Point proven

[quote name='JSweeney']Well, yes, but that is for a completely different reason, because by the act of returning the game you invalidate your software liscense... at which point you have no legal rights to the software you posses.

Of course, with most of the mods required to violate another part of copyright law (circumventing copyright protection).

All of these other arguments about shrinkwrap contracts are important to the future of the industry and to the issue of software liscining and copyright in general, but in this specific instance it may not be all that germane.

People are clouding the issue with a myriad of red herrings and appeals to emotion, so while there is some value to the conversation, most of it is lost, thanks to the original intent of the thread, which was a person trying to justify their own circumvention of copy protection on an Xbox.[/quote]

Clouding the issue? Us?

Whatever's in those shrink wraps, let me assure you: it's not contracts. And it's not clear what - if any - legal value it has.

I can't comment on the intent of the original poster, since he didn't specify it (it seems he was replying to comments in another thread?) but I'd love to know what circumvention that was. If it's media shifting (moving a game from disc to hard drive) he's morally - and probably legally - OK. If it's creating an unauthorised copy (which may be used independently of the original) he's not.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']Pile driver Stallion style?[/quote]

Hehehe...that always sounds dirty, like "I was with your mom last night, and I pile drove her, Stallion style!"

SAVANNAH HEAT!

Heh...Dik Dik...hehehe...Van Dik...hehehe!
 
[quote name='eldad9'][quote name='JSweeney']Well, yes, but that is for a completely different reason, because by the act of returning the game you invalidate your software liscense... at which point you have no legal rights to the software you posses.

Of course, with most of the mods required to violate another part of copyright law (circumventing copyright protection).

All of these other arguments about shrinkwrap contracts are important to the future of the industry and to the issue of software liscining and copyright in general, but in this specific instance it may not be all that germane.

People are clouding the issue with a myriad of red herrings and appeals to emotion, so while there is some value to the conversation, most of it is lost, thanks to the original intent of the thread, which was a person trying to justify their own circumvention of copy protection on an Xbox.[/quote]

Clouding the issue? Us?

Whatever's in those shrink wraps, let me assure you: it's not contracts. And it's not clear what - if any - legal value it has.

I can't comment on the intent of the original poster, since he didn't specify it (it seems he was replying to comments in another thread?) but I'd love to know what circumvention that was. If it's media shifting (moving a game from disc to hard drive) he's morally - and probably legally - OK. If it's creating an unauthorised copy (which may be used independently of the original) he's not.[/quote]

The thing is, he did it on the Xbox. The method by which the game is play is different than the PC... The addition of the hardware chip allows the copyright protections in the Xbox to be circumvented, and thus the practice is illegal.

Having a copy of software in the memory of a computer system (as stated in may court cases) in and of itself is not illegal, but the second you circumvent copyright protections to run it, you are in violation.

The biggest problem is that people are trying to argue specifics with generalities. While the Xbox is generally a computer system, it has hardware specifics that make it different than say a Windows or MacOS based PC.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']
The thing is, he did it on the Xbox. The method by which the game is play is different than the PC... The addition of the hardware chip allows the copyright protections in the Xbox to be circumvented, and thus the practice is illegal.

Having a copy of software in the memory of a computer system (as stated in may court cases) in and of itself is not illegal, but the second you circumvent copyright protections to run it, you are in violation.

The biggest problem is that people are trying to argue specifics with generalities. While the Xbox is generally a computer system, it has hardware specifics that make it different than say a Windows or MacOS based PC.[/quote]

COPY prevention. not copyright protection. One is a technological term, the other legal.

Yes, many things are illegal according to the DMCA that shouldn't be. It's a bad law, passed by corrupt politicians, and it should be repealed or at least overhauled.

Not everything legal is good.

Remember this country was born out of civil disobedience.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Remember this country was born out of civil disobedience.[/quote]

Hard to disobey when you get hit by the ULTIMATE SCAR BUSTER!!!
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']How do these shrinkwrap contracts apply to people who buy used software and games? Are the third party consumers still bound to contracts they may never have been aware of? Just curious.[/quote] Yes i am interested to here the response to this question as well. What about if i never bought the game, and I found it on the street :)
 
[quote name='WhipSmartBanky'][quote name='PsyClerk']Pile driver Stallion style?[/quote]

Hehehe...that always sounds dirty, like "I was with your mom last night, and I pile drove her, Stallion style!"

SAVANNAH HEAT!

Heh...Dik Dik...hehehe...Van Dik...hehehe![/quote]

I don't know whats going on... so...

SHORYUKEN!
 
[quote name='Theenternal'][quote name='MrBadExample']How do these shrinkwrap contracts apply to people who buy used software and games? Are the third party consumers still bound to contracts they may never have been aware of? Just curious.[/quote] Yes i am interested to here the response to this question as well. What about if i never bought the game, and I found it on the street :)[/quote]

These are not contracts; contracts only apply to those who sign them.

It is not clear whether these "agreements" have any legal binding for the original owner; but according to them, he's probably not allowed to transfer ownership anyway.

So if you live in the publisher's fantasy land, it's not an issue. If you live in the real world, again, it's not an issue.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='BigHow']There's actually a whole area of ocntract law that covers this question, jmcc. Shrinkwrap laws, as they're often called, suggest that once you remove the shrinkwrap on the package, you've consented to the terms of the contract within. Of course, some software companies go even further by forcing you to tear a sticker that states you are agreeing to follow the contract.[/quote]

Cite statutes, please. If this is true I'm totally going to gain power of attorney over people at the next church bakesale.[/quote]

I believe it only applies to software and things of that nature. Do you ever read the EULAs on games?[/quote]

Psyclerk is dead on here. Shrinkwrap contracts apply strictly in a software context, and even then it's applied only to licensed software.

Though the shrinkwrap laws have never been codified in state statute, the courts have developed this principle through jurisprudence. Primary among the shrinkwrap cases is Step-Saver Data Systems v. Wyse Technology and The Software Link (3rd Cir. 1991).

As for used copies of software, the courts are still conflicted. Section 106 of the Copyright Act outlines the exclusive rights enjoyed by owners of a copyright, including the exclusive right ''to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.'' Section 109(a), which forms the basis of the first sale doctrine, provides an important exception to § 106(3):

The owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

Thus, under the first sale doctrine, ''a sale of a lawfully made copy terminates a copyright holder's authority to interfere with subsequent sales or distribution of that particular copy.'' The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement. Licensing theoretically avoids the first sale doctrine of the Copyright Act.

As for the jackhole who keeps claiming that you need to sign a contact - dude, you're wrong. Try getting educated before shooting off your mouth.
 
There's a difference between a license and a contract. There cannot be a legally binding contract between me and my possessions (for example software I buy).

You seem to make sense - except for calling these "contracts".
 
I do have a serious question here. Ok so companies that no longer make and or sell the game. Is it wrong to have a back up of this game or a rom for it even though it is not being sold anymore.

Any one follow me on that?

I guess what Im asking is are emulators and roms illegal for games that are no longer sold? And if so why is it legal to have those same games on mobile pones and calculators and such. Isn't that the same as roms and emulators?
 
[quote name='eldad9']There's a difference between a license and a contract. There cannot be a legally binding contract between me and my possessions (for example software I buy).

You seem to make sense - except for calling these "contracts".[/quote]

eldad - a license is a type of contract. Also, the license isn't between you and the posession either. It's still between you and the software manufacturer.
 
I'm not sure the shrink wrap license is a contract any more than me saying "by replying to this post, you agree to give me your first born". A contract is something two sides agree to, not something one side says to other agrees to.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']To qoute from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory: You lose. You get nothing! Good Day, sir![/quote]

Awesome quote from an awesome movie that will soon be ruined by a remake.
 
[quote name='eldad9']I'm not sure the shrink wrap license is a contract any more than me saying "by replying to this post, you agree to give me your first born". A contract is something two sides agree to, not something one side says to other agrees to.[/quote]

Regardless of what you may think, the court system has decided differently.

Additionally, your hypo doesn't work, as I haven't received any consideration in the transaction. Therefore, there is no contract.
 
I belive it was once ruled (and sorry, I can't remember the case, maybe Hill vs Gateway?) that consumers can request license terms from the manufacturer before they purchase an item. This invalidated the whole "I can't agree to something I can't read" argument.

And BigHow is right...the license is between you and the software manufacturer, not the software itself (really, that was silly).

OT, BigHow, who is that in your avatar?
 
[quote name='BigHow']Though the shrinkwrap laws have never been codified in state statute, the courts have developed this principle through jurisprudence. Primary among the shrinkwrap cases is Step-Saver Data Systems v. Wyse Technology and The Software Link (3rd Cir. 1991).[/quote]

I don't know if that case is applicable. It arose because Wyse sold Step-Saver software under one license and they found that there a was a more restrictive license printed up in the software's packaging.

I haven't found a case yet where the federal copyright law provision for archival copies has been pre-empted by a in-box shrinkwrap license. As far as I can tell, as it stands now, the law says you can make archival copies, so long as you can do it without circumventing copyright protection schemes, which creates a nice little catch-22 of law that I expect will get ironed out in the next 5 years.

edit: that's not to say software makers can't print up whatever they want inside the shrinkwrap. It's just not everything they want is enforceable.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Thank you. That made sense.[/quote]

Well, don't be too happy. When I say "ironed out" I mean that it will get ironed out in favor of industry, so enjoy your theoretical ability to make a back-up copy while you can.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']OT, BigHow, who is that in your avatar?[/quote]

It's Dave Chappelle as Rick James - "Enjoy yourself, bitch... It's a celebration."
 
[quote name='eldad9']When I buy software from Circuit City the publisher doesn't receive any consideration from me either.[/quote]

Actually, they do, as they receive the lion's share of your money. Circuit City merely acts as the distributor of their product.
 
Well, I really don't care about any business deals between CC and the publisher. I only paid CC; it's ridiculous to claim that paying them magically enters me in a contract with a third party.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='BigHow']Though the shrinkwrap laws have never been codified in state statute, the courts have developed this principle through jurisprudence. Primary among the shrinkwrap cases is Step-Saver Data Systems v. Wyse Technology and The Software Link (3rd Cir. 1991).[/quote]

I don't know if that case is applicable. It arose because Wyse sold Step-Saver software under one license and they found that there a was a more restrictive license printed up in the software's packaging.

I haven't found a case yet where the federal copyright law provision for archival copies has been pre-empted by a in-box shrinkwrap license. As far as I can tell, as it stands now, the law says you can make archival copies, so long as you can do it without circumventing copyright protection schemes, which creates a nice little catch-22 of law that I expect will get ironed out in the next 5 years.

edit: that's not to say software makers can't print up whatever they want inside the shrinkwrap. It's just not everything they want is enforceable.[/quote]

jmcc - I wasn't trying to suggest that Step Saver ruled that people couldn't make back-ups. I was merely citing it to show the historical precedent for the shrinkwrap rule.

As far as I know, there hasn't been a suit involving a shrinkwrap provision prohibiting archival backups (but let's not forget that we're theoretically supposed to destroy those backups once we lose the license or the sell the original copyrighted material). These licenses, like all contracts of adhesion, are just beginning to be examined by the courts in the context of individual cases. I think it'll definitely be interesting to see where this goes in the next few years.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Well, I really don't care about any business deals between CC and the publisher. I only paid CC; it's ridiculous to claim that paying them magically enters me in a contract with a third party.[/quote]

Although it may seem ridiculous, that's the way the courts treat the situation.

There's a ton of legal reasoning that I think is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean that they don't define the law.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']Did you have a license to eat Cow Helper?[/quote] No, but she did look at me reassuringly with her big doe eyes right before I drove my 12.6kg sledgehammer into that soft spot right between them.
 
[quote name='BigHow'][quote name='eldad9']When I buy software from Circuit City the publisher doesn't receive any consideration from me either.[/quote]

Actually, they do, as they receive the lion's share of your money. Circuit City merely acts as the distributor of their product.[/quote]

Shows you how much I know. It looks very much like a character from one of those FMV Sega CD games back in the day.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='BigHow'][quote name='eldad9']When I buy software from Circuit City the publisher doesn't receive any consideration from me either.[/quote]

Actually, they do, as they receive the lion's share of your money. Circuit City merely acts as the distributor of their product.[/quote]

Shows you how much I know. It looks very much like a character from one of those FMV Sega CD games back in the day.[/quote]

Ooh. Night Trap?
 
soon as i pass the bar then we will be able to translate it most of the time lawyers and lawmakers add all of this mumbo jumbo so you have to go to them if you read slowly it makes sense

GOD BLESS BOOTLEGGERS and pirates unless it's my stuff there bootlegging but i dont have anything to bootlegg and would never sell make or buy bootleggs honest RIAA, MPAA, and the good ol' US goverment
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='BigHow'][quote name='eldad9']When I buy software from Circuit City the publisher doesn't receive any consideration from me either.[/quote]

Actually, they do, as they receive the lion's share of your money. Circuit City merely acts as the distributor of their product.[/quote]

Shows you how much I know. It looks very much like a character from one of those FMV Sega CD games back in the day.[/quote]

Ooh. Night Trap?[/quote]

Supreme Warrior. Actually that's a Sega CD/32X combo game. But his avatar looks like the boss of the fire element.

"You have beaten me down."
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='BigHow'][quote name='eldad9']When I buy software from Circuit City the publisher doesn't receive any consideration from me either.[/quote]

Actually, they do, as they receive the lion's share of your money. Circuit City merely acts as the distributor of their product.[/quote]

Shows you how much I know. It looks very much like a character from one of those FMV Sega CD games back in the day.[/quote]

Ooh. Night Trap?[/quote]

Supreme Warrior. Actually that's a Sega CD/32X combo game. But his avatar looks like the boss of the fire element.

"You have beaten me down."[/quote]

I've never seen that game, but I can only imagine that it (and NIGHT TRAP for that matter) could only be enhanced by the addition of Dave Chappelle. :D
 
I'm telling you, your avatar looks exactly like that one dude, in a pose that he used before you fought him.

I actually enjoyed that game.
 
[quote name='alongx'][quote name='JSweeney']To qoute from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory: You lose. You get nothing! Good Day, sir![/quote]

Awesome quote from an awesome movie that will soon be ruined by a remake.[/quote]

Okay, you have to at least wait and give Tim Burton and Johnny Depp a chance. I love the first movie (after they get to the damn chocolate factory) and I was leary of any remake, but with Burton & Depp it could be very good. I'd like to see Burton get back to his Pee-Wee's Big Adventure vibe. And Johnny Depp always hits it out of the park. Whoever thought a movie about a Disny ride would be entertaining?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top