed prohibiting region-locked DVD-Players as of yet, but it is a very real possibility. NZ also enjoys the benefits of parallel-importing for DVDs.

Originally Posted by DaveGilbert

Well good for Sierra. They accepted this file, and made it available. That is their right. Maybe another company would NOT accept that file, and they would promply unleash hordes of lawyers to sue the creator of the hack. This is also their right. Again, this goes back to corporations having the rights to protect their own intellectual property. The corporation created it, so they can do whatever they want with it. Seems only fair.

I don't think so. And GoSierra is proof, as it is an "unauthorised hacking tool". If you want to be consistent then you have to say that a person should not use GoSierra - or other similar programs designed to hack a program or game. You then have to say that the creator of GoSierra, while he had the right intentions, deserves to be sued for his blatant hacking and reverse-engineering of Sierra products. Otherwise I would accuse you of “picking and choosing” which hacks you believe are beneficial enough to justify being a hack.

[Jayel]

Dude, when you purchase a game, you purchase the RIGHT to PLAY the game. Software doesn't become yours. It's not like buying a toy.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Jayel

Dude, when you purchase a game, you purchase the RIGHT to PLAY the game. Software doesn't become yours. It's not like buying a toy.

This is indeed true. Read any EULA (End User License Agreement), and you will see. And by installing the game you have agreed to it.

[Meksilon]

The EULA is hardly a legally bonding agreement. Except perhaps in the US.

Daniel

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Meksilon

The EULA is hardly a legally bonding agreement. Except perhaps in the US.

Daniel

That is, I'm sorry to have to tell you, complete rubbish. While most of them are held against US law, not living in the USA does NOT exempt you from prosecution. Read the EULA again. By installing and playing any game, you are agreeing to copyright under copyright laws that are LEGALLY BINDING. It is your choice, if you don't accept said guidelines, to return the game for a refund.

It is illegal, and will continue to be illegal, no matter how you may (mis)interpret it.

[DaveGilbert]

Originally Posted by Meksilon

Look, if they retained rights to the game they created it may be different, but they didn't.

Are you saying that LucasArts doesn't retain the rights to Monkey Island? The last time I checked, their name was still on the box. Same with Sierra games.

Originally Posted by Meksilon

And even if they did I would still expect to enjoy my rights as previously outlined. I believe they should be my rights no matter what, and they override the rights of the owner. If we're talking legally I don't believe that any of my rights violate Australian Law.

If we're talking legally, what you believe and what is actually TRUE are two totally different things.

Originally Posted by Meksilon

Just like I can tape TV shows and Movies shown free-to-air without breaching copyright, so too can I modify a program - if it is my desire to do so.

Really? This is news to me. If you can point to the law that says this is okay, please do so.

Originally Posted by Meksilon

GoSierra is proof, as it is an "unauthorised hacking tool". If you want to be consistent then you have to say that a person should not use GoSierra - or other similar programs designed to hack a program or game.

How is this proof? Proof of what? It's an unauthorised hacking tool, and it's illegal. Sierra decided to keep it because it was useful, or perhaps couldn't be bothered. They COULD have sued the butt of the hack creator, but instead they chose not to. Accuse them of "picking and choosing" if you want, but it's Sierra's property, and therefore Sierra's perogative. If I catch someone breaking into my house, it's my decision to press charges.

Originally Posted by Meksilon

You then have to say that the creator of GoSierra, while he had the right intentions, deserves to be sued for his blatant hacking and reverse-engineering of Sierra products.

I'm not saying the creator DESERVES to be sued. I'm saying he CAN be sued. I think the creator did a wonderful thing, but took a great risk. Mucking about with other people's property is illegal. Case closed.

[RLacey]

In B4 Da Lock!

I've always wanted to say that, for some reason...

[DaveGilbert]

Originally Posted by LaceyWare

In B4 Da Lock!

I've always wanted to say that, for some reason...

Heh. Good call, Lace.

Yes, I'm locking this topic now. If you are serious about this game, best of luck.