"Unless you purchase software from a bigbox store, then nearly anything online is DRM as it requires a login and password."
Then again, sometimes buying a boxed game from a physical store didn't ensure that's DRM-free. Some of those boxes actually contain only a Steam key (I got this nasty surprise once), or require that you log in to an online account on the publisher site... Box games are definitely not clear.
And that reminds me in turn of that other cop who wrote a tribune, saying citizens should comply to any demand from a cop. Not because the cop is right and just and trying to help. No, his argument was that the cop is armed and dangerous, so you better comply to not get hurt. Strangely, he didn't get much sympathy from the readers. Talking like a thug trying to rob you at gunpoint does that sometimes.
Well, that's not quite what he made an issue of. If he had clearly declined the release, that would have been a cheap move, but still a clear one. Instead, he tried finding stupid excuses like the hypocrite he is: he said that he would release his tax returns but, what a pity, he can't because he's currently being audited. (It's true that he's being audited, it's a lie that it prevents him from releasing them.) Tap-dancing around the truth, outright lying... That's the kind of "issue" he creates for himself. If he was honest about it (can anyone really believe that?), he should be thankful that someone took it upon himself to leak then. :)
Funny how those people (AG, FBI, ACFSL) want us to believe in their forensics "science" without proper studies about its accuracy. Sounds more like they ask for blind faith, which is the attributes of religion rather than science. So, maybe we should start talking about "forensics religion" from now on.
Although I'm not a fan of DMCA, there is a difference with the arbitrageurs in this case: in this case, the products are sold at a higher price than the original; in most DMCA cases (the roughly legitimate ones at least) "products" are often shared much cheaper, if not downright for free. At least in the case of digital goods, I can understand the point even if I don't agree. This one makes no sense at all.
It really depends on the judge. Short version: some seem to accept that exceeding "intended" rather than "actual" authorization is enough. Yes, it does get that crazy as times.
"The European Commission has proposed a Copyright Directive that could not conceivably be worse."
I'm sure it could be. Do you really want them to prove you wrong?
Joke aside, it is terrible, but not surprising. Lobbying works as well in EU as it does in US: powerful legacy companies have the means to influence law-making and the "public interest" is just seen as a poor and poorly connected lobby rather than the main purpose of the law.
"I think the courts get it right by starting not in the middle of technology (workings of a hyperlink),..."
Yes, let's just ignore reality and judge based on your own preconceived notions. So much simpler than actually trying to understand the whole situation. And the consequences of a bad judgment.
No. What you describe is trademark infringement, not dilution. - dilution is using the trademark as a generic term for the class of products it is. Example: saying you will "google" something although your actually using Bing. - infringement is using a brand name either to pass your product another or to pretend you're endorsed by the brand.
We can argue for that last case, but definitely not the first one.
True enough except for one little detail: what common business opportunities do a university and a donut shop have in common? Moreover, it was not a case of trademark dilution because specifically using the trademark to refer to the trademark owner is not dilution. What's left?
Several points to consider for a proper test: You must release both on the same platform (popularity). You must advertise both equally. You must release both at the same price. You must release both with the same features.
If, all else being equal, DRM version wins, I might admit many customers are indeed looking forward to them. However, actions like releasing a game without DRM, but with less features and no DLC on a less popular platform, that would definitely tip the scales.
Continuing the metaphor... Or rather starting it properly: "Now that we siphoned your fuel, drilled holes in your engine and stuck nails in your tires... We’ll be watching your next move from our rear view mirror. Oh, and pardon our dust."
First thought: Microsoft + Adobe? What could possibly go wrong?
Second thought: I remember an old comment from some DRM-enthusiast who tried to convince others that customers want DRM. The argument that customers buy products with DRM is of course complete BS, but it was impossible to make him admit that customers want the products, not the DRM, and that they will buy despite the DRM, not because of them.
Reminds me a lot of Catch-22. The government likes to play that game too much.
Here: - You - Microsoft as third-party - can't contest the search because you're not the target. - You - ACLU as target - can't contest the search because you don't - officially - know it happened.
Weeks ago: - You - John Doe - can't contest the search because the package was under the name Joe Black (who doesn't exist, so what?). - You - John Doe - can be arrested after the search because we know "Joe Black" is a pseudonym and the package really belongs to John Doe.
In both cases, and a lot of others, even if the search is illegal, nobody has standing to contest its validity because the case is built in a way that both removes standing from everyone involved by denying standing (Microsoft, John Doe), knowledge (ACLU) or simple existence (Joe Black)... So much for "due process".
And, of course, "safeguards" never work. Most attorneys will not decline to prosecute based on illegal searches. FISC can't be trusted to deny a search in the first place.
If we go this way, "Theft = Bad" is also wrong. That would also mean "Bad = Theft" so the only Bad in the world is Theft. That's quite a statement there.
On the post: Kickstarter-Funded Game Drops DRM-Free Version It Promised, Then Promises It Again After The Backlash
Re: Re: Re:
Then again, sometimes buying a boxed game from a physical store didn't ensure that's DRM-free.
Some of those boxes actually contain only a Steam key (I got this nasty surprise once), or require that you log in to an online account on the publisher site... Box games are definitely not clear.
On the post: Judge Overturns Denied Email Search Warrant, Says Gov't Can Get It All, Dig Through It Later
Re: Re:
Strangely, he didn't get much sympathy from the readers. Talking like a thug trying to rob you at gunpoint does that sometimes.
On the post: Trump Joins Clinton In Pushing For Cyberwar
Let me fix that:
"There was his first attempt to respond to questions about cybersecurity in which it's clear he didn't understand the question, ..."
On the post: Trump Campaign Threatens To Sue NY Times For Sharing His 1995 Tax Returns
Re:
If he had clearly declined the release, that would have been a cheap move, but still a clear one.
Instead, he tried finding stupid excuses like the hypocrite he is: he said that he would release his tax returns but, what a pity, he can't because he's currently being audited. (It's true that he's being audited, it's a lie that it prevents him from releasing them.)
Tap-dancing around the truth, outright lying... That's the kind of "issue" he creates for himself.
If he was honest about it (can anyone really believe that?), he should be thankful that someone took it upon himself to leak then. :)
On the post: FBI, DOJ And Their Forensic Scientists State They'll Continue Using Discredited Junk Science To Put People Behind Bars
"trust us"
Sounds more like they ask for blind faith, which is the attributes of religion rather than science.
So, maybe we should start talking about "forensics religion" from now on.
On the post: FBI, DOJ And Their Forensic Scientists State They'll Continue Using Discredited Junk Science To Put People Behind Bars
Re: Re:
On the post: An Ongoing Lack Of Technical Prowess Is Resulting In Bad Laws, Bad Prosecutions, And Bad Judicial Decisions
Re: The Cyber Is To Important Too Be Left To The Cyberers
:)
On the post: Man Arrested For Parodying Police Department's Facebook Page Sues City, PD Over Rights Violations
That's nearly disappointing.
On the post: The Weird Psychology Of People Fighting Those Who Resell Their Products
difference
At least in the case of digital goods, I can understand the point even if I don't agree. This one makes no sense at all.
On the post: Congressional Rep Mike Honda Sues Challenger Ro Khanna For CFAA Violation Over Access To His Donor List
Re: Just a thought
Yes, it does get that crazy as times.
On the post: NYPD Says Software Built To Track Seized Property Can't Actually Do The One Thing It's Supposed To Do
Re: Re: I'm wondering
Also missing the "sad but true" button for the ending line.
On the post: EU Announces Absolutely Ridiculous Copyright Proposal That Will Chill Innovation, Harm Creativity
Is that a challenge?
I'm sure it could be. Do you really want them to prove you wrong?
Joke aside, it is terrible, but not surprising. Lobbying works as well in EU as it does in US: powerful legacy companies have the means to influence law-making and the "public interest" is just seen as a poor and poorly connected lobby rather than the main purpose of the law.
On the post: Terrible Ruling: EU Decides That Mere Links Can Be Direct Infringement
Re: You can hear the arm waving from here...
Yes, let's just ignore reality and judge based on your own preconceived notions. So much simpler than actually trying to understand the whole situation. And the consequences of a bad judgment.
On the post: University Of Texas Bullies Pastry Shop Over Donuts Shaped Like 'Hook 'Em Horns' Hands
Re: Re: Re: Not so cut and dried
- dilution is using the trademark as a generic term for the class of products it is. Example: saying you will "google" something although your actually using Bing.
- infringement is using a brand name either to pass your product another or to pretend you're endorsed by the brand.
We can argue for that last case, but definitely not the first one.
On the post: University Of Texas Bullies Pastry Shop Over Donuts Shaped Like 'Hook 'Em Horns' Hands
Re: Not so cut and dried
What's left?
On the post: DRM: Still Hurting Paying Customers The Most
Re: Re: Re:
You must release both on the same platform (popularity).
You must advertise both equally.
You must release both at the same price.
You must release both with the same features.
If, all else being equal, DRM version wins, I might admit many customers are indeed looking forward to them.
However, actions like releasing a game without DRM, but with less features and no DLC on a less popular platform, that would definitely tip the scales.
On the post: AT&T, Poster Child For Government Favoritism, Mocks Google Fiber For Government Favoritism
"Now that we siphoned your fuel, drilled holes in your engine and stuck nails in your tires... We’ll be watching your next move from our rear view mirror. Oh, and pardon our dust."
On the post: DRM: Still Hurting Paying Customers The Most
Second thought: I remember an old comment from some DRM-enthusiast who tried to convince others that customers want DRM. The argument that customers buy products with DRM is of course complete BS, but it was impossible to make him admit that customers want the products, not the DRM, and that they will buy despite the DRM, not because of them.
On the post: ACLU Challenges Gag Orders Issued To Tech Companies By The DOJ
Catch-22
The government likes to play that game too much.
Here:
- You - Microsoft as third-party - can't contest the search because you're not the target.
- You - ACLU as target - can't contest the search because you don't - officially - know it happened.
Weeks ago:
- You - John Doe - can't contest the search because the package was under the name Joe Black (who doesn't exist, so what?).
- You - John Doe - can be arrested after the search because we know "Joe Black" is a pseudonym and the package really belongs to John Doe.
In both cases, and a lot of others, even if the search is illegal, nobody has standing to contest its validity because the case is built in a way that both removes standing from everyone involved by denying standing (Microsoft, John Doe), knowledge (ACLU) or simple existence (Joe Black)... So much for "due process".
And, of course, "safeguards" never work.
Most attorneys will not decline to prosecute based on illegal searches.
FISC can't be trusted to deny a search in the first place.
On the post: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt Seems To REALLY Upset Some People
Re: Re:
That would also mean "Bad = Theft" so the only Bad in the world is Theft. That's quite a statement there.
Next >>