lapsed_gamer said:
Share? That is iffy. If you want to share, lend the original cart to your friend. Or do you like to "share" one ticket into movie theaters? Trade?? So before you trade a game, you want to make a copy for yourself? Backup. Okay. There is some valididy in this. But given the first two, I wonder how much that really applies. Now if you are just using this thread to support a mindset you have for PC anti-pirate methods then that makes a little more sense, but it is hard to blame the segment of the industry hit with the largest percentage of pirating. It all comes down to the fact that it is their product to do with what they may. If you don't like the terms of your licence, then don't buy it. By the way, you have never bought software or any other media. It has always been licenced. |
Try to dance around the defintions of words is useless anyway. Sharing a console game-disc and a movie ticket are two different things. The ticket says "admit one". When you play the game there's a message in there that says only a legally bought product is allowed to be played. When you give that copy to someone, you are giving up your rights to play that game while the other person is playing it; so any "backups" are illegal to play. (There's also a line in the legal saying that back ups are not allowed.)
Of course, I'm not just talking about whether it's illegal, I am talking about what is immoral. Each person lives by there own moral code but generally if you are doing harm to others, than you are doing something wrong. Playing pirated games does harm to the people that physically produce the games and create the data.
FreeTalkLive said:
The social contact is just a theory. Anway, the social contact theory popular during the American Revolution was that people would pool resources together to create a government which would protect their rights. If the government didn't do what it was supposed to then the people could abolish the government and that is what happened with the American Revolution. You are speaking of the socialist version of the social contact which implies that people cannot overthrow the government if it doesn't live up to it's end of the bargin (protecting almost everyone's rights almost all of the time). Clearly, there is a marked difference in theories.
|
This post adresses a lot of aspects of the SC, so I will take them on briefly and individually.
I am not speaking of any socialist vision or theory-of-application (revolution), I am talking about descriptive theory of the social contract, which is more than just the memorized line in POL101.
It's not a theory in the sense that "people would pool resources together to create a government which would protect their rights."
In fact, this is not necessarily socialist. All forms of government (Anarchy isn't a form of government) work on this principle. Libertarian, Fascist, Socialist, republican or democrat (little 'r' and 'd')are just different degrees to which which person contributes how much time/money to servicing the state and in what capacity.
The theory of the social contract has evolved since Rousseau and Hobbes; it has been adapted to fit all sorts of political movements.
Even in anarchy, people group up and form protective groups.
Whether they are protecting against violence or copyright infringement, it is still the social contract.
My main point: SC is what it is. We don't have a choice, we live under one no matter.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
