Calmador said:
First of all, please reply to my most previous post. I don't have much of a problem if you reply to early posts. That's cool but I put a lot of effort and time into my most previous post so I'd apprecaite it if you replied to it aswell. Also you not acknowledging that post suggests that you couldn't defend or forfiet that area of the discussion? Secondly, I want to apologize to you because I think I used a bad tone earlier on, might be a bit hard to see but I feel convicted and regardless if you see it in my text, I wrote a bad tone. I don't want things getting out of hand. I don't want to get mad or you mad. But I'm not completely at fault for that... you keep going off-topic and it takes a long time to post sometimes and I don't like having to explain things that I really think are self-explanatory. And if you see a word that seems vague... but think there's a good chance that it's specificially meaning something specific (example: copying = piracy) then give my word choice the benefiet of the doubt please. Now to answer you post My literal understanding of what you said.... I don't think doing what you want with what you have paid for is principle (moral/good/honorable) because doing what you want isn't always principle (moral/good/honorable). Please re-read what I just stated 3 times or something because that statement explains a lot. Sooooooo I can do whatever I want with the product I purchased. But it isn't necessarily principle (moral/good/honorable) . I reply like that because "doing what you want" is a vague phrase... If....... you however included a moral basis when you said that... then YES you can do whatever you want because if your on a moral basis then you would be excluding any evil things when you said that. IF that's what you meant then yes your right and I agree we can do whatever we want with our products (excluding evil things). And this is how I say it when I say "I can do whatever I want with my Super Mario Bros. cartidge" All bases covered I think... Again, I'm talking about piracy but in short reply and the last reply I want to give you for the Geohot case.... Literally, the way you said this... "bully" of course I'd agree with you, Sony or any other corporation shouldn't bully anyone. Do I think Sony is bullying, I don't know for sure. My stance and say on the Geohot case is my own... not Sony's stance, not Geohot's or anyone else. But that's not what were talking about atm. I will end this with a slightly changed qoute from an earlier post I made. The product (game) is not a disc, it is the digital information... "A physical disc doesn't have to be in the picture for me to get a copy of x game... THE GAME does... which is the digital information. The game doesn't have to dissapear when I get it... but it does have to come to me without paying a dime. Why should doing something in a digital world HAVE to be so much like doing something in the physical world in order to be the same? It can't be.. they are two different worlds. Yet I can still communicate with you without talking ... I can send a loved one money without actually sending money ... and I can commit theft without the product dissappearing." EDIT: After revising this post and myself, I won't talk about this topic with anyone else except fordy. It will end with fordy because I realized... I keep pointing out that others are going off-topic yet I am the one who is off-topic technically because this thread is about Geohot's case. On the other hand what I'm talking about (piracy) is relevant because a lot of people have piracy on thier minds regarding Geohot's case so on that I think it's acceptable for me talk about it a bit but (enough is enough) I will limit myself to fordy and end it with him because primarily this is a thread about Geohots case. Thanks for reading |
Then I will reply to the previous post:
It looks like what you are arguing at is use of the game "in good faith". Once again, developers require something more stringent in terms of protecting their IP. However, pages and pages of "exceptions" are not needed in this case. I'm going to keep this as short and simple as I can:
Physical media (disc): Physical entity. Subject to theft (only if eg. you're stealing blank discs from a store)
Game: Conceptual entity. Patent laws apply, since the copyright is based on the game design itself, and not the code that makes the game. The proof for this is if for example, I remade a game that acted identical to a copyrigthed game, but with different code, I would still be in violation of copyright law. They're protecting their game IDEA, not the effort they took to write it to binary code. Copies are granted in the form of an End User License (EUL).
EUL: Physical entity. Subject to theft (say if you steal an actual game from a residence, you're stealing the owner's End User License.
When you purchase a game, you're still buying 100% physical entities. You're never buying the game itself. A small percentage goes to things such as case, manual, disc, etc., but the major cost is the EUL.
I'm not questioning your morals, but as I stated before, it's hard to make a defining decision on morals, because morals are based on individual's opinion. That's why I laugh when I hear somebody being called "immoral", because it does not mean that at all. It's means they have a differing set of morals to the accuser.
For example, there will be a big divide on the classic moral, "Steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family". None of them are wrong. However, society needs a stable foundation. It cannot operate on "I believe"s concerning such decisions. That's why the law IS there, as a defining set of morals for society to abide by.
