Quote from: Geek-9pm on April 14, 2010, 02:06:45 PM

Can I wait for it to come out in the...
Reader's Digest Large Print?

Can I wait for it to come out in the...
Reader's Digest Large Print?

The way I see it, when it comes to Microsoft Software, they are really just licensing <their> property to you- so you cannot dissassemble, modify, etc the windows components. This is based solely on the fact that you don't actually own a copy of windows but rather a license to use a copy of windows.

With the xbox, and xbox 360, you own the hardware; I feel this sort of changes the playing field a bit. With- for example- Nintendo consoles- you can modify it as you please. your warranty is void if you do (which is fair enough).

Now, the problem here is that a lot of people aren't modifying Xbox's and xbox-360's for things like new outputs (some people modify NES, SNES, and N64 systems to add new outputs that weren't supported or even existed at the time, such as N64 consoles with HDMI output and stuff) but rather so they can play pirated games.

This is sort of a gray area (IMO); really, they own the hardware, but by changing the hardware they make it easier for them to play software that isn't theirs. The solution is to disallow all hardware MODIFICATION; however, this sort of punishes those that would hack the hardware for a better game experience in the future.

Also, I must point out that if MS <really> wants to keep people from changing the hardware, they shouldn't actually be selling them- they should be "licensing" the consoles to people. However, in teh same way a person is perfectly entitled to change a desk fan by modifying the curvature of the blades, people are 100% entitled to mangle about with the hardware of the xbox. the best MS can do in this case is simply void warranties. It's not really the changing of the hardware that is illegal (in fact, it's a guaranteed right provided by property law) but rather the use of the pirated software. just because the two are related doesn't really mean they are both illegal- they are COVERED by completely different parts of law in almost every country.

I'm not really familar with xbox hardware, however, I do know that the NES had a sort of "anti-piracy" type feature. it wasn't intended to restrict consumers but rather to make sure that any games published for the console were by certified developers. This was in the form of a "symbiotic" pair of chips; one on the NES mainboard, which communicated with a mate chip that was present on the console. This worked fine, but publishers found ways of emulating the behaviour of this chip, (I believe tengen was one of them) so that they were wholly unlicensed to actually publish or distribute these games. would a person buying one of these games have been breaking the law? No. But was Tengen breaking the law? This is a curious question. they created a chip which did the same thing as the lockout chip, which licensees were <supposed> to buy from nintendo. does this not seem like some sort of monopolization? In order to create software for the NES, companies had to pay Nintendo not only for a license but also could only purchase the lockout chips from predesignated companies. What resulted from this was a "convenient" marketplace for Nintendo in that they for some reason had no quantity issues with acquiring the chips, but every other company did. this could translate to 6 or 7 months between what would have otherwise been the simultaneous release of a Nintendo game and a game released by another publisher. This translated directly into a huge market advantage for Nintendo themselves. Was this "fair" to the other publishers? was it fair to customers of those publishers to have to wait another 6 months simply because the licensee was not nintendo? Interesting questions.

Now, many other "hacks" for the NES console include the removal or disabling of the lockout chip, which is done quite simply by cutting a single trace on the mainboard. (or maybe it was creating a trace, I forget) Considering the NES can only really play cartridges and additionally that the only gain made by cutting the trace and disabling the chip is to be able to play games from other regions, it's rather an interesting concept; are they breaking the law? after all, they will still have to get the game from the other region.

Now, later, of course, Nintendo switched to a disc based SYSTEM. There isn't any super powerful piracy prevention; But- there is one that I think is pretty clever. The disc spins in the opposite way from any other DVD. This makes it nearly impossible to create duplicates of the game(s). Now, certain brands of DVD drives <are> able to spin in that direction and make it possible to burn pirated copies of gamecube games. This, however, requires a hardware hack.

I don't think it's morally ambiguous to perform hardware hacks, in and of itself, but rather that certain hardware hacks are morally ambiguous. you can change the console to, for example, add features, perhaps make it so it automatically saves memory card data into both slots, or something like that. It's when you change it to workaround the features designed to protect the intellectual property of the company and it's licensees that things get hairy.
um... that sounds a *censored* of a lot like communism. So you're saying that if you find a 5 dollar bill or something you cannot take it? are you supposed to report it to the government or something? "Hey, I found some of your money"

The fact is, the rules haven't been fully established. It's hard to properly protect intellectual property and still provide the rights guaranteed by the constitutions and charter of rights and freedoms of most countries.

The fact is, there is no "international copyright law"; the copyright law in one country differs from that of another and of another. Therefore it could be perfectly legal to, say, mod an x-box in one country. But what about bringing that modified Xbox into the U.S? It's already modified- the act of modification was already performed. Is it somehow illegal?

I think another question is with regards to the fact that the EULA is not actually legally binding in a lot of cases.

Consider many MS games; my Age of empires II box had a sticker that pretty much said that opening the box ENTAILS agreement ot the enclosed EULA... how is this legal? They could say anything on there- in fact, it's not legal. They changed this so that, upon installation, it displays the EULA.

However, consider for a moment that copying the software disc does not require that you install the software. So technically, you could copy the disc and never actually infringe on the EULA since you never agreed to it. However since doing so would entail some sort of circumvention of the anti-piracy thing used on the disc (I can't remember the specific one) it breaks the DMCA.

However, consider it from the other perspective- the perfectly legal and proper methods.

a user buys a game; let's say, age of empires II (a bit dated but *censored* shuddap).

they read the entire EULA. they find it fair, and agree. they then install the game.

However, the installer does not just install the game- it also installs the resident copy protection machanism from the game (I think it's starforce... or something like that). Note that the EULA said nothing about the installation of such down-level software. So did Microsoft breech the EULA? Yes. has any class action suite been enacted against them? No.

The protection of intellectual property is a lot more difficult then the protection of standard property; and in a lot of cases standard property ownership laws simply do not apply. also, the more protected a piece of software the fewer rights the purchaser holds; when you consider that such rights that the user no longer has include no longer being able to determine what get's installed on their own machine there has to be a question mark here.

It's one thing to state "this software will install certain copy protection mechanisms onto your PC" but most such EULA's make no mention of this. they install background processes that will actually cause disk imaging software to stop working or work slowly purely on the basis that there is a chance of using said software to circumvent the EULA. The possiblity of breaking the EULA, however, does not in and of itself constitute a breech of the EULA, so I think the question is, do the rights of intellectual property holder extend outside the domain of the EULA in such instances where breeches to that EULA are possible but not NECESSARILY likely? I have to say, no. If the EULA mentioned these "protections" then they are part of the EULA, but if it is not mentioned then do they not constitute a breech on the part of the company? the EULA is an agreement between the end-user and the intellectual property holder; this makes sense. however, the agreements I've read have all been terribly one-sided; they state what the end user can and cannot do, but they make no claims as to what rights the software publisher has over the end users machine. Is this presupposed to mean they can do what they wish? that by the user installing the software they are giving implicit permission to install any number of other bits of otherwise unrelated software purely in the interest of "protecting" their own rights under the EULA?

Let us consider another scenario.

Let's say, somebody is given a computer. that computer has a copy of windows 98 installed.

By the transference of ownership from the first person to the other, they first person is essentially "giving" the second person their license to have windows 98 installed.

But what if person 2 is unaware of the intricate laws and EULA restrictions that apply? what if person 1 <keeps> their windows 98 disc and uses it on other PCs? which one of these people are actually breaking the EULA? the second person is now the "user" in the eyes of the EULA, the first person is not. is the first person continuing the use the software disc for other installations somehow constituting a breech of the EULA on the part of the second person? additionally, and more interesting, did the second person ever actually <agree> to the EULA? remember, the software was already installed. somehow, this person that is using this copy of windows 98 is bound and restricted by the rules set forth in the EULA and yet they are completely unaware of such restrictions and might not even know such an agreement exists.

In contract law when one party transfers their obligations as per the contract to another party, the second party must know what these obligations are. They must also "sign" (note that agreeing to a EULA via button click has actually been accepted in lieu of a signature) said contract as the new upholder of that side of the contract.

Perhaps this is why it is not called a End User License Contract; since it is an agreement it no longer is bound by contract law. in fact, an agreement has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever. if you agree with Bob to give him 90 dollars next sunday as long as he rotates your tires, all that you can do if bob doesn't rotate your tires is not give him the 90 dollars.

Many games employ a number of anti-piracy tactics, such as StarForce (I can't remember any other ones, oh well) However, these mechanisms are almost never mentioned in the EULA. therefore does this mean that the software holder has some sort of implicit right to install other software on the users machine simply to protect their own rights as provided by the EULA? is this not, in and of itself, outside the scope of the EULA? If the company will not adhere to the agreement as they themselves have stated, all the end-user can do is not uphold their end.


Of course, most EULAs are actually complete; "omissions" of what "Special" software is installed are not quite as frequent as they used to be, but for games they are still rampant. Almost every commercial game has some sort of copy-protection software that get's "implicitly" installed on the end users computer. this can slow down disc burning, and other optical drive actions. was there an EULA clause saying they could do this? No.

Why do people stand for this? why do they continue to adhere to the various rules set forth in the EULA when it's clear that in many cases the publisher has absolutely no regard for holding up their end of it? The moment you allow the publisher to trample on the very rights they guaranteed you in the EULA and/or allow them to step outside the EULA in the interest of protecting <their> side of the EULA even to your disadvantage (installing software without your knowledge, for example) is when the EULA no longer matters. Consider the adage that the moment a hacker can run a program on your PC without you knowing, they control your computer. Dies this apply also to companies? If Electronic arts can install and run a copy protection driver without the users knowledge and especially without their agreement, does this not mean that EA now owns your computer and can do what they wish with it? Does this somehow invalidate the EULA with regard to the publisher's side, yet somehow mean the User must continue to uphold their end?


I'm all for EULA agreements; the windows EULA, for example, doesn't mention any sort of invisible processes'- and windows doesn't install any. Everything is rather clear and concise. and Because Microsoft seems intent on actually holding up their side of the agreement, it's only fair that we do as well. It's not a matter of morals or ethics but one of contractual obligations (which may or may not have moral and ethical repurcussions if broken) In fact, most programs fall into this category. It seems that the whole "implied copy protection" stuff is only in the domain of games. Probably because they are the most "tantalizing" targets for people to copy and give to friends or something. But does this "tantalization" in the eyes of pirates somehow give the company the right to install such protection software without our knowledge? I don't think so.

I wouldn't mind <at all> if such protection software was mentioned in the EULA. and sometimes, it is. But most of the time, it isn't. Is it really fair to omit such critical information in a agreement that pretty much works on the users trust? I don't think so.

Of course, the fact that they install such software doesn't really give the user some sort of inalienable right to trample on the publishers intellectual property rights, which are protected by other laws altogether. It does however raise some interesting questions. How much omission of these sorts of things is permissible? How far can publishers go before us users say, "ok, what the heck..."

I'm just curious..... How long did it take you to write that?