Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I didn't say they were completely equitable as one was an exaggeration, but both go to far to try and succeed in their task. Well MagicGate doesn't and I don't have any problem with that. Installing a root kit on my PC on the other hand is to much and apparently I wasn't the only one to feel that way, what with the massive lawsuit, product recall, and all that.

halonachos wrote:Except of course there is a bit of difference there. In one case we have a physical intrusion by a law enforcement official who goes through things that are completely unrelated to any case he may have, in the other we have a system that monitors electronic signatures being inputted into a console. Note that there is a huge difference.

Ummm, the difference being an armed human in my house instead of a lawyer waiting for the computer to spit out my name an address? DRM like this operates from the same assumption, we're going to assume you're a thief and treat you as such.

Well I dunno about other countries, but here this clause is considered abusive and likely cost Sony a fine.

I happen to know that I have signed my soul away on one EULA I accepted (I was bored and read it - was for a small 3rd party "coded in my basement" style game - was actually quite a funny read ).

I do find it strange that they can chop and change contracts as and when they feel like it, and like most EULA's and other such software "contracts" really do take the wee with what they demand and what rights they seem to strip away after you have already purchased the software/service/etc.

Tyyr wrote:

halonachos wrote:Except of course there is a bit of difference there. In one case we have a physical intrusion by a law enforcement official who goes through things that are completely unrelated to any case he may have, in the other we have a system that monitors electronic signatures being inputted into a console. Note that there is a huge difference.

Ummm, the difference being an armed human in my house instead of a lawyer waiting for the computer to spit out my name an address? DRM like this operates from the same assumption, we're going to assume you're a thief and treat you as such.

Do you lock your doors?

halonachos wrote:Do you lock your doors?

Do you have a point? How about getting to it instead of leading style questions. "OMG you lock your doors you assume everyone else is a thief!"

Again, I lock the doors on my house. DRM like this wants the right to lock me out of my own house.

Tyyr wrote:

halonachos wrote:Do you lock your doors?

Do you have a point? How about getting to it instead of leading style questions. "OMG you lock your doors you assume everyone else is a thief!"

Again, I lock the doors on my house. DRM like this wants the right to lock me out of my own house.

Except its closer to signing a lease or renting a house. There are locks on there for your protection, but the locks are also there for the renter's own benefit. No one is automatically assuming that anyone is a thief, all they are doing is saying that people are out there who happen to be thieves. But back to the point, you pay a down payment or safety deposit( buying the console and software) but then you also pay to continually use or rent the house( online service) and are entered into a contract with the owners who provide you with the service of living in the house( using online service). Now you get keys to the doors and can use the house as you please as long as you stay within the lines of the contract, this keeps you safe from people who would seek to break into your house and ruin the service for you( hackers for the console example). However, should you violate the terms of your contract it allows the owners to lock the doors on you and change the lock( banning) which keeps the owner safe from any further damages you may cause.

However, you can use a console without internet service and you can sometimes use bootleg discs and get away with it if you don't go online. You payed for the console and can do what you want with it, you don't have to go online, and if you want to go online you have to agree to their contracts.


Its funny when people say that corporations assume that we're all thieves... and then we look at individuals who do the same and say that they don't.

So the fact that the DRM root kit broke the law doesn't matter becuase it was trying to stop piracy. Breaking the law to break the law doesn't seem like a well thought out argument, but you keep going with that.

Ahtman wrote:So the fact that the DRM root kit broke the law doesn't matter becuase it was trying to stop piracy. Breaking the law to break the law doesn't seem like a well thought out argument, but you keep going with that.

They broke the law to break the law, it happens in the real world. Sometimes you can get out of trouble because of it though, although its like pointing out a fallacy in a debate and then saying its okay that you made one. If a person uploads music and says that they only caught him because of the root kit then he still admitted that he was guilty. Sony can easily pay back damages, a lone individual not so much, kind of like buying out the pot in poker.

Although it seems that most of the problem with the root kit was the fact that it was poorly designed and made computers FUBAR instead of actually stopping people from uploading music. To me that would be like looking at a guy who needs to be put under for surgery and giving him arsenic instead of the proper anesthesia.

halonachos wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So the fact that the DRM root kit broke the law doesn't matter becuase it was trying to stop piracy. Breaking the law to break the law doesn't seem like a well thought out argument, but you keep going with that.

They broke the law to break the law, it happens in the real world.

That has to go on the wall of fame for poorly made arguments.

Ahtman wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So the fact that the DRM root kit broke the law doesn't matter becuase it was trying to stop piracy. Breaking the law to break the law doesn't seem like a well thought out argument, but you keep going with that.

They broke the law to break the law, it happens in the real world.

That has to go on the wall of fame for poorly made arguments.

I think you arguing with Alby in the pop-singer thread is pretty much going to take up the entire wall, probably have to make room for it as well.

But no, its what they did and its probably what they were thinking. Sony can take a hit like that, an individual pirate or hacker cannot so Sony is going to use their money just like most corporations will.

halonachos wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I used to be a Sony fanboy. Then MagicGate happened. Then this.

So basically you were a SONY fanboy until they decided that it was wrong for people to file share music and movies? How dare they try to protect someone's copyright protected work!

Do you know what MagicGate is? You could only copy a file a set number of times (2 or 3 if I remember). My music that I bought I could only transfer a set number of times, not just music I had stolen. On top of that, I bought a PS2 memory card with MagicGate that decided I shouldn't be able to copy my save files over to a newer card when I had a feeling that one was about to die and it then died so I lost my save data. Why the hell did a console memory card need copyright protection again? Sony sucks. Objectively. That's it.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I used to be a Sony fanboy. Then MagicGate happened. Then this.

So basically you were a SONY fanboy until they decided that it was wrong for people to file share music and movies? How dare they try to protect someone's copyright protected work!

Do you know what MagicGate is? You could only copy a file a set number of times (2 or 3 if I remember). My music that I bought I could only transfer a set number of times, not just music I had stolen. On top of that, I bought a PS2 memory card with MagicGate that decided I shouldn't be able to copy my save files over to a newer card when I had a feeling that one was about to die and it then died so I lost my save data. Why the hell did a console memory card need copyright protection again? Sony sucks. Objectively. That's it.

I never had an issue with transferring data between my memory cards, maybe it was just that card in particular instead of MagicGate? I've had nothing but good experiences with my Sony electronics, probably because I don't try to cheat a system by copying files.

halonachos wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I used to be a Sony fanboy. Then MagicGate happened. Then this.

So basically you were a SONY fanboy until they decided that it was wrong for people to file share music and movies? How dare they try to protect someone's copyright protected work!

Do you know what MagicGate is? You could only copy a file a set number of times (2 or 3 if I remember). My music that I bought I could only transfer a set number of times, not just music I had stolen. On top of that, I bought a PS2 memory card with MagicGate that decided I shouldn't be able to copy my save files over to a newer card when I had a feeling that one was about to die and it then died so I lost my save data. Why the hell did a console memory card need copyright protection again? Sony sucks. Objectively. That's it.

I never had an issue with transferring data between my memory cards, maybe it was just that card in particular instead of MagicGate? I've had nothing but good experiences with my Sony electronics, probably because I don't try to cheat a system by copying files.

It was MagicGate as the error that came up on screen indicated. And I'm glad to know that you don't mind being stripped of basic functionality (and having it sold to you as a bonus feature, like it's something good) because you might want to do something bad. Anything that tries to screw with basic functionality should cost less.

halonachos wrote:
Except of course there is a bit of difference there. In one case we have a physical intrusion by a law enforcement official who goes through things that are completely unrelated to any case he may have, in the other we have a system that monitors electronic signatures being inputted into a console. Note that there is a huge difference.

No, not really, electrons are physical things.

That whole "physical v. non-physical" distinction breaks down when we start thinking about...anything.

Legally by their terms of agreement a class action lawsuit wouldn't see much time in court. Yes, Sony did something very wrong and left personal information to hackers. If you look at previous class action lawsuits they usually don't get much of a turn out. Look at the countless class action law suits against drug companies. People died and money still wasn't distributed. So unless you did have personal information stolen>financial. You still won't have much of a chance in court. So if you have a PS3 and you want to sue Sony, good luck. You will not win.

It's sad how many rights are taken away

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Except of course there is a bit of difference there. In one case we have a physical intrusion by a law enforcement official who goes through things that are completely unrelated to any case he may have, in the other we have a system that monitors electronic signatures being inputted into a console. Note that there is a huge difference.

No, not really, electrons are physical things.

That whole "physical v. non-physical" distinction breaks down when we start thinking about...anything.

This time it took you 10 days to find an argument over semantics just so you could once again begin the process of trying to find a single concept that you can barely grasp at in order to find an argument. You're so predictable Dogma, and to be honest it's quite droll. I think that the Republican candidates this year have more variety than the variety in your beginnings for some argument that completely derails a thread.

Although I think that I should be flattered that you care so much to go through all of my posts to find a single bit of language that you can take out of the context of the post and say "the dictionary's definition of this word doesn't fit the immediate use of the word, I will start an argument about it". I was going to go into something about bits of data being intangible but you would probably just find a quark-sized bit of an argument and blow it out of proportion.

halonachos wrote:
This time it took you 10 days to find an argument over semantics just so you could once again begin the process of trying to find a single concept that you can barely grasp at in order to find an argument.You're so predictable Dogma, and to be honest it's quite droll. I think that the Republican candidates this year have more variety than the variety in your beginnings for some argument that completely derails a thread.

Although I think that I should be flattered that you care so much to go through all of my posts to find a single bit of language that you can take out of the context of the post and say "the dictionary's definition of this word doesn't fit the immediate use of the word, I will start an argument about it".

You think this is personal? I don't care about you in any way. The only thing I know about is that you're a person who frequently says things I find poorly thought out. I was pointed here by another poster, because of the ridiculous nature of the conversation. Your post was one of the last ones, and here we are.

halonachos wrote:
I was going to go into something about bits of data being intangible but you would probably just find a quark-sized bit of an argument and blow it out of proportion.

Tangibility is not physicality. One is based on perception, the other is not. This is important, in this case.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
This time it took you 10 days to find an argument over semantics just so you could once again begin the process of trying to find a single concept that you can barely grasp at in order to find an argument.You're so predictable Dogma, and to be honest it's quite droll. I think that the Republican candidates this year have more variety than the variety in your beginnings for some argument that completely derails a thread.

Although I think that I should be flattered that you care so much to go through all of my posts to find a single bit of language that you can take out of the context of the post and say "the dictionary's definition of this word doesn't fit the immediate use of the word, I will start an argument about it".

You think this is personal? I don't care about you in any way. The only thing I know about is that you're a person who frequently says things I find poorly thought out. I was pointed here by another poster, because of the ridiculous nature of the conversation. Your post was one of the last ones, and here we are.

halonachos wrote:
I was going to go into something about bits of data being intangible but you would probably just find a quark-sized bit of an argument and blow it out of proportion.

Tangibility is not physicality. One is based on perception, the other is not. This is important, in this case.

1st: How cute, your "friend" pointed you to the thread. Love you too babe.

2nd: Its all about context;

freedictionary wrote:1. of or relating to the body, as distinguished from the mind or spirit
2. of, relating to, or resembling material things or nature the physical universe
3. involving or requiring bodily contact, rugby is a physical sport
4. (Physics / General Physics) of or concerned with matter and energy
5. (Physics / General Physics) of or relating to physics
6. perceptible to the senses; apparent a physical manifestation

I was well within the contextual use of the word physical, in fact it looks like I was well within the first definition for the word physical. I would kindly ask you to stop being so critical of word usage that doesn't conform to your own personal, and seemingly limited, definitions.

halonachos wrote:
1st: How cute, your "friend" pointed you to the thread. Love you too babe.

Oh please, if you're going to troll at least try and be clever.

halonachos wrote:
I was well within the contextual use of the word physical, in fact it looks like I was well within the first definition for the word physical. I would kindly ask you to stop being so critical of word usage that doesn't conform to your own personal, and seemingly limited, definitions.

Information is not of or relating to the body? Damn, brains must have a terrible time of it then.

You two sound like a bunch of 12 year olds bickering. Stop it. Or, perhaps,

Shock!

Get on topic.

Wasnt there an episode similar to this on south park? where people blindly sign the TOS or something and ended up being the human centipad?

On topic? This is a guy suggesting that breaking the law (which is what this is about) is not relevant to breaking the law.

It is laughable.