In the interest of the simplicity you favor, the absence of any requirement for 'proof of purchase' will result in nothing being offered for purchase.

Why invest in infrastructure & development when anyone can take your product at will?  Do you waltz into the grocery store & load up, then simply walk out?  Do they not have security there to prevent such theft?  If people have the option to either stop by the checkout counter and pay or head straight for the door, how long will there be anything on those shelves?

The honor system may be noble but history has proven it be beneficial only to the dishonorable.

Looks like my last reply vaporized.

To summarize:

GOO is nothing more than the online equivalent of the store security that prevents you from shoplifting a boxed CD.  Once you have a legally purchased (validated) copy (have shown your receipt at the door in Best Buy terms) you then have unfettered use, within any reasonable definition of the term.

EDIT: Coding pigeons are acting up - reply's there now.

Who are we to determine what are the exact intentions of copyright LAWS.

I speak plural again simply because YOU also do it.

The interpretation is as diverse as there is applicable products that adhere to a clear set of rules --International-- in both nature and value to multiple and differently located justice courts.

Bring a case to US judges, you'll be heard on their terms and within the scope of the Laws they're paid to enforce.

Software is distributed planetary wide right off the www pipelines of free-market consuming, to all & the many ****FROM & BY**** a specific source. In our case, StarDock, Plymouth-Michigan-USA.

What copyright laws should they be held onto, in practical terms, business wise for everyone & anyone purchasing their products?

Answer the above question, first. Only then, can we extrapolate what copyrights consideration if any should be changed or altered to suit THEIR customers worldwide.

Je n'irais pas jusqu'à dire qu'il est trop obstiné à propos de toute cette controverse entourant les droits et obligations des fabricants et clients lors des transactions virtuelles, mais il y a certains indices dans son raisonnement suffisamment précis pour affirmer que, selon lui, la gratuité totale des logiciels est préférable aux mesures protectrices habituelles. Piratage affirmé, c'est évident.

Nous avons beau tous essayer de lui faire comprendre l'essentiel par des preuves irréfutables, il persite à tenter d'établir une validité dans son propos. Graphiques, références à des lois générales, tout y passe.

Ça devient simplement futile.

C'est, en fait, une attaque pure et directe aux principes fondamentaux de l'économie industrielle déguisée par des conditions subjectives en spéculant sur la mauvaise gestion présumée du fabricant qui nous concernes.

Risible. Absurde et incohérent.

Ma patience a ses limites, il s'en approche dangeureusement.

As long as my games are fun and worth the money i give to be able to play them, i don't care much about what category someone else wants them to fit in.

I already paid for that right. It's beneficial to me for exactly that amount, no less, maybe more.

@Daiwa

Please don't attempt to re-start a debate we've already beaten to death 6 pages ago.

Let the man speak, pyalot.

We're all waiting for YOUR replies to some extremely easy questions to answer directly.

So, I'm confused.  What exactly is it that you want to happen here? Why are you arguing? Why is it better to start here with Stardock and Brad then anywhere else?  What is the best case scenario for you at the end of this little debate?  Is it that Stardock decides not to let publishers use GOO?  If so, that would not be the best case scenario for me.  If EA had used GOO on Mass Effect I would have bought it. Do you want Stardock to spearhead some kind of popular movement that will overthrow copyright as we know it and replace it with something better(in your opinion)?

What's your angle here?

Then why perpetuate this thread any further?

Internally consistent?

May I point out that I disputed your argument that there is a "right of fair use," and that I still dispute that argument?

Never mind that books are specifically mentioned in the 1790 act. I even quoted a section that included books in Reply #197.

Where are your reading skills?

Frankly, I don't think you've studied the original documents enough to be qualified to tell us what the original authors' intentions were.

It wasn't beaten to death, you ignored it and hoped it would go away. Please answer how shoplifting devices are ethically different from a minimally invasive system to insure a person downloading software actually paid for that software.

I am not convinced. I understand that DRM, or whatever else the industry wants to call it, can be used to help discourage casual piracy but it will never actually stop piracy. As someone who isn't convinced, but is willing to see what happens and see how well a new idea works, it is pretty surprising to see someone in the industry say they would rather just not have non-believers as customers rather than deal with their skeptism. That skeptism has been earned by the industry. And while Stardock distinquishes itself within the industry, you're still in the industry.

Yes, some people will never be convinced, some wish for the days when customers weren't all treated as theives in the making, but there are some of us on the fence, and we're not going to believe it until it's here and works as promised.

You laugh because you're not thinking historically.  Go back to before copyright existed and you have no acknowledged rights as a producer of media.  The concept of stealing an idea is a relatively new one, yet to be accepted world wide on the scale of countries, let alone individuals.

Further, if you rights are manufactured by government, they only exist so long as the government says so, which means you really don't actually have them at all.  Since the current implementation can in no way be construed as representative of a natural right as it has arbitrary, and constantly changing limits, you're shit out of luck on that point.  They're more of a priviledge, on both sides of the equation.

Of course, he's such a shittard he still doesn't have anything else right, even a broken clock has him beat.

Pyalot, not intended to apply to books?  What the fuck???  You were even given a link to the original 1790 copyright.  It says "An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, Charts, And books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned." right at the introduction to the act, and repeats it rather frequently.

At least read the shit before pretending to argue.  You're a goddamned parrot of some previous idiot that said a bunch of incorrect nonsense.  Go to the source, check your facts, and stop wasting so much bandwidth on stupidity.  Save your oral diarrhea for after you've educated yourself.  Then maybe I wont want to kill you for being so similar to my views on the nature of politics and corruption in our legal system.

1. You feel that whatever you say is advanced by explicit language, personal insult and unbased ridicule of whatever argument is brought forward [FAIL]
2. You feel that an argument consist of me typing out reams of reasoning my standpoint and you just demanding fodder for (1) [FAIL]
3. You feel that todays copyright is fair to the public [FAIL]
4. You think DRM and copy protection are neccessary [FAIL]
5. You feel insulted by pointed questions and sharp points of view and use this as an excuse to dismiss it [FAIL]
6. You feel that I should provide details (which I have aplenty) while Stardock gets to keep all the detail on Goo (which I asked for, repeatedly) [FAIL]
7. I say yes and you say no, I say no and you say yes.... [FAIL]
8. You claim I've dismissed points of views because you where not satisfied with my answer you where to lazy to read 6 pages ago [FAIL]
9. You do not realize that the public has the implied right to enjoy the benefit of works entering the public domain after the copyright term expires, and this is put into copyright law for the benefit of the public, on purpose [FAIL]
10. You debase an entire message or line of reasoning because you've found a little detail that's not up to snuff to your pedantic detail fetishism [FAIL]
11. I say yes and you say no, even though you mean yes but you hate my guts [FAIL]
12. You cheer on as corporates destroy our culture [FAIL]
13. You think the law will in time be changed automagically if you just call me a shithead long enough [FAIL]
14. You believe it's not your responsibility to care for the culture you live in and strive to act ethically and make things better [FAIL]
15. You do not read the referenced material carefully and think your statement is somehow not in contradiction with whatever you choose to align yourself with [FAIL]

I would like you to see my last post and answer the question I put to you please.  Thanks.

Stardock DID spearhead some kind of popular movement.

There aren't that many DRM vendors around, I think it's important that this is discussed, that users see that their favorite Game/Company falls into the DRM encumbered corner and that these vendors see that their behavior is controversial at best.

There is no conflict between the announcement of GOO and either of your links there, you are in error.

Answer the above right now, or i'll simply ignore whatever comes next.

Users, Vendors can decide for themselves if DRM (in any shape or form, past - present & future by whomever... EA, Blizzard, MicroSoft, Steam, SD, Joe Schmoes, Yakuza & Mafia, Judges, Lobbying attempts, Government decisions, the list is extremely long, etc.) is, was or will be a good or reasonable solution. You are the controversial source and you have gloriously FAILed to convince me that it isn't.

Good Bye.

EOF.

DRM (Goo) has zero, null, nada zap benefits for the paying customer he couldn't enjoy without DRM (Goo) . Therefore DRM (Goo) is all about pirates. This is a direct contradiction to these following statements made by Brad Wardell

Also you're guilty as charged of points 7, 8, 10 and 15

@Zyxpsilon

Guilty as charged on points 1 trough 15

Good Riddance.

I'm actually quite happy if this new feature comes out, I will have more accesability to my games, if one providers server is down or goes bankrupt, I can get my updates or download from another provider if its is the only one that works at the time, I see this as a major advantage for me.

Yes, kind of like house flooring tiles with asbestos in them. They're fabulous until it's too late.

Guilty as charged point 12

Firstly, I would like to thank you for answering my question somewhat satisfactorily, though I would've liked the broader view, where you would take this after you managed to dissuade Stardock from distributing GOO to publishers.

That aside, Stardock has always used a form of DRM (online activation for updates) and unfortunately for you the Brad Wardell that you seem to think once wanted to destroy DRM in all forms never existed.  Brad likes getting paid.  Everyone likes getting paid.  I like paying the people who make good things for letting me use them.  That means that I like paying Brad and Co. (as long as I get something out of it, sorry Brad no handouts from me).  Stardock includes no copy protection on their disks.  If you want to copy a Stardock disk, go ahead.  There's not check to see if the disk is authentic.  There's no limited online activations.  However, you do need to activate online to get updates, which happen to be rather substantial, to the delight of many who areused to little-to-no after release support on a game.

To be totally honest, I wish things were the way you say they should be, that we wouldn't have to have the disk in the drive to play games, that there would be no online activation.  However, I know that things aren't that way.  I also know that no matter how vehemently or articulately you make your case here on the Stardock forums AGAINST their new DRM, it won't make a difference.  Someone has said you should "write your senator",and that might be a better way to attempt to get something changed, but only if other people joined you.  If you could bring together a large enough portion of people, get them all to write their senators, something would eventually get done, but I digress.  The point is the way to change copyright law isn't here on these forums.  I don't know how anyone would or should go about doing that. The point is that, if you'll excuse my use of an old favorite phrase of mine, you're barking up the wrong tree.  I'm sure you can find kindred spirits here, and elsewhere, but this is perhaps not the best venue to air your concerns in.  If you are determined, then by no means take this post to mean that you should stop and go away, I just want you to know that you have little to no chance of changing anything here.

Also, in the future, when someone starts throwing insults your way, it will help your case if you don't lower yourself to their level, more people will be willing to listen to your arguments.

Thanks for reading, I hope it helps.  (And everyone else, if you read this whole wall of text then all I can say is I am impressed.)