Look, it is best to let sleeping SkyDogs lie.

[Ben E Lou]

Look, people. I am fully aware of the fact that I am more of a letter-of-the-law guy than the vast majority of you, so I really do TRY my best to be understanding. However, when some clown with 3 posts from 2 years ago comes on here and tries to trade a game and I react, it is best to just deal with it. Push me too hard on this, and we'll have letter-of-the-law rules regarding piracy around here. Apparently, many of you don't know (or don't care) that selling or trading games is A DIRECT VIOLATION OF YOUR LICENSE AGREEMENT! I realize that trading is something that is generally accepted, and that's why I hold my breath and don't say anything, but do NOT push me on this.

I appreciate the fact that the complainers have reacted via PM, by the way, but rather than respond to each of you individually, I feel that I need to enlighten many of you publicly on this one, because there's obviously a great deal of ignorance (or lack of integriy, take your pick) out there.


LICENSE CONDITIONS

You agree not to:

(a) Commercially exploit the Software;

(b) Distribute, lease, license, sell, rent or otherwise transfer or assign this Software, or any copies of this Software, without the express prior written consent of LICENSOR
LIMITED LICENSE: You are entitled to download or install, and operate this Software solely for your own personal use, but may not sell or transfer reproductions of the Software or Documentation to other parties in any way.
LIMITED LICENSE: You are entitled to download or install, and operate this Software solely for your own personal use, but may not sell or transfer reproductions of the Software or Documentation to other parties in any way. You may download or install, and operate one copy of the Software on a single terminal connected to a single computer. You may not network the Software or otherwise use it on more than one computer or computer terminal at the same time. I could list others, but y'all get the point. Basically, SOME companies allow transferring and/or selling of licenses only with direct written consent, while most, it appears, disallow it completely.

So, try this crap with a text sim around here, particularly ones by two guys I happen to like and respect like Arlie and Jim, then you WILL get punished harshly, no "ifs", "ands", or "buts" about it.

And I'm serious, keep pushing me on my "inconsistency" on this, and you will get what you're asking for: 100% consistency on the matter, and the line will be drawn in accordance with the EULA that you people have agreed to.

If this doesn't apply to you, then sorry for the rant.

--Ben

[Airhog]

Those last two quotes ben, say you may not sell, copy, or transfer a reproduction of the game. They make no mention of the original game FWIW.

I think that first was is more murky IMHO.

Not trying to bust your balls or anything, just wanted to point that out.

[Joe]

the Dog has layeth the smacketh down!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

I get the feeling I missed something somewhere.
That said, I'm now confused.

The Civ4 one I agree is very plain. Basically, you can't sell that one period according to the agreement.

But that's not how I read the other two.
Those seem to refer to "reproductions", not to the originals. I.E. don't copy the games/manuals & sell the bootlegs. But I don't see anything in what you quoted that restricts getting rid of a game you don't want anymore.

To be clear, I'm not commenting on board policy or anything -- I'm just taking advantage of the subject that's come up to figure out if I'm reading something wrong here or what, not as it relates to the board but as it relates to the games.

[Ben E Lou]

I am angry, and I copied the wrong sections of the last two.

from Civ3:
[quote]OWNERSHIP; COPYRIGHT: Title to the Software and the Documentation, and patents, copyrights and all other property rights applicable thereto, shall at all times remain solely and exclusively with Infogrames Interactive and its licensors, and You shall not take any action inconsistent with such title. The Software and the Documentation are protected by United States, Canadian and other applicable laws and by international treaty provisions. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved to Infogrames Interactive and its licensors.
OTHER RESTRICTIONS: You may not cause or permit the disclosure, copying, renting, licensing, sublicensing, leasing, dissemination or other distribution of the Software or the Documentation by any means or in any form, without the prior written consent of Infogrames Interactive. You may not modify, enhance, supplement, create derivative work from, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to human readable form.
quote]Y'all get the idea.

[Raiders Army]

I didn't know it was a violation of the license agreement to trade or sell games. I thought it would've been okay to do that since EB Games does it all the time. Then again, I never read the License Agreement; I just hit I AGREE and NEXT. *shrug*

Learn something new every day.

[Airhog]

I think the real issue is that it was a game made by one of our developers. We have a game trading thread and that isn't a problem is it?

[panerd]

I don't care at all that you locked the guy's post and had no intention on PMing you about it either. But I think you are misinterpreting something if you don't think you can trade or resell something you own. And if this is true then the software industry had pulled a major coup that no other industry I am aware of has established. Imagine if I couldn't sell my house or my car or my lamps!

[GreenMonster]

FOFC - Educating Morons Daily

[GreenMonster]

I think the real issue is that it was a game made by one of our developers. We have a game trading thread and that isn't a problem is it?

dola, is it because its listed under non FOF stuff...

[Ben E Lou]

the software industry had pulled a major coup that no other industry I am aware of has established. Imagine if I couldn't sell my house or my car or my lamps!Your reaction, I would think, would be why they would never prosecute individuals for doing it, but that still doesn't make it right by any means.

[Ben E Lou]

I think the real issue is that it was a game made by one of our developers. We have a game trading thread and that isn't a problem is it?...and I said this privately to several people. Make no mistake about it, I am pretty uncomfortable with having that thread, but I really am trying to be understanding about the matter.

[Ben E Lou]

I get the feeling I missed something somewhere.http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=44968

[Barkeep49]

I'm confused about this as a legal issue. If this is true, how does Gamestop have a viable business off of this and how is it that ebay hasn't been slammed by the game makers? I'm not trying to pick a fight here. While I couldn't see the game makers going after an average gamer, these are businesses which can hardly be called small which are making profits off of this.

[Airhog]

I didn't know it was a violation of the license agreement to trade or sell games. I thought it would've been okay to do that since EB Games does it all the time. Then again, I never read the License Agreement; I just hit I AGREE and NEXT. *shrug*


Maybe someone with a background in law could anwser this better than I. But is it legal for a company to sell you a product with a restriction that you cannot sell that item? Is it possible that software companies put that in there, but they have no legal means to do anything about it and if they did do something about it, they might lose in court?

If this law was really followed, it would illegal to simply buy someone a game for christmas or their birthday.

Now I do admit that it easier to reproduce electronic media, so it stands to reason that somone could buy the software, make a copy, and sell the original. I think the spirt of the intention is to stop that.

[Shepp]

Just because a lawyer sticks a stipulation in a licensing agreement doesn't mean that it would hold up in a civil hearing.

If someone is selling/trading bootleg copies of software that is clearly illegal.
However, if some one sells/trades software without retaining any copy of that software for their continued use, I can't see how there would be anything wrong with that.

It would be like saying once I purchase a book I cannot sell or trade that book.

[Ben E Lou]

Just because a lawyer sticks a stipulation in a licensing agreement doesn't mean that it would hold up in a civil hearing.But here's the kicker. As the purchaser, you agreed to it.

[BrianD]

But here's the kicker. As the purchaser, you agreed to it.

Actually, I don't think that is true since it isn't part of the purchase contract. If they made you agree to the license before they sold you the game, it would have a little more weight. Having the license inside the box where you can't see it until after you've made the purchase makes it not part of the original purchase contract.

[Draft Dodger]

I'm confused about this as a legal issue. If this is true, how does Gamestop have a viable business off of this and how is it that ebay hasn't been slammed by the game makers? I'm not trying to pick a fight here. While I couldn't see the game makers going after an average gamer, these are businesses which can hardly be called small which are making profits off of this.

I actually think this is going to be the "next big thing" - game makers fighting back against the used game market. I think they have reluctantly been quiet on this for a while, but as the used game market increases, cutting into profits, you are going to see more game makers sneak in stuff like the CivIV license.

I believe it was Best Buy who announced they'd be expanding into the used game market, and that got quite a bit of grumbling from the game companies - they spend a lot of money to market, develop and distribute these game, and then get nothing when Best Buy buys and sells a used game. Now, personally, I don't think the EULA like the CivIV one is going to amount to more than a hill of beans, but, make no mistake, game developers WILL find a way to try to either a) cut down on the sale of used games or b) negotiate to get a piece of the used sale pie.

Personally, I find it hard to understand why game companies (and the RIAA for that matter) works so hard to try to stop piracy, but have been pretty ineffective at eliminating the used game/CD market, which probably amounts for a much more significant (and tangible) loss in revenue.

[Draft Dodger]

But here's the kicker. As the purchaser, you agreed to it.

don't get worked up over EULAs - they usually don't stand up in court.

[cody8200]

One note: Arles and co had a trading part of their forum at 400 sports for about 3 years where you could trade games. He sure didn't seem to mind as long as both liscenses were traded away.

[Barkeep49]

DD thanks for the background.

I think these liscense just go to show again that copyright laws have gone too far in protecting the companies rights rather than society's rights to innovations. I am scrupulous about following copyright, and have been for years, but this is just rediculous.

[Tekneek]

I wonder if some of these very restrictive EULAs would not stand up under legal scrutiny. Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you agree to something or not. If the clause is found to be illegal, you are not bound by it.

EDIT... Draft Dodger was thinking the same sort of thing.

[Crapshoot]

But here's the kicker. As the purchaser, you agreed to it.

Ben, FWIW, you may agree to something that's illegal - by definition, if it won't hold up in court, the agreement is null and void. I fail to see the crime here at all - this isn't even a fair use thing - rather, its trading a good you've purchased for another good. As long as you aren't doing the split license thing (which is blatantly illegal), its not a problem. As I mentioned- the buy every game you want option is fine for people who are earning money, but trading is a reasonable option for any smaller budget. Arlie and Jim are not entitled to protection above and beyond any other producer - and this board stopped being a FOF board a long time ago.

[DanGarion]

I am angry, and I copied the wrong sections of the last two.

from Civ3:

OTHER RESTRICTIONS: You may not cause or permit the disclosure, copying, renting, licensing, sublicensing, leasing, dissemination or other distribution of the Software or the Documentation by any means or in any form, without the prior written consent of Infogrames Interactive. You may not modify, enhance, supplement, create derivative work from, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to human readable form.
Y'all get the idea.

Of course if you read that correctly I guess we should be more stern regarding creating modifications for games.

[Shepp]

How many people actually read and comprehend these software licensing agreements?

If every civil agreement was proper and completely binding there would be quite a few unemployed attorneys out there.

[DanGarion]

Not to mention... A number of people her talk and post stories from other websites, talk about sports, etc. Do we contact the MLB or the owner before we post them now?

Taken directly from the MLB website.

The Website is owned by MLB Advanced Media, L.P. ("MLBAM"). All materials distributed in the Website (the "Materials") are either owned by or licensed to MLBAM. MLBAM and its licensors retain all proprietary rights to the Materials. Except for downloading one copy of the Materials on any single computer for your personal, non-commercial home use, you must not reproduce, prepare derivative works based upon, distribute, perform or display the Materials without first obtaining the written permission of MLBAM. Materials must not be used in any unauthorized manner.

[BrianD]

Doing a little research I found the "First Sale Doctrine" which is an exception to Copyright law allowing the purchaser to transfer (sell, give away) a legally obtained copy of protected work without permission. According to the doctrine, this exception does not extend to recorded music or computer software.

US Copyright case law has held that consumers cannot make copies of the software, but they may resell what they own. Basically, the legallity of this issue is not certain.

http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine

[Tekneek]

Of course if you read that correctly I guess we should be more stern regarding creating modifications for games.

Based on my recollection of SI's EULA, some of the editors and such that you can download from their website, or from their 'affiliates' would seem to be violations as well. It seems that most developers try to take a 'common sense' approach to this matter and don't mind allowing things that enhance the product...as long as it doesn't help people steal the product.

[Barkeep49]

Not to mention... A number of people her talk and post stories from other websites, talk about sports, etc. Do we contact the MLB or the owner before we post them now?

Taken directly from the MLB website.
Facts are different, so we can discuss what happened in the football game without anyone's permission. Posting excerpts are different. Posting the full length stories is technically a violation of copyright law.

[cody8200]

Based on my recollection of SI's EULA, some of the editors and such that you can download from their website, or from their 'affiliates' would seem to be violations as well. It seems that most developers try to take a 'common sense' approach to this matter and don't mind allowing things that enhance the product...as long as it doesn't help people steal the product.

Thats because mods usually enhance interest in their products and lead to more sales.

[Ben E Lou]

How many people actually read and comprehend these software licensing agreements?That doesn't make it right, even beyond the legal aspect.

[DanGarion]

Facts are different, so we can discuss what happened in the football game without anyone's permission. Posting excerpts are different. Posting the full length stories is technically a violation of copyright law.
So we need to start policing the forums for full length stories being posted.

[Barkeep49]

So we need to start policing the forums for full length stories being posted.
I think that's one of the things SkyDog was referring to when he says that he tries to be tolerant of people who aren't quite as by the book as he is.

[Ben E Lou]

Ben, FWIW, you may agree to something that's illegal - by definition, if it won't hold up in court, the agreement is null and void. That's not the point. If I agree to it, I'm going to try my best to stick to it. Period.

[Ben E Lou]

So we need to start policing the forums for full length stories being posted.You're walking on thin ice here, my friend. You have no idea how many things that happen on this forum that bother me every time I see them. Like I said from the start, if I get pushed too far on this--I know myself all too well--we'll be obeying the letter of the law on that stuff, too.

[Tekneek]

If developers don't want people re-selling/trading their product, develop/produce something that people want to keep forever. Don't use creative legal maneuvers to make up for the fact that you produced a game that does not have sufficient "re-playability" or at least establishes a "loyalty" with the customer that makes them want to hold onto it.

If people are trading/selling too many of your games (in your opinion), find out why they don't want to keep your game and try to improve that area for future releases.

[sabotai]

If this law was really followed, it would illegal to simply buy someone a game for christmas or their birthday.
The EULA does not apply to the buyer of the game, it applies to the installer of the game. IOW, if you bought a game for someone for their birthday, since you never installed the game on your computer (or opened the box), the EULA does not apply to you. It only applies to the person installing the game on their computer.

[DanGarion]

You're walking on thin ice here, my friend. You have no idea how many things that happen on this forum that bother me every time I see them. Like I said from the start, if I get pushed too far on this--I know myself all too well--we'll be obeying the letter of the law on that stuff, too.
Ben,

I fully respect what you do on these boards. I've been in your situation for well over 5 years with my own websites and message boards I run. I was just playing devil's advocate. I could see that if the developer of either of the games contacted you about it you would lock the thread, but I didn't see any harm in the initial post, nor reasoning for why he was banned. Either way, I'm done discussing it.

[TroyF]

...and I said this privately to several people. Make no mistake about it, I am pretty uncomfortable with having that thread, but I really am trying to be understanding about the matter.


oh, the heck with it. NO need to raise SD's blood pressure.

I think there have been FAR worse problems on this board not dealt with than this and I like Skydog and have always been supportive of him.

We'll just agree to disagree.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ebay currently has used copies of Civilization IV on it. A ton of em actually. I would think their lawyers would be aware of what is and isn't legal.

IMO, you're confusing what's "legal" with what's generally "ignored".

You can usually find promo copies (i.e. radio station copies) of music on eBay too, but selling those is highly illegal (and has been prosecuted on at least a few occasions over the years).

[JonInMiddleGA]

So we need to start policing the forums for full length stories being posted.

This is the one copyright violation that I'm pretty regularly guilty of, and yeah, it probably should be policed more stringently here than it is. I've been a part of at least two forums that did get "lawyer letters" about it & they were both smaller than FOFC. (Luckily/happily, I wasn't the cause of the letters, I used to be a lot more particular about posting full stories than I've been for the past year or so).

[Rizon]

I hope I'm not violating any copyright law by posting this


Copyright Law of the United States of America
Chapter 1
Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright
§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. — Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if —

(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and

(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.

(d) Definitions. — For purposes of this section —

(1) the “maintenance” of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and

(2) the “repair” of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.

[BishopMVP]

I actually think this is going to be the "next big thing" - game makers fighting back against the used game market. I think they have reluctantly been quiet on this for a while, but as the used game market increases, cutting into profits, you are going to see more game makers sneak in stuff like the CivIV license.

I believe it was Best Buy who announced they'd be expanding into the used game market, and that got quite a bit of grumbling from the game companies - they spend a lot of money to market, develop and distribute these game, and then get nothing when Best Buy buys and sells a used game. Now, personally, I don't think the EULA like the CivIV one is going to amount to more than a hill of beans, but, make no mistake, game developers WILL find a way to try to either a) cut down on the sale of used games or b) negotiate to get a piece of the used sale pie.

Personally, I find it hard to understand why game companies (and the RIAA for that matter) works so hard to try to stop piracy, but have been pretty ineffective at eliminating the used game/CD market, which probably amounts for a much more significant (and tangible) loss in revenue.I doubt they'll be effective. Textbook publishing companies have been trying to combat the re-selling of textbooks for years and the best solution is to come out with a different new edition every year. I don't see why softwarre companies would be any different legally, EULAs or not.

[Buccaneer]

Rizon, no, what you posted is a matter of public record and freely available under the Freedom of Information Act.

[Honolulu Blue]

I know the Dawg didn't ask me, but I'm more concerned about the posting of full articles than the selling/trading of games.

IMO, if you have the CD/DVD, the license, and all the materials from a game, you should be able to dispose them as you want - including selling - as long as the game is unlicensed from all places it was installed and there are no traces left. Online distributed games are another story, one which I haven't thought through thoroughly.

You can use small excerprts/quotations from any written material under the "Fair Use" exception to copyright law. I always do that and add a link to the original article or Web site whenever I find an article of interest.

The one exception is press releases - those are written to be distributed widely, so I have no qualms about using them in their entirety.

[Maple Leafs]

Of course if you read that correctly I guess we should be more stern regarding creating modifications for games.
I'm really going to miss primelord and his real player files once he's banned.

[clintl]

Doing a little research I found the "First Sale Doctrine" which is an exception to Copyright law allowing the purchaser to transfer (sell, give away) a legally obtained copy of protected work without permission. According to the doctrine, this exception does not extend to recorded music or computer software.

US Copyright case law has held that consumers cannot make copies of the software, but they may resell what they own. Basically, the legallity of this issue is not certain.

http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine

It seems logical that the First Sale Doctrine, which is firmly and indisputably established in copyright law, should govern computer games just as it governs books and CDs. I'm not sure that EULAs could be legally used to get around this. There are all kinds of legally unenforceable provisions corporations write into agreements. But it would probably take a lawyer specializing in copyright law to give a definitive answer.

[Ben E Lou]

Geez. Did the jbmagic-I-don't-pay-attention-to-what-I-read virus infect all of you today????

THE ISSUE I HAVE IS NOT WITH THE LEGALITY. IT IS WITH AGREEING TO THE EULA, AND THEN VIOLATING IT!!! It shows a stunning lack of integrity. How difficult is that to comprehend? You are not going to persuade me differently. By continuing to argue over it, joke about it, or anything else, you will only be increasing the odds that I'll be convicted enough about it to act. Read the thread title, people. JUST TRUST ME when I say that it is best for your enjoyment of FOFC that I am able to continue to quietly ignore the things that disturb me.

[Maple Leafs]

I work for a software company and am about as "by the book" on copyright issues as any around here, but this seems like a gross over-reaction to me. Even if you want to argue that software EULAs are legally enforcable (shaky ground) or that there's some sort of bigger moral issue at play (even shakier), was it really necessary to ban the guy who posted the original thread?

Lock the thread if you want, lecture the masses if you feel the need, but to ban a guy for doing something that 99% of software users wouldn't realize was even a problem? Wouldn't a warning have been enough?

[Rizon]

I found a newspaper article from 1999 that states you can sell used software. But this is a ... newspaper article ... from 1999 ... with no facts backing it up.

Or we can avoid a whole debate about it and someone can call the SIIA Anti-Priacy hotline and ask them (I think they would be the right people?):

1-800-388-7478

SIIA Anti-Piracy FAQ:

hxxp://www.spa.org/piracy/faq.asp#Usage

[BrianD]

It seems logical that the First Sale Doctrine, which is firmly and indisputably established in copyright law, should govern computer games just as it governs books and CDs. I'm not sure that EULAs could be legally used to get around this. There are all kinds of legally unenforceable provisions corporations write into agreements. But it would probably take a lawyer specializing in copyright law to give a definitive answer.

Computer programs are written in as not being covered by the First Sale Doctrine, but it looks like that applies only to rentals, leases, and lending. I see nothing that prohibits the outright sale of the computer program.

Link to Cornell Law site.
http://tinyurl.com/7h7vn

[Galaxy]

How do you agree to a license when it is inside the box, and after you buy it? It's not as you can return the game for your money back (at most stores you can't)?

[Joe]

So I'm assuming that I can sell a game that I've purchased but not yet installed on any computer?

[DanGarion]

How do you agree to a license when it is inside the box, and after you buy it? It's not as you can return the game for your money back (at most stores you can't)?
That is one of the issues that Microsoft ran into when they tried to sue a college student for reselling his software. They lost and were required to pay him back what he paid for the software.

[Bad-example]

Skydog = one ornery bastage when SWMBO is out of town. :)

[NoMyths]

((SkyDog = Dictator) > Never) < Always

[DanGarion]

Does anyone have copies of the FOF and TPF license agreements handy?

[Maple Leafs]

It's not unusual to find software EULAs that are quite impossible to follow to the strict letter, because they contradict themselves and/or suggest some sort of remedy that is not allowed (such as returning the software for a full refund if you don't accept the agreement, which retail stores will not allow).

Seems like an extreme leap to try to make this out to be an issue of integrity.

[Joe]

Skydog = one ornery bastage when SWMBO is out of town. :)

just imagine what he'll be like once the Dawgs lose today


;)

[panerd]

Does the thread title imply that Skydog is really just making all of this stuff up? :D

[Deattribution]

People keep saying 'EB games does it why can't we' EB games only resells pre-used console games - console games aren't saved to your system so that copy you 'trade' isn't left behind for you to use.

Civilization was kind of a shit example - last I checked FOF5 doesn't come on cd, and I think TPF *might* have, but you still had to use a license. Digital software would be so easy to rip someone off on when trading - 'oops I forgot to unlicensed it' and then never answer the person back. Then whoever got ripped off here comes and makes a fuss about it, or messages skydog and says this guy ripped me off. There's no proof of 'shipping', or any other physical material.

Not to mention some digitally licensed games come with multiple license - so if you allowed one trade - then when someone playing a game with multiple license decided to come here and trade his game (but keep one license for himself) for a game with a single license - youre getting into a whole different kind of mess.

Say what you want, but some of you guys are just being assholes over this.

[albionmoonlight]

It seems logical that the First Sale Doctrine, which is firmly and indisputably established in copyright law, should govern computer games just as it governs books and CDs. I'm not sure that EULAs could be legally used to get around this. There are all kinds of legally unenforceable provisions corporations write into agreements. But it would probably take a lawyer specializing in copyright law to give a definitive answer.
We are confusing two concepts during this whole discussion. Whether something is a crime, and whether something is a breech of contract. Both are "illegal" in a sense, but they are two different things.

A lot of times they overlap, because we have used the criminal law to enforce concepts that are also reflected in the civil law. Let's say that I contract with you to sell you my car for $1,000. And you then accept delivery of my car, and never had the intention to pay me. In that case, you are liable to me for breech of contract AND guilty of the crime of theft/fraud. I could sue you in court on Monday for $1,000, and the government could prosecute you on Tuesday for theft and put you in jail, fine you, etc.

Let's say, though, that I pay you $50 in exchange for your promise not to see the new Harry Potter movie. There is (I hope clearly) no law against going see the new Harry Potter movie. It is not a crime. But if I find out that you do it, I can still sue you for breech of contract.

In this case, one can argue that selling my used copy of CIV4 is not a crime. It looks (though I am no expert) that there is an exception in copyright law that means that selling a used copy of a game is not a crime.

You may still, however, be in breech of contract. The CIV4 guys could sue you, and you will be liable to them for damages (computed perhaps as the money they lost by not being able to sell a new copy of the game.) Of course, lawyers like me don't come cheap (actually, lawyers like me do. But good lawyers don't). So you can breech your contract with practical impunity because it does not make sense to come after you. But if you start a business re-selling games, then you may be liable for the tort of tortious interference with contract (facilitating the breech of a third party contract). And if you do enough business, it may be worth taking you to court to shut you down.

So, in short, reselling games may or may not be a crime. The EULA does not speak to that. It is, however, a breech of contract, which is a different animal. And what SkyDog feels comfortable allowing on this forum as moderator is his business. Though he does not need me to tell him that.

(NOTE: Some people in this thread have noted that the law tends to disfavor contractual provisions that prevent the resale of property (if you go to one of those expensive lawyers, he will call it a restraint on alienability). Accordingly, these EULAs may not be enforcable. The discussion above was premised on the fact that a court would hold that the EULA was enforcable).

[sabotai]

This is the one copyright violation that I'm pretty regularly guilty of
*looks up Jon's opinion of copyright violators in the music piracy threads*

Damn....you have got a lot of punishment to hand out to yourself and you must not have a high opinion of your parent's skills at parenting. ;)

[clintl]

I don't have any problem with SkyDog establishing a "No trading used games" policy on FOFC. I was just saying that it's questionable whether this particular provision of the EULAs is legally enforceable, and pointed out that there are lots of things placed in contracts that are not legally enforceable because they contradict established law.

[Draft Dodger]

It's not unusual to find software EULAs that are quite impossible to follow to the strict letter, because they contradict themselves and/or suggest some sort of remedy that is not allowed (such as returning the software for a full refund if you don't accept the agreement, which retail stores will not allow).

Seems like an extreme leap to try to make this out to be an issue of integrity.

an example (sorry for the Caps - it's a direct copy and paste from the EULA).


BY OPENING THE SHRINK-WRAPPED PACKAGE CONTAINING THE SOFTWARE, OR BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND YOU ARE THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF THE SOFTWARE, PROMPTLY RETURN THE SOFTWARE (INCLUDING PRINTED MATERIALS) TO SOLECISMIC SOFTWARE FOR A FULL REFUND.


We can non accept returns once the shrink-wrap is broken


I am not singling out Jim, as his is a pretty typical EULA. It just happened to be handy next to my computer, and probably more pertinent than any other title here. But this is why EULAs are under so much fire - we're not just agreeing to an contract we aren't reading because it's legalese, we are tacitly agreeing to a contract we haven't even seen, with no way to opt out.

Actually, there are much more crazy ones out there - like the ones prohibiting you from releasing benchmarks of the software, or the ones that state that you agree to any future changes that the developer wants to put in the EULA.

and, just so that we are all on the same page:

You may transfer your rights under this agreement, provided you transfer this license, the software, and all printed materials, retaining no copies.


FOF4 is not an elicense game. I do not have 2k4, so perhaps that EULA is different, but I know that that same language is in other elicense EULAs (OOTP, for example).

for the record, I have no issue with closing the thread, and no issue with rules against trading fof software. But lets just call that a personal decision and not rely on a some Quixote-like EULA crusade to justify the decision.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Damn....you have got a lot of punishment to hand out to yourself and you must not have a high opinion of your parent's skills at parenting. ;)

I'll give you the first half (and I do beat myself up about it fairly often), but on the latter half, my child isn't posting them nor is he aware that I'm posting them, so I kinda get a break on that part.

(Yes, I saw the smiley face you added, but it's actually quite a valid question all kidding aside)

[Raiders Army]

People keep saying 'EB games does it why can't we' EB games only resells pre-used console games - console games aren't saved to your system so that copy you 'trade' isn't left behind for you to use.
I don't know about your EB Games, but every one that I've been to across the country sells used PC Games as well as console games.

[Draft Dodger]

I don't know about your EB Games, but every one that I've been to across the country sells used PC Games as well as console games.

you are correct. EB absolutely sells used PC games.

here's an article about Best Buy testing the used games and the game industry getting a little pissed. I'd post the whole thing here, but, well, you know... :D

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/30/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/

[BrianD]

We are confusing two concepts during this whole discussion. Whether something is a crime, and whether something is a breech of contract. Both are "illegal" in a sense, but they are two different things.

[arguement snipped]

So, in short, reselling games may or may not be a crime. The EULA does not speak to that. It is, however, a breech of contract, which is a different animal. And what SkyDog feels comfortable allowing on this forum as moderator is his business. Though he does not need me to tell him that.

(NOTE: Some people in this thread have noted that the law tends to disfavor contractual provisions that prevent the resale of property (if you go to one of those expensive lawyers, he will call it a restraint on alienability). Accordingly, these EULAs may not be enforcable. The discussion above was premised on the fact that a court would hold that the EULA was enforcable).

The purpose of a EULA is to change the terms of software acquisition from a "sale" to a "license agreement". If the terms can be successfully (legally) changed to a "license agreement" rather than a "sale", then people would be bound by the EULA and the resale of a program would be illegal (or at least a breach of contract). If the terms cannot be changed, then purchasers are entitled to all the rights under the First Sale Doctrine, no matter what the EULA says.

The question of enforceability of EULAs is not in the specific terms of the EULA, but whether the terms of acquisition of software can be changed from a sale to a license agreement. This has been decided in both ways by the courts, and there has never been a definite opinion passed by the higher courts.

Until the higher courts make a decision, there is no right or wrong answer on this debate.

[DanGarion]

EULA from TPF
You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this license agreement provided you retain no copies and the recipient agrees to the terms of this license agreement. If the Software is an upgrade, any transfer must include the upgrade and all prior versions. Total Pro Football and accompanying documentation are provided "as-is" without warranty of any kind. The entire risk as to the results and performance of the Software is assumed by you. .400 Software Studios will not be liable for any special, incidental, consequential, indirect, or similar damages.

[dubb93]

I found a newspaper article from 1999 that states you can sell used software. But this is a ... newspaper article ... from 1999 ... with no facts backing it up.

Or we can avoid a whole debate about it and someone can call the SIIA Anti-Priacy hotline and ask them (I think they would be the right people?):

1-800-388-7478

SIIA Anti-Piracy FAQ:

hxxp://www.spa.org/piracy/faq.asp#Usage

I called it, but they are only open monday-friday 9-5. So it isn't much help on a saturday.

[wade moore]

I'll give you the first half (and I do beat myself up about it fairly often), but on the latter half, my child isn't posting them nor is he aware that I'm posting them, so I kinda get a break on that part.

(Yes, I saw the smiley face you added, but it's actually quite a valid question all kidding aside)
Just to be a stickler..

He said your parent's parenting skills, not yours... you know, for making you such an evil law breaker and what not ;)...

[TargetPractice6]

People keep saying 'EB games does it why can't we' EB games only resells pre-used console games - console games aren't saved to your system so that copy you 'trade' isn't left behind for you to use.

Civilization was kind of a shit example - last I checked FOF5 doesn't come on cd, and I think TPF *might* have, but you still had to use a license. Digital software would be so easy to rip someone off on when trading - 'oops I forgot to unlicensed it' and then never answer the person back. Then whoever got ripped off here comes and makes a fuss about it, or messages skydog and says this guy ripped me off. There's no proof of 'shipping', or any other physical material.

Not to mention some digitally licensed games come with multiple license - so if you allowed one trade - then when someone playing a game with multiple license decided to come here and trade his game (but keep one license for himself) for a game with a single license - youre getting into a whole different kind of mess.

Say what you want, but some of you guys are just being assholes over this.Somebody should have told EB they only seel used console games when they sold me that pre-owned copy of Rise of Nations (and subsequently allowed me to sell it back).

[Deattribution]

I don't know about your EB Games, but every one that I've been to across the country sells used PC Games as well as console games.

They don't online.

And the majority of the time I go to the store - it's to buy something that just came out , so that's my error concerning the stores.

Still doesn't really matter, the point was in the latter of the message, not the beginning anyway.

[Rizon]

I called it, but they are only open monday-friday 9-5. So it isn't much help on a saturday.

Then it must be ok to pirate stuff on weekends. I'm going to go download a pirated copy of the original Sim City now.

[Airhog]

So, if both EULA's from TPF and FOF allow you to sell your game to someone else, why was he banned in the first place?

[Rizon]

The purpose of a EULA is to change the terms of software acquisition from a "sale" to a "license agreement". If the terms can be successfully (legally) changed to a "license agreement" rather than a "sale", then people would be bound by the EULA and the resale of a program would be illegal (or at least a breach of contract). If the terms cannot be changed, then purchasers are entitled to all the rights under the First Sale Doctrine, no matter what the EULA says.

The question of enforceability of EULAs is not in the specific terms of the EULA, but whether the terms of acquisition of software can be changed from a sale to a license agreement. This has been decided in both ways by the courts, and there has never been a definite opinion passed by the higher courts.

Until the higher courts make a decision, there is no right or wrong answer on this debate.


This would be interesting, can you charge sales tax on software license agreements? My receipt for FOF is in two places 1) In a box buried behind 50 boxes of my wife's junk in the closet 2) On my other computer which isn't hooked up anymore, so I can't really get to it, but I'd be curious to see if I was charged sales tax.

According to the change in sales tax in California in 2002:

Software Purchases and Software License Agreements
Software can be purchased outright. Software also can be acquired via a software license agreement that, depending on agreement terms, is considered to be a purchase or a lease. In general the same rules apply to software purchases and software license agreements.

Custom software and license agreements are not taxable. Custom software is a computer program created and tailored specifically for a customer. This also includes modifications of canned software at a charge of 50% or more over its original purchase price.

Canned software and license agreements are taxable if delivered via tangible media, such as diskette or cd-rom. Canned software is not taxable if delivered electronically or loaded by the vendor. Canned software is a pre-written program developed for general or repeated sale or lease.

[TargetPractice6]

So, if both EULA's from TPF and FOF allow you to sell your game to someone else, why was he banned in the first place?Because he lacks integrity!

[Schmidty]

They don't online.

And the majority of the time I go to the store - it's to buy something that just came out , so that's my error concerning the stores.

Still doesn't really matter, the point was in the latter of the message, not the beginning anyway.

Actually, EB was recently purchashed by Gamestop, and no longer accepts PC trade-ins. Once their current stock of used PC games is gone, they won't be sold anymore.

I know this because I tried trading in a game a couple of weeks ago, and was informed of the new company-wide policies.

[dubb93]

Then it must be ok to pirate stuff on weekends. I'm going to go download a pirated copy of the original Sim City now.

:mad: , quit taking what I said and turning it into something else. I simply meant they weren't open today. BTW I agree with Skydog's decision on this. While many of his decisions piss me off, he runs this board and if he doesn't want someone trading the license of his friend's games that they make a living off of I see no problem with it. If someone was selling one of my friends music CD's instead of buying it off of them I would be upset too. And if I could stop it I would. There are other places to attempt to trade TPF for FOF if he desires, if Skydog doesn't want him doing it here then it doesn't happen here.

I will call that number on Monday tho, b/c I'm interested in the wording of the Civ. IV EULA agreement.

[GrantDawg]

Actually, EB was recently purchashed by Gamestop, and no longer accepts PC trade-ins. Once their current stock of used PC games is gone, they won't be any sold anymore.

I know this because I tried trading in a game a couple of weeks ago, and was informed of the new company-wide policies.
But that has less to do with legal matters and more to do with money. Gamestop's computer section is ever shrinking. There will probably be a time soon when you'll be lucky to find any software at Gamestop.

[Schmidty]

But that has less to do with legal matters and more to do with money. Gamestop's computer section is ever shrinking.

I'm not sure about that. I emailed EB about it, since I was confused about the fact that console games were still able to be traded in, but not PC games. This is the response I receieved:

Hello Jason,

Thank you for contacting EBgames.com. Actually, our EBgames stores were
not supposed to accept PC games as trade-ins for a few years now. Its
mainly due the fact that most PC games require the CD Key to install on
a PC. Once its registered, the same CD-Key can't be loaded into a
second
PC. This prevents multiple computers having to play the same game
without having to purchase multiple games. And most PC developers don't
offer a transferable registration clause that will allow users to
transfer ownership of the game.

We apologize if you do not agree with our policy and hope that you
continue to shop with EBgames. If you have any other questions, please
feel free to respond to this email. You can also give us a call at
877-432-9675, 7 days a week from 8 am to Midnight Eastern Standard
Time.

Sincerely,
Rey
Senior Sales Associate
EBgames.com

[GrantDawg]

I'm not sure about that. I emailed EB about it, since I was confused about the fact that console games were still able to be traded in, but not PC games. This is the response I receieved:

It doesn't change the fact if there was money in it, they wouldn't care. Plus, they are moving software out of their stores.

[BrianD]

This would be interesting, can you charge sales tax on software license agreements? My receipt for FOF is in two places 1) In a box buried behind 50 boxes of my wife's junk in the closet 2) On my other computer which isn't hooked up anymore, so I can't really get to it, but I'd be curious to see if I was charged sales tax.

According to the stuff you quoted, you can charge sales tax (in California) if there is physical media. You can't on a game you purchase and then download. Most online purchases don't include sales tax unless the store is located (for tax purposes) in the same state as the purchaser.

[BrianD]

It doesn't change the fact if there was money in it, they wouldn't care. Plus, they are moving software out of their stores.

They have to care since many of the games they are reselling are unusable without a new CD key.

[Antmeister]

Damn....after reading this thread, I feel like a swashbuckling software pirate. I have been using EbGames for years to trade in my old games.

And when I moved to Phoenix, there is this store out here called Bookman's that trades books, videos, and games. I have traded for a lot of my older games to get some newer one there and never thought that I was a morally corrupt individual because I didn't abide by a EULA agreement, but I guess I have been wrong.

Both of these games are electronically distributed and if you really want to support the developer, you might as well pay for it since especially if you want to see the game further developed.

I have mixed feelings about what the guy posted, because he seemed to want to do a straight up trade. No one seemed to be gaining a profit off this transaction. I didn't think the guy deserved a banning, but I don't know how I would feel if my wife was away from town and some girl was hitting on me leaving me with a concerned feeling. :D

Sure I know SkyDog is focusing on the integrity of the whole thing and has bit through his tongue on many occasions, but don't take it out on one guy. You will probably be surprised on how many agreements you have already broken when it comes to other things in your life without even realizing it.

[Maple Leafs]

So, if both EULA's from TPF and FOF allow you to sell your game to someone else, why was he banned in the first place?
As best I can tell, because his post violated the Civ III EULA.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just to be a stickler..

He said your parent's parenting skills, not yours... you know, for making you such an evil law breaker and what not ;)...

My bad, 'cause I did misread that last sentence.

[Airhog]

As best I can tell, because his post violated the Civ III EULA.

None of his posts made any mention of Civ3. He just wanted to trade TPF for FOF5. Now I have no idea what took place in PM's and if Civ3 was involved.

[DanGarion]

None of his posts made any mention of Civ3. He just wanted to trade TPF for FOF5. Now I have no idea what took place in PM's and if Civ3 was involved.
Sarcasim is lost on the internets.

[Antmeister]

Sarcasim is lost on the internets.

lol

[Airhog]

Sarcasim is lost on the internets.

You know, looking back on that, it totally went over my head

[Axxon]

It's not unusual to find software EULAs that are quite impossible to follow to the strict letter, because they contradict themselves and/or suggest some sort of remedy that is not allowed (such as returning the software for a full refund if you don't accept the agreement, which retail stores will not allow).

Seems like an extreme leap to try to make this out to be an issue of integrity.

Well, this fails miserably in terms of integrity.

This is a guy saying something is wrong but it's cool to do as long as you don't do it to his friends and if you complain, he's just going to have to do the right thing and apply the rule across the board.

It'd piss people off but the only answer with integrity is to have the same rule apply to all parties.

Heck, lets not even mention the whole, I don't have a problem if it's illegal as long as both parties agree to it. That should make Buccaneer happy as it's an incredibly libertarian view. :)

Really, I'll stop here since this rant doesn't apply to me and I'll likely piss a lot of guys off if Skydog does the right thing. I've never sold, traded or bought any games on the internet except from official venders so whatever he chooses is fine with me.

I just hate seeing someone getting credit for an attribute when it's not being exhibited. I happen to think a lot of Skydogs integrity so I'm not accusing him of anything. It's just an observation on how he's approaching this issue which is from a purely self serving point of view.

Of course, I don't think Skydog used the word integrity so I don't assume he's necessarily framing the argument around this. You just used the word I was thinking about when I was reading the thread so I wanted to comment on that side of the argument.

[Draft Dodger]

Of course, I don't think Skydog used the word integrity so I don't assume he's necessarily framing the argument around this.

he did, actually.

[Axxon]

he did, actually.

I stand corrected on this point then but the rest of the paragraph still applies. :)

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Just a note:

End User License Agreements were found to be enforceable by the 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (1996). That decision has been followed universally (I think) by other federal district and appellate courts. As others have pointed out, the First Sale Doctrine would otherwise apply in these cases, but after ProCD, the EULA has the final word.

It should also be noted that there has been plenty of academic criticism of this decision, and in the right circumstances someone might mount a challenge to it... but as of now (despite the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue) it's a fairly settled matter in the law. So the question here is really about EULA's rather than copyright.

[BrianD]

Just a note:

End User License Agreements were found to be enforceable by the 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (1996). That decision has been followed universally (I think) by other federal district and appellate courts. As others have pointed out, the First Sale Doctrine would otherwise apply in these cases, but after ProCD, the EULA has the final word.

It should also be noted that there has been plenty of academic criticism of this decision, and in the right circumstances someone might mount a challenge to it... but as of now (despite the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue) it's a fairly settled matter in the law. So the question here is really about EULA's rather than copyright.

The research I've done shows that the 7th and 8th district courts favor the EULA while the others still favor the First Sale Doctrine. Of course I haven't been able to find a case on point after your cite, so this may have changed.

[RendeR]

Geez. Did the jbmagic-I-don't-pay-attention-to-what-I-read virus infect all of you today????

THE ISSUE I HAVE IS NOT WITH THE LEGALITY. IT IS WITH AGREEING TO THE EULA, AND THEN VIOLATING IT!!! It shows a stunning lack of integrity. How difficult is that to comprehend? You are not going to persuade me differently. By continuing to argue over it, joke about it, or anything else, you will only be increasing the odds that I'll be convicted enough about it to act. Read the thread title, people. JUST TRUST ME when I say that it is best for your enjoyment of FOFC that I am able to continue to quietly ignore the things that disturb me. I'm gonna say this, then shut up about the whole thing:

A) the EULA's of the games involved ALLOW the games to be sold/traded completely removed and given away to another party, as noted in quotations in other's posts.

B) There is no lack of integrity involved in this situation.

C) Screaming into the wind and threatening people that you're going to snap and go postal on anyone and everyone involved in something you disagree with if they keep arguing with you is seriously childish and utterly lacks integrity.

D) If you are indeed going to quietly ignore something, perhaps you shouldn't write up a post like the one I just quoted. Say one thing, do something else? there is a word that comes to mind...

I like you Ben, but you sure as hell can't have it both ways. Either get the facts straight and treat EVERY action equally, or stick with your own professed rule of keeping quiet and ignoring the problem. I've rather lost some respect for you over this and thats a sad thing.

My nickel.

[dawgfan]

I'm gonna say this, then shut up about the whole thing:

A) the EULA's of the games involved ALLOW the games to be sold/traded completely removed and given away to another party, as noted in quotations in other's posts.

B) There is no lack of integrity involved in this situation.

C) Screaming into the wind and threatening people that you're going to snap and go postal on anyone and everyone involved in something you disagree with if they keep arguing with you is seriously childish and utterly lacks integrity.

D) If you are indeed going to quietly ignore something, perhaps you shouldn't write up a post like the one I just quoted. Say one thing, do something else? there is a word that comes to mind...

I like you Ben, but you sure as hell can't have it both ways. Either get the facts straight and treat EVERY action equally, or stick with your own professed rule of keeping quiet and ignoring the problem. I've rather lost some respect for you over this and thats a sad thing.

My nickel.

Well said, and I wholeheartedly agree.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm gonna say this, then shut up about the whole thing:

A) the EULA's of the games involved ALLOW the games to be sold/traded completely removed and given away to another party, as noted in quotations in other's posts.

B) There is no lack of integrity involved in this situation.

C) Screaming into the wind and threatening people that you're going to snap and go postal on anyone and everyone involved in something you disagree with if they keep arguing with you is seriously childish and utterly lacks integrity.

D) If you are indeed going to quietly ignore something, perhaps you shouldn't write up a post like the one I just quoted. Say one thing, do something else? there is a word that comes to mind...

I like you Ben, but you sure as hell can't have it both ways. Either get the facts straight and treat EVERY action equally, or stick with your own professed rule of keeping quiet and ignoring the problem. I've rather lost some respect for you over this and thats a sad thing.

My nickel.
".

[Anthony]

You're walking on thin ice here, my friend. You have no idea how many things that happen on this forum that bother me every time I see them. Like I said from the start, if I get pushed too far on this--I know myself all too well--we'll be obeying the letter of the law on that stuff, too.

that's such a hollow threat, and you know it. you increase the restrictions here and you'll have an empty message board. you'll be the sheriff of a ghost town.

you should feel free to run this place any way you want. whether or not people will put up with your bullshit is a different story.

word to mutha.

[Schmidty]

".

Have you been reading the JeeberD method?

[Ben E Lou]

Oh. I get it. I post the license agreement from an older game and that is bad. Someone else posts the license agreement from an older game and you read it as gospel truth for the current game. Interesting.

[Anthony]

I work for a software company and am about as "by the book" on copyright issues as any around here, but this seems like a gross over-reaction to me. Even if you want to argue that software EULAs are legally enforcable (shaky ground) or that there's some sort of bigger moral issue at play (even shakier), was it really necessary to ban the guy who posted the original thread?

Lock the thread if you want, lecture the masses if you feel the need, but to ban a guy for doing something that 99% of software users wouldn't realize was even a problem? Wouldn't a warning have been enough?

that's my big problem - SkyDog needs to list bannable offenses and sticky the fucking thing. you just can't go around banning people and not have them even know about it. give people a chance to edit/delete their own thread. just cuz he's not leet or a FOFC veteran and hasn't been around here long enough to have earned some leeway doesn't mean you behead every noob who does something a little wrong.

[DaddyTorgo]

Have you been reading the JeeberD method?
yes

[MizzouRah]

that's my big problem - SkyDog needs to list bannable offenses and sticky the fucking thing. you just can't go around banning people and not have them even know about it. give people a chance to edit/delete their own thread. just cuz he's not leet or a FOFC veteran and hasn't been around here long enough to have earned some leeway doesn't mean you behead every noob who does something a little wrong.
He's been registered since October 2003. He doesn't post much, but he's been around long enough to know a post like that would get locked by Skydog. The banning may have been a little strong, but I immediately knew what was going to happen when I read the thread title, minus the ban.

I wonder what would have happened if that same post was posting in the pc/game trading thread?

I've tried to sell a few of my licensed games in the past though and never thought twice about it, so I would have given a warning vs a ban. Just my opinion though, I'm not the moderator nor would I want to be.

[Anthony]

He's been registered since October 2003. He doesn't post much, but he's been around long enough to know a post like that would get locked by Skydog. The banning may have been a little strong, but I immediately knew what was going to happen when I read the thread title, minus the ban.

I wonder what would have happened if that same post was posting in the pc/game trading thread?

I've tried to sell a few of my licensed games in the past though and never thought twice about it, so I would have given a warning vs a ban. Just my opinion though, I'm not the moderator nor would I want to be.

i've been around longer than all but a few, and i didn't even know trading games on FOFC was a bannable offense.

SkyDog just likes to pick and choose what's bannable, and what isn't.

[Tasan]

Skydog's gonna ban everyone who posted in this thread, I swear.




Oh damn

*runs and hides*

[kcchief19]

I respect the heck out of Ben, but I agree that this appears to be a random cracking of the whip. The general rule has always been that attempting to pirate a game is an instant bannable offense, but there have been plenty of past and current threads about game trading. This guy looks like he incurred the wrath because he was a "n00b." It's unfortunate that you have to have a few thousand posts to break unwritten rules on this board.

If you're going to have a rule, you have to be consistent. According to this standard, everybody who has done the same thing should be banned.

If Ben has another reason to ban this guy, fine. If his IP matches a known trouble maker and there is evidence that this is an account someone create two years ago just in case they wanted to cause trouble, so be it.

I think it's only fair to let people know what bannable offenses are. That said:
The owners of Front Office Football Central reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread, or remove or limit any user's access, for any reason. We agreed to this, so I guess we're SOL.

[Joe]

I seem to recall others being banned for this same thing. Am I wrong? Or maybe I'm thinking of people who just asked for it for free?

[Maple Leafs]

that's my big problem - SkyDog needs to list bannable offenses and sticky the fucking thing. you just can't go around banning people and not have them even know about it. give people a chance to edit/delete their own thread. just cuz he's not leet or a FOFC veteran and hasn't been around here long enough to have earned some leeway doesn't mean you behead every noob who does something a little wrong.
Also, Hell Atlantic recently offered me a reach-around if I'd sell him a pirated copy of FOF. He needs to be banned. Now.

By reading the preceeding paragraph, you agree to be bound be all claims made and not dispute them and do whatever I say or else you have to stop reading RIGHT NOW and you didn't so your pwned.

[Anthony]

Also, Hell Atlantic recently offered me a reach-around if I'd sell him a pirated copy of FOF. He needs to be banned. Now.

By reading the preceeding paragraph, you agree to be bound be all claims made and not dispute them and do whatever I say or else you have to stop reading RIGHT NOW and you didn't so your pwned.

wait, who was supposed to give the reach-around to whom? i don't like getting reach-arounds, so i wanna make sure you're the reachee.

[Dutch]

Also, Hell Atlantic recently offered me a reach-around if I'd sell him a pirated copy of FOF. He needs to be banned. Now.

By reading the preceeding paragraph, you agree to be bound be all claims made and not dispute them and do whatever I say or else you have to stop reading RIGHT NOW and you didn't so your pwned.

That great stuff right there.

[vex]

i've been around longer than all but a few, and i didn't even know trading games on FOFC was a bannable offense.

Same for me.

[dervack]

Oh. I get it. I post the license agreement from an older game and that is bad. Someone else posts the license agreement from an older game and you read it as gospel truth for the current game. Interesting.

But that's not what he was trying to trade. He was trying to trade his version of TPF, which as long as he's giving both licenses, is ok.

Edit: If you want to lock a thread because you don't agree that people should do something they are entitled to, then that's your thing. But I would think most of the people here are going to disagree with you on it.

[DanGarion]

Same for me.
Me either. This is the first time I've heard it was a banable offense to trade a game.

[MrBug708]

We had a whole thread on the forums that had games we could trade

[vex]

We had a whole thread on the forums that had games we could tradeWhich Skydog even gave a sticky at the time:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=5199&page=1&pp=50



<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt2 width=175>SkyDog (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/member.php?u=59)<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_45656", true); </SCRIPT>
H.N.I.C.

Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tucker, GA
Posts: 13,814
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/styles/yellow/misc//im_aim.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=5199&page=1&pp=50#) http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/styles/yellow/misc//im_msn.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=5199&page=1&pp=50#)

</TD><TD class=alt1><!-- message -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally posted by Blackadar
Good suggestion. Can we get a sticky? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
done.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Antmeister]

Which Skydog even gave a sticky at the time:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=5199&page=1&pp=50


What's fascinating is that people are trading a game that he is showing the EULA for at the beginning of this thread (Civilization III). At the time I guess it didn't bother him so much since it was stickied.

[SackAttack]

:mijb:

[Schmidty]

At the same time that we are quibbleing over this stuff, an asteroid just crashed into Uranus.

[cthomer5000]

What's fascinating is that people are trading a game that he is showing the EULA for at the beginning of this thread (Civilization III). At the time I guess it didn't bother him so much since it was stickied.
All those people need to be banninated with a quickness.

[DaddyTorgo]

All those people need to be banninated with a quickness. that or SD needs to self-banninate for stickying a thread talking about a clearly illegal action, thus encouraging it.







edit: i don't really give a shit, i just wanted to use the phrase self-banninate and suggest that the board mod ban himself, which i found funny

[Antmeister]

Too bad I was a random lurker at that time, there were some games I would have definitely traded for.

[vex]

Too bad I was a random lurker at that time, there were some games I would have definitely traded for.
Too bad I just didn't pay attention. Agreed, some nice games for sure.

[Antmeister]

At the same time that we are quibbleing over this stuff, an asteroid just crashed into Uranus.

Is this supposed to be code for "There is a rock in my ass"?

[Schmidty]

Is this supposed to be code for "There is a rock in my ass"?

If your name is Howie, then yes. If not, I have no further comment.

[Antmeister]

If your name is Howie, then yes. If not, I have no further comment.
LOL
Abbreviations - Something I learned from JeeberD!

[Chubby]

Geez. Did the jbmagic-I-don't-pay-attention-to-what-I-read virus infect all of you today????

THE ISSUE I HAVE IS NOT WITH THE LEGALITY. IT IS WITH AGREEING TO THE EULA, AND THEN VIOLATING IT!!! It shows a stunning lack of integrity. How difficult is that to comprehend? You are not going to persuade me differently. By continuing to argue over it, joke about it, or anything else, you will only be increasing the odds that I'll be convicted enough about it to act. Read the thread title, people. JUST TRUST ME when I say that it is best for your enjoyment of FOFC that I am able to continue to quietly ignore the things that disturb me.
Prove to me the person trading the game actually agreed to the EULA.

[MIJB#19]

:mijb:
Hey, don't drag me into this!

[JeeberD]

That said:
The owners of Front Office Football Central reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread, or remove or limit any user's access, for any reason.

We agreed to this, so I guess we're SOL.

Ummm...since when is SD an owner of FOFC?

[Raiders Army]

Ummm...since when is SD an owner of FOFC?
Maybe that's why the old titles were removed? Wasn't it at 8000 posts you were made an owner?

I guess at that point you could pwn anyone on FOFC.

[Buccaneer]

Ummm...since when is SD an owner of FOFC?
You obviously weren't around or weren't paying attention. Ownership was passed from Blacky to SD.

[JeeberD]

Ownership? Or just the keys to the bus...

Edit: I guess whoever owns the board software owns the board, huh? For some reason I was thinking that GameSpy owned the board, but they just own the server we're on I guess.

[DanGarion]

Ownership? Or just the keys to the bus...
Exactly I was going to ask the same thing.

[Buccaneer]

Ownership? Or just the keys to the bus...

Edit: I guess whoever owns the board software owns the board, huh? For some reason I was thinking that GameSpy owned the board, but they just own the server we're on I guess.
Unless something was changed, GameSpy is simply hosting us. We could move to any server, even our own. It's the content and the software that is registered or copyrighted or something, I think. Also I recall Ben registering some domains in his name.

[Joe]

Ben owns frontofficefootballcentral.com, I'm not so sure about the board. I was thinking along the same lines as Jeeber on that. Who knows.

[Airhog]

the registration for our copy of this forum software is in Skydog's name also...

[Chubby]

ownership is a tad murky but I don't think it really matters anyways.

quick synopsis:

a) skydog goes on power trip again by banning a noob (aka poster with low post count) for posting something despite stickying a thread promoting the issue (trading games)
b) makes this thread to try and justify such behavior, even going so far as to threaten everyone to not talk about it or we'd not like the consequences (despite starting the friggin thread)
c) disappears when no one agrees with him

standard operating procedure, the fact that people are amazed is simply well... amazing.

[Ben E Lou]

c) disappears when no one agrees with himYou've been around long enough to know that I could not possibly care less if anyone agrees with me when I know I'm right. No pointing in arguing over it, though. The less I think about this, the better it is for all of you. {shrug}

[vex]

You've been around long enough to know that I could not possibly care less if anyone agrees with me when I know I'm right. No pointing in arguing over it, though. The less I think about this, the better it is for all of you. {shrug}
You didn't mind arguing until facts came into play.

[Chubby]

You've been around long enough to know that I could not possibly care less if anyone agrees with me when I know I'm right. No pointing in arguing over it, though. The less I think about this, the better it is for all of you. {shrug}wow, i'm stunned. you're totally convinced your right despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm completely stunned! :eek:

I've been around long enough to know when you go on your standard power trips, dig your heels in and refuse to see any other point of view despite being 100% in the wrong. if you were so damn right, you never would have stickied the trade game thread and you'd ban everyone that ever traded a game in it. you'd ban anyone ever making a mod for any game, ever, since that violates your holy EULAs as well. Hell, you haven't even locked that thread. You're a hypocrite and a bully plain and simple. Pick on the little guy, he won't fight back right? No one will defend the guy with 10 posts, oops.

yes yes, we know. for we fear the wrath of skydog following the letter of the law on everything. we should be afraid, very afraid. :rolleyes:

[Chubby]

You didn't mind arguing until facts came into play.
Exactly.

Oh and by the way Skydog. Feel free to remove the stuff in the reference thread that violates the EULAs anytime.

[Ben E Lou]

refuse to see any other point of view despite being 100% in the wrongTee-hee. That's rich irony. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

... your standard power trips

For at least just this once, trust me when I say: You do not know from power trips from watching SD.

I know 'em when I see 'em ... and he doesn't even make the Hot 100.

Trust me.

[Chubby]

Tee-hee. That's rich irony. :)
Why dodging the issues Ben?

If trading games is instantly bannable then why is there a trading games thread you stickied???

If anything that violates a EULA is a bannable offense then why is there stuff in the reference thread that violates EULAs? Why is there any discussion of any mods to any games allowed?

You are a hypocrite and a bully. You won't ban anyone that makes a mod (which clearly violates every EULA) that has a high post count. You won't ban anyone in that trading games thread that has tried to trade a game. And you sure as hell won't close that thread because that would be an admission of you being wrong in stickying it in the 1st place.

Get called on the facts, change the focus. That's your MO Ben.

[Chubby]

For at least just this once, trust me when I say: You do not know from power trips from watching SD.

I know 'em when I see 'em ... and he doesn't even make the Hot 100.

Trust me.
I don't doubt you, like vex said, I'm simply going by online BS. He doesn't make the top 10000 IRL.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't doubt you, like vex said, I'm simply going by online BS. He doesn't make the top 10000 IRL.

He doesn't even make the top 1000 online.

You should see my to-do list for when I get the keys to the place.

[vex]

I don't doubt you, like vex said, I'm simply going by online BS. He doesn't make the top 10000 IRL.
Sorry, I actually deleted that. But like I said, maybe he doesn't go on powertrips compared to people IRL, but as far as internet message boards go, he's right up there.

[GoldenEagle]

I was surprised by the banning. I wish Skydog would ban every person who comes on here and asks for a free game. They do not add anything to the community. I can think of one user who has come over on here and has asked for a free license two or three times. I do not think he has even been boxed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

*shudders*

:p

Not even HA's vivid imagination + Yngwie Malmsteen's most intense moment could capture the fullness of it.

[vex]

He doesn't even make the top 1000 online.

You should see my to-do list for when I get the keys to the place.
*shudders*

:p

[Joe]

http://www.joenitedstatesofamerica.com/image.php.gif

[Ben E Lou]

Why dodging the issues Ben?

If trading games is instantly bannable then why is there a trading games thread you stickied???

If anything that violates a EULA is a bannable offense then why is there stuff in the reference thread that violates EULAs? Why is there any discussion of any mods to any games allowed?

You are a hypocrite and a bully. You won't ban anyone that makes a mod (which clearly violates every EULA) that has a high post count. You won't ban anyone in that trading games thread that has tried to trade a game. And you sure as hell won't close that thread because that would be an admission of you being wrong in stickying it in the 1st place.

Get called on the facts, change the focus. That's your MO Ben.You're either really, really stupid, really, really, dumb, or a little of both. Therefore, I'll spell it out for you, although I don't know how much more clear I can be than this: You're walking on thin ice here, my friend. You have no idea how many things that happen on this forum that bother me every time I see them.Yes, I have made decisions on this forum that have truly disturbed me. I've not edited threads that should have been edited. I've not banned people who should have been banned. I've allowed people to come back who should not have been allowed to come back. I've not taken a hard enough line on things that have bothered me, because I've tried not to avoid imposing my own values (which I'm fully aware are different from the vast majority of people with whom I come in contact) on everyone here.

And by the way, at the time I stickied that thread, I am mortified to say that I had never read one of the EULAs of a game I owned. If I had, I know it would not have been stickied, and probably not even allowed. I can't undo what is done, though, and I very rarely lock or delete threads, and there's really no reason to do so with that one, because as with all of these little flare-ups, in a couple of days, this one will be gone and done with, and we'll simply move forward from there.

[Ben E Lou]

I was surprised by the banning. I wish Skydog would ban every person who comes on here and asks for a free game. They do not add anything to the community. I can think of one user who has come over on here and has asked for a free license two or three times. I do not think he has even been boxed.:confused: OK, I'm shocked at this one. I've said repeatedly that those are usually the only people who GET permanently banned, unless they are repeat "problem children" who are clearly beyond rehabilitation. Any time I've been aware of someone clearly asking for a free license, they've been punished swiftly and severely. What am I missing here?

[TargetPractice6]

:confused: OK, I'm shocked at this one. I've said repeatedly that those are usually the only people who GET permanently banned, unless they are repeat "problem children" who are clearly beyond rehabilitation. Any time I've been aware of someone clearly asking for a free license, they've been punished swiftly and severely. What am I missing here?I have to agree with you here. I don't think I've ever seen somebody look to pirate a game here without getting a perma-ban.

[vex]

in a couple of days, this one will be gone and done with, and we'll simply move forward from there.

Bravo. Wonderful stance.

[cthomer5000]

i'm sensing locking and/or bannination sometime soon.

[Chubby]

You're either really, really stupid, really, really, dumb, or a little of both. Therefore, I'll spell it out for you, although I don't know how much more clear I can be than this: Yes, I have made decisions on this forum that have truly disturbed me. I've not edited threads that should have been edited. I've not banned people who should have been banned. I've allowed people to come back who should not have been allowed to come back. I've not taken a hard enough line on things that have bothered me, because I've tried not to avoid imposing my own values (which I'm fully aware are different from the vast majority of people with whom I come in contact) on everyone here.

And by the way, at the time I stickied that thread, I am mortified to say that I had never read one of the EULAs of a game I owned. If I had, I know it would not have been stickied, and probably not even allowed. I can't undo what is done, though, and I very rarely lock or delete threads, and there's really no reason to do so with that one, because as with all of these little flare-ups, in a couple of days, this one will be gone and done with, and we'll simply move forward from there.
I'm neither, you're really thickheaded (and not in an A&W Root Beer kind of way).

To your 1st paragraph: Yet you will decide to impose those values at your random whim. Real consistent Ben. You can't impose those values on everyone because this would be a ghost town. Instead, you choose to be a hypocrite and nail the people you think you can get away with. There's a difference between following your moral code to the letter and doing what's right for the community. Most of the time you do the latter, yet when you do the former (like here) you act 12 years old and dig your heels using the "Becuase I said" bullshit excuse as a copout. Heaven forbid anyone call you on it or we'll feel your wrath like you have warned us over and over in this thread :rolleyes:

To your 2nd paragraph: So you admit you're a hypocrite and will continue to be one. You won't lock the thread because that's an admission of being wrong. You won't ban anyone in there because they have more than 20 posts. You can't undo what has been done but you sure as hell can make up new rules at random, not tell anyone, and ban new posters to hell and back when you feel like it.

You feel justified in banning that guy? Ban all game traders and anyone who has made a mod/talked about making a mod. Be a man Ben. You want to impose your morals over one guy, do it to everyone.

Bullies don't like to be stood up to, do they?

[Cap Ologist]

I'd like to preorder the Antmeister71 cd based on this.

[cthomer5000]

I'd like to preorder the Antmeister71 cd based on this.
The title makes me think it would work with "When The Doves Cry" by Prince.

[GoldenEagle]

:confused: OK, I'm shocked at this one. I've said repeatedly that those are usually the only people who GET permanently banned, unless they are repeat "problem children" who are clearly beyond rehabilitation. Any time I've been aware of someone clearly asking for a free license, they've been punished swiftly and severely. What am I missing here?
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=24214

The user has since come on and asked about trades and licenses, etc. If it was not for this post I would not think anything about it. He is has been pretty clever about what he has been doing. But I think you can put two and two together.

I agree with you 100% about throwing the book at people who come and ask for this kind of stuff.

[Galaxy]

We need a Survivor FOFC.

[Ben E Lou]

You won't lock the thread because that's an admission of being wrong. You won't ban anyone in there because they have more than 20 posts. You can't undo what has been done but you sure as hell can make up new rules at random, not tell anyone, and ban new posters to hell and back when you feel like it.Huh???? Where are you getting all of this??? I told you exactly why I won't lock the thread, didn't I? :confused:

[cthomer5000]

Tiki Barber... he's really just like Curtis Martin, always been very good, but perhaps never the very best back in the league. Just ripped off a great run.

edit: oops, wrong thread!

[Chubby]

Huh???? Where are you getting all of this??? I told you exactly why I won't lock the thread, didn't I? :confused:
Because you want it all to blow over in a day, yes I heard you.

If you are so damn right in your beliefs and feel the need to impose them over one person on the forum, impose them on everyone. Be a man Ben, not a coward.

It's easier to use your power over high school kids who won't question you isn't it?

It's easier to drop the hammer on an unknown poster isn't it?

When you did you start reading EULAs, yesterday? That trading game thread has been going on for a long while.

[vex]

So, since you didn't start enforcing this until you read a EULA, if I just don't read one(which I haven't), I guess that makes me exempt.

[Antmeister]

...And by the way, at the time I stickied that thread, I am mortified to say that I had never read one of the EULAs of a game I owned...

I think this is why it bothers so many people that the person was banned though. That person was more likely not to read EULA's themselves and you banned them for it, but you made the same mistake yourself.

Another thing that has bother me about this whole thing is that neither of the EULA say nothing about a straight up trade. I own both and I have viewed the license agreements, and here are both of them. What is your interpretation of both of these and where is the area you think he broke a rule. Maybe I not seeing something, but I can't seem to find one. You posted a CIV III and Civ IV agreement, but you didn't actually post the ones to these games:

Here is TPF
http://www.almarks.com/tpf.jpg

Here is FOF 2004
LICENSE AGREEMENT

This is a legal agreement between you and Solecismic Software. You should read this entire document before entering into this agreement.

BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

Since we provide a free demonstration version of this product, and we actively encourage its use before purchase, we do not provide refunds once you've licensed this product.

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND YOU ARE THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF THE SOFTWARE, PROMPTLY RETURN THE SOFTWARE FOR A FULL REFUND.

This agreement permits you to use one copy of Front Office Football 2004, including its electronic documentation, on a single computer. You may not use the software on a network or other transfer device without each user having an original copy of the software.

You may make one backup copy of the software solely for backup purposes. You may not loan, rent or lease the software. You may not share your personal license to install and use this software.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, you may not attempt to bypass the copy protection system included with this software. Solecismic Software reserves all of its rights protected by the DMCA and expressly grants you the rights defined in this document.

Front Office Football 2004, which includes the software and accompanying materials, is the intellectual property of Solecismic Software, and is protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Solecismic Software retains all rights not expressly granted.

Solecismic Software makes no claim whatsoever of any product endorsement from any football league, or any individual participating in any football league. License to use this software is granted only on the condition that you recognize that no such claim of endorsement has been made and that Solecismic Software is in compliance with the federal Lanham Act in making this disclosure. All events and transactions represented by the software are purely fictional, and are governed by chance.

LIMITED WARRANTY

Solecismic Software warrants that the media on which the software is distributed is free from defects in materials and workmanship for a period of 90 days from the time of receipt. Your exclusive remedies shall be either a replacement copy of The Fourth Edition, or a full refund of the amount you paid for the software.

IN NO EVENT WILL SOLECISMIC SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, ECONOMIC OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, USER DOCUMENTATION OR RELATED TECHNICAL SUPPORT. THIS INCLUDES DAMAGES OR COSTS RELATING TO THE LOSS OF PROFITS, BUSINESS, GOODWILL, DATA OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

IN NO EVENT WILL SOLECISMIC SOFTWARE'S LIABILITY EXCEED THE AMOUNT YOU PAID FOR THE SOFTWARE.

This agreement is governed by the laws of the state of New Hampshire.

[Chubby]

"This agreement permits you to use one copy of Front Office Football 2004, including its electronic documentation, on a single computer. You may not use the software on a network or other transfer device without each user having an original copy of the software."

uh oh, I guess everyone that has FOF 2004 installed on their PC and laptop are fucked. Mass bannings for all!

[dervack]

Yep, especially when it says this part:
"You may make one backup copy of the software solely for backup purposes."
Backing up, and installing on a two machines aren't the same thing, FYI.

[Antmeister]

"This agreement permits you to use one copy of Front Office Football 2004, including its electronic documentation, on a single computer. You may not use the software on a network or other transfer device without each user having an original copy of the software."

uh oh, I guess everyone that has FOF 2004 installed on their PC and laptop are fucked. Mass bannings for all!

Yep, especially when it says this part:
"You may make one backup copy of the software solely for backup purposes."

[Ben E Lou]

"This agreement permits you to use one copy of Front Office Football 2004, including its electronic documentation, on a single computer. You may not use the software on a network or other transfer device without each user having an original copy of the software."

uh oh, I guess everyone that has FOF 2004 installed on their PC and laptop are fucked. Mass bannings for all!You get two licenses with FOF. Each one permits one installation for personal use.

[dervack]

You get two licenses with FOF. Each one permits one installation for personal use.
Well, that's not what the EULA says. Isn't that what this thread is about? How exact everyone has to follow their EULA's?

[Antmeister]

You get two licenses with FOF. Each one permits one installation for personal use.

True...forgot about that one. But seriously, where in the license do you see the problem. I have tried to see your side of it and after reading over the agreement, I don't see it.

[Deattribution]

Because you want it all to blow over in a day, yes I heard you.

If you are so damn right in your beliefs and feel the need to impose them over one person on the forum, impose them on everyone. Be a man Ben, not a coward.

It's easier to use your power over high school kids who won't question you isn't it?

It's easier to drop the hammer on an unknown poster isn't it?


That's so immature and messed up that even in all the incoherent babbling in this thread, if anything you said made sense you lost any credibility.

You obviously have a major bias towards Skydog.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, that's not what the EULA says. Isn't that what this thread is about? How exact everyone has to follow their EULA's?If you own two licenses, you follow each EULA, don't you?

[Ben E Lou]

True...forgot about that one. But seriously, where in the license do you see the problem. I have tried to see your side of it and after reading over the agreement, I don't see it.I thought right here: You may not loan, rent or lease the software. You may not share your personal license to install and use this software.Isn't selling/trading it sharing it?

[dervack]

If you own two licenses, you follow each EULA, don't you?
Hey the EULA says nothing about two licenses. I'm just going by what that said. Again, isn't that what this is about? Exact wording of EULA's?

[dervack]

I thought right here: Isn't selling/trading it sharing it?
No sharing would be buying it, keeping it, and letting me installing it also. If someone is trading it, and both licenses, what's left to share?

[vex]

I thought right here: Isn't selling/trading it sharing it?
No, sharing it is two people using it at the same time. If it is traded for something else, then only one person has the license.

[Antmeister]

Backing up, and installing on a two machines aren't the same thing, FYI.

And you are correct as well...my mistake.

[dervack]

And you are correct as well...my mistake.
Don't worry about it. I'm not really here to bust your balls. :D

[Deattribution]

No, sharing it is two people using it at the same time. If it is traded for something else, then only one person has the license.


There's no way to prove that the person would trade BOTH license for TPF.

[Ben E Lou]

Hey the EULA says nothing about two licenses. I'm just going by what that said. Again, isn't that what this is about? Exact wording of EULA's?Ok. Let me spell it out for you.

I download the game and purchase it. I get two licenses. Each one has an EULA.

I use the first license. That EULA allows me to install it on my desktop.

I use the second license. That EULA allows me to install it on my laptop.

I have followed each EULA to the letter of the law in such a case. There are two licenses, and therefore two EULAs.

[vex]

There's no way to prove that the person would trade BOTH license for TPF.Ask for both of them?

There's no way to prove he wouldn't trade both of them.

[Deattribution]

Ask for both of them?

And what if two people agree - hey you can just keep that one, I don't have no use for it anyway..

How is Skydog suppose to regulate that?

[Deattribution]

Dola

Or, the person gives one, then a few months later when the person wants to license the other one, they find out that they can't.

Cause the license # is the same, always, isn't it?

[vex]

And what if two people agree - hey you can just keep that one, I don't have no use for it anyway..

How is Skydog suppose to regulate that?
Then THAT would be against the EULA.

And who asked Skydog to regulate anything in the first place?

[Antmeister]

I thought right here: Isn't selling/trading it sharing it?

Ahhhhh....that's where you see it. I thought sharing is when you have more than one copy of the original software and you give one of them out.

Think about it this way. If you had a basket of apples and shared it, you would have an apple and share the rest with the others. But the key is that you have one of the apples. If you didn't have one of the apples, you aren't sharing it. Sharing implies that you at least retain 1.

In this case, trading and/or selling doesn't even apply to this agreement since the original owner no longer retains the license on their computer.

[cthomer5000]

How is Skydog suppose to regulate that?
Does SkyDog also verify that each person has shipped a physical game to each other when making a trade? I think you're really reaching here.

[Deattribution]

Then THAT would be against the EULA.

And who asked Skydog to regulate anything in the first place?


Umm? Because he moderates the board, and that'd be 'illegal' activity that would initiate from the board.

[vex]

Dola

Or, the person gives one, then a few months later when the person wants to license the other one, they find out that they can't.

Cause the license # is the same, always, isn't it?
That would be akin to selling someone a cd that had two discs and the person only sending one. This is against the rules, and this has nothing to do with the discussion as I'm sure everyone agrees this is illegal.

[Deattribution]

Does SkyDog also verify that each person has shipped a physical game to each other when making a trade? I think you're really reaching here.

That's a bit different, youre not talking about violating a EULA there, there's nothing in a EULA about not following through on a transaction thus stealing the game from the person.

With license, it's easy for two people to 'share' a game with multiple license.

[Deattribution]

That would be akin to selling someone a cd that had two discs and the person only sending one. This is against the rules, and this has nothing to do with the discussion as I'm sure everyone agrees this is illegal.

No, it wouldn't, because you'd need both disc to install or play, while with two license both people can play the game at the same time, freely.

[vex]

Umm? Because he moderates the board, and that'd be 'illegal' activity that would initiate from the board.
You really need to get in touch with Ebay, help them out some.

[Barkeep49]

That's a bit different, youre not talking about violating a EULA there, there's nothing in a EULA about not following through on a transaction thus stealing the game from the person.

With license, it's easy for two people to 'share' a game with multiple license.
Ok think about it this way. If I were to give my Secret Santa person a CD and copy it before I gave it to them that would be against the law. If I were to just give them a CD I already own, and not have any copies or MP3s remain once I give it away, then I'm giving them a crappy gift, but I'm not violating the law.

[Deattribution]

You really need to get in touch with Ebay, help them out some.

Your point being?

Ebay has a team of investigators for such activity, I doubt FOFC does...

[Calis]

I'm slightly confused by this whole mess and how the game trading thread fits into it, from everything I've seen..and I've seen the Civ4 EULA mentioned quite a bit for adding those lines, but most games do not mention being unable to sell it. although I honestly haven't checked around a lot. So I don't really see a problem with the game trading thread at all.

It's definitely not sharing if you sell someone a product also.

This thread is very painful to read.

[Deattribution]

The biggest point I was trying to drive home, without getting caught up into the pissing matches these threads always turn into --- is that the logistics of allowing trading of digitally licensed games is sketchy - sure the guy definitely deserved a warning if it was his first attempt.. but I don't have a problem if someone says 'hey, I want to avoid doing that because it's too easy to rip someone off or do it illegally'.

[vex]

Your point being?

Ebay has a team of investigators for such activity, I doubt FOFC does...
Like ct said, you're really reaching here.

[dervack]

The biggest point I was trying to drive home, without getting caught up into the pissing matches these threads always turn into --- is that the logistics of allowing trading of digitally licensed games is sketchy - sure the guy definitely deserved a warning if it was his first attempt.. but I don't have a problem if someone says 'hey, I want to avoid doing that because it's too easy to rip someone off or do it illegally'.
It's easy to rip anybody off doing anything. Are you going to drive with me to Mickey D's the next time I go, and go in there and serve them a summons if I get home and they screw up my order?

[Deattribution]

Like ct said, you're really reaching here.


Yeah, and talking about the kids Skydog deals with at highschool, or magnifying every single word used in all his post isn't reaching.

If I were the moderator here (and obviously I'm not) but as many whinefest threads like this there are, I'd of quit by now. You couldn't pay me to filter through this shit on a regular basis.

[Deattribution]

It's easy to rip anybody off doing anything. Are you going to drive with me to Mickey D's the next time I go, and go in there and serve them a summons if I get home and they screw up my order?

Once again, talking about reaching - what does this have to do with how Skydog wants to moderate the board he's moderator of?

[dervack]

Once again, talking about reaching - what does this have to do with how Skydog wants to moderate the board he's moderator of?
Nothing, and neither does him concerning hismelf with someone ripping someone else off in a Private transaction. If it's done through PMs on this board, is it still his responsibility there too? How would he regulate PMs? Where does it end?

[vex]

Yeah, and talking about the kids Skydog deals with at highschool, or magnifying every single word used in all his post isn't reaching.

If I were the moderator here (and obviously I'm not) but as many whinefest threads like this there are, I'd of quit by now. You couldn't pay me to filter through this shit on a regular basis.
I didn't say that, so you can't direct that at me. You did say what we're talking about though.

[Deattribution]

I didn't say that, so you can't direct that at me. You did say what we're talking about though.

I said it - yeah? But that doesn't change the fact that noone else talked about anyone else reaching until I made a point they didn't like.

[vex]

I said it - yeah? But that doesn't change the fact that noone else talked about anyone else reaching until I made a point they didn't like.
And what does that have to do with you directing something someone else said to me?

[Antmeister]

The biggest point I was trying to drive home, without getting caught up into the pissing matches these threads always turn into --- is that the logistics of allowing trading of digitally licensed games is sketchy - sure the guy definitely deserved a warning if it was his first attempt.. but I don't have a problem if someone says 'hey, I want to avoid doing that because it's too easy to rip someone off or do it illegally'.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I get this. What most people are saying is that you shouldn't ban someone because of one's moral stance when there was nothing illegal in his activity.

First of all, you can't assume that the poster had bad intentions when he was just asking for a straight up trade. You can't assume that he wasn't going to uninstall the original licesne from his computer when making the trade and the EULA doesn't say that he is doing something illegal. You can't ban someone because you are morally against it.

He did not appear to break any EULA agreement and this is the very reason in which the person was banned. So all I am saying is that the moderator needs to rethink this and allow this person back, because the moderator even admitted to never reading the EULA himself and in this case, the person didn't even break anything according to the both game agreements posted above.

[Deattribution]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I get this. What most people are saying is that you shouldn't ban someone because of one's moral stance when there was nothing illegal in his activity.

First of all, you can't assume that the poster had bad intentions when he was just asking for a straight up trade. You can't assume that he wasn't going to uninstall the original licesne from his computer when making the trade and the EULA don't say that he is doing something illegal. You can't ban someone because you are morally against it.

He did not appear to break any EULA agreement and this is the very reason in which the person was banned. So all I am saying is that the moderator needs to rethink this and allow this person back, because the moderator even admitted to never reading EULA himself and in this case, the person didn't even break anything according to the two games agreement posted above.


And I agree with you here, I think I said it in my post - I don't think a banning was right, it was a bit harsh, but I can understand not wanting to have it here.

[Deattribution]

And what does that have to do with you directing something someone else said to me?

Huh? Anyone want to translate this?

[st.cronin]

Since I can't figure out who's on which side of this argument, I am locking this thread, and giving all of you a permanent ip ban.

[Deattribution]

Since I can't figure out who's on which side of this argument, I am locking this thread, and giving all of you a permanent ip ban.

Woohoo - though, I think we should get rid of titles and just put our political affiliation under our names instead, it'd make you look and think 'oooh now I know'.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You can't ban someone because you are morally against it.

Actually, if you have bannanation ability (i.e the control panel), you most definitely can.

You might argue "shouldn't", but you can't really argue "can't".

[Draft Dodger]

would this be a good place to point out that this EULA crusade is from someone who assembled and posted a facepack full of copyrighted photos without bothering to give the original compilers credit?

nah, didn't think so

wait...


Another honest question: do you keep readmes and zips around after you're done with them? If I am unusual in deleting these files immediately after I use them, then perhaps that helps to further explain the misunderstanding/confusion here.


just finding the parallels here rather amusing. not trying to get all chubbyrific with this.

[Antmeister]

Actually, if you have bannanation ability (i.e the control panel), you most definitely can.

You might argue "shouldn't", but you can't really argue "can't".

True....I just don't want the board to go to hell because someone seems to be taking more of a moral stance than the EULA agreement he based his arguement on. I guess I must in the minority who like to see new people join the board and hear how they have similar/differing opinions on a number of topics. And this is really killing it for people who came here to join a unique community.

I could have been that person. I have actually been on this board since the Sidelines under my original name of Antmeister. I would lurk and I rarely posted. In fact I think my old screen name has least than 15 posts. Just because someone rarely posts doesn't make them a newbie. This person also didn't get as many chances as capsicum.

And I seem to recall a certain poster on this board (won't say the name) that asked about reinstalling a license that he shared with someone else, yet this person didn't receive this type of treatment. And that action was actually illegal in the EULAs. Unlike this situation (in my opinion).

Argh....I better pay more attention to these football games.

[dawgfan]

would this be a good place to point out that this EULA crusade is from someone who assembled and posted a facepack full of copyrighted photos without bothering to give the original compilers credit?

nah, didn't think so

wait...

It's quite clear that Ben has over-reacted on this issue.

It's also quite clear that he's not the type of guy to readily admit to being wrong.

[kcchief19]

You get two licenses with FOF. Each one permits one installation for personal use. By the same definitions you are using in other EULAs, FOF's EULA doesn't actually say that. It says you are entitle to install the "software" on one computer. Having two licenses doesn't imply that you can install the "software" on two computers. According to the letter of the word of the EULA, one copy of the software = one computer. My impression is that two licenses are issued as a convenience for the consumer and software developer. Taking advantage of that convenience doesn't mean its right.

[cthomer5000]

would this be a good place to point out that this EULA crusade is from someone who assembled and posted a facepack full of copyrighted photos without bothering to give the original compilers credit?

...and couldn't see what the problem was, no less.

[Eaglesfan27]

I guess I must in the minority who like to see new people join the board and hear how their similar/differing opinions on a number of topics. And this is really killing it for people who came here to join a unique community.

I don't think you are in the minority on that. If so, I'm there with you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

True....I just don't want the board to go to hell because someone seems to be taking more of a moral stance than the EULA agreement he based his arguement on. I guess I must in the minority who like to see new people join the board and hear how their similar/differing opinions on a number of topics.

Honestly, I'd say you're probably right about being in the minority. I'd wager that most people are "neutral", a handful "like", and another handful "dislikes".
That being (what I believe to be) the case, I'd the odds of this incident causing the board to "go to hell" are worse than the odds of hitting on the Cash 3 tomorrow now.

And I seem to recall a certain poster on this board (won't say the name) that asked about reinstalling a license that he shared with someone else, yet this person didn't receive this type of treatment.

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to (something very recent), I'd wager that being a case where SD didn't see the post in question. Hard to ban somebody when you don't see the offending post, y'know?

FTR, lest anyone be confused about this -- I'm not making the nomination speech for SD to be "Moderator of the Year". What my personal list of gripes lacks in quantity it would surely make up in intensity. But the stuff in this thread? Doesn't even warrant a "Pfft" on my meter, and I really believe that the legs the topic has shown is more a testament to general collective boredom than anything else. There's a few here who would bitch if SD found the cure for cancer, a few with general & genuine curiosity about the subject of EULA's overall, and the rest are just passing the time of day for lack of anything better to do. Think of this as our Tawana Brawley moment -- noteworthy only because there wasn't anything better going on.

[kcchief19]

I thought right here: Isn't selling/trading it sharing it? Not necessarily. Sharing indicates that both parties are mutually benefitting from the same item jointly. Trading is an exchange of wholly owned parts in which one person retains 100 percent ownership of the products exchange and there is no joint ownership. By no definition can trading/selling be considered sharing.

This is a lot like arguing with WrongWay -- it's howling at the moon. Ben is right in some cases, but he's wrong when he says all EULAs say the same thing. They clearly don't. I still think this is a random cracking of the whip -- for some reason this really bothers Ben and he's jumping all over this. Nobody is perfect -- this is just asking people to crawl all over the place looking to catch Ben in something. Hopefully it will die down in a couple of days.

[Maple Leafs]

By no definition can trading/selling be considered sharing.

I have the grand fortune of knowing some lawyers who write software EULAs. I can pretty safely say that there is zero chance that a lawyer would go to the trouble of specifying a ban on "leasing" and "renting" but forget to add "selling" if they intended to ban that too.

[Antmeister]

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to (something very recent), I'd wager that being a case where SD didn't see the post in question. Hard to ban somebody when you don't see the offending post, y'know?

It is something recent, but what do you mean by not seeing the post in question? The person was given a 1 day suspension because SkyDog read it. He even says that it was against the EULA to share your license. In fact the person even admitted to having a shared license.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It is something recent, but what do you mean by not seeing the post in question? The person was given a 1 day suspension because SkyDog read it. He even says that it was against the EULA to share your license.

Hmm ... either we're talking about a different instance (kinda doubtful), or I didn't see/notice the subsequent suspension in that thread (which is quite possible).

Still, it's extremely common on the 'net to find varying degrees of tolerance for behaviors based upon a poster's history/longevity, etc. Perhaps this is such a case, or perhaps that one influenced this one; i.e. he hadn't been pushed over the edge on the subject as far then as he is now. (Not saying that's the case, just speculating about the possibility).

[Ben E Lou]

Still, it's extremely common on the 'net to find varying degrees of tolerance for behaviors based upon a poster's history/longevity, etc. ...and in real life, too. In my line of work, we call it "earning the rgiht to be heard." {shrug}

[Antmeister]

...and in real life, too. In my line of work, we call it "earning the rgiht to be heard." {shrug}

Yeah, but the person you banned was registered for 2 years man.

[Antmeister]

Hmm ... either we're talking about a different instance (kinda doubtful), or I didn't see/notice the subsequent suspension in that thread (which is quite possible).

Still, it's extremely common on the 'net to find varying degrees of tolerance for behaviors based upon a poster's history/longevity, etc. Perhaps this is such a case, or perhaps that one influenced this one; i.e. he hadn't been pushed over the edge on the subject as far then as he is now. (Not saying that's the case, just speculating about the possibility).

All I am going to say to this is that FBPro has the uncanny ability to be the first one to post a reply to threads in which someone was banned/suspended for a license issue.

[Antmeister]

Dola...

And neither of you guys (SkyDog and JonInMiddleGA) have really proven what he did was against the EULA so why do you guys proceed to hammer what was done is okay.

[Draft Dodger]

...and in real life, too. In my line of work, we call it "earning the rgiht to be heard." {shrug}

in mine, they sometimes call it "discrimination"
{bigger shrug}

[Joe]

It is something recent, but what do you mean by not seeing the post in question? The person was given a 1 day suspension because SkyDog read it. He even says that it was against the EULA to share your license. In fact the person even admitted to having a shared license.

It was 1 month, not 1 day.

[Ben E Lou]

in mine, they sometimes call it "discrimination"
{bigger shrug}Well, clearly your way is wrong. :p

[Antmeister]

It was 1 month, not 1 day.

I think it was supposed to be a month, but it was reduced, because has posted recently and it has not been a month. Either way, you are correct that it wasn't just a day.

[kcchief19]

I have the grand fortune of knowing some lawyers who write software EULAs. I can pretty safely say that there is zero chance that a lawyer would go to the trouble of specifying a ban on "leasing" and "renting" but forget to add "selling" if they intended to ban that too. Precisely.
You may not loan, rent or lease the software. You may not share your personal license to install and use this software. I don't know if Jim wrote his EULA or got it from a lawyer, but it does indeed ban lending, renting, leasing and sharing, but does not ban selling or trading. Ben is arguing that sharing = selling/trading. I'd disagree, but I don't know Jim's intent. I'm certain he would prefer people buy his software rather than sell it or trade it, but he also seems like somone who is pro-consumer enough that he wanted to prohibit activities that would allow someone to make money off his work, but not prohibit someone from receiving fair market value for the game if they chose to sell or trade it.

[Joe]

I think it was supposed to be a month, but it was reduced, because has posted recently and it has not been a month. Either way, you are correct that it wasn't just a day.

Hmm.. you must be talking about someone other than PackerFanatic, cause he's still in the box.

[Marc Vaughan]

I actually think this is going to be the "next big thing" - game makers fighting back against the used game market. I think they have reluctantly been quiet on this for a while, but as the used game market increases, cutting into profits, you are going to see more game makers sneak in stuff like the CivIV license.

I believe it was Best Buy who announced they'd be expanding into the used game market, and that got quite a bit of grumbling from the game companies - they spend a lot of money to market, develop and distribute these game, and then get nothing when Best Buy buys and sells a used game. Now, personally, I don't think the EULA like the CivIV one is going to amount to more than a hill of beans, but, make no mistake, game developers WILL find a way to try to either a) cut down on the sale of used games or b) negotiate to get a piece of the used sale pie.

Personally, I find it hard to understand why game companies (and the RIAA for that matter) works so hard to try to stop piracy, but have been pretty ineffective at eliminating the used game/CD market, which probably amounts for a much more significant (and tangible) loss in revenue.

Personally speaking (and I don't speak for the rest of SI here as we probably have many different opinions within the company) - I have no problem at all with the idea of a second hand games market, it hits games companies slightly by reducing the lifespan of a product at budget price - HOWEVER imho around 90% of the income from people trading in games goes straight back into another games purchase (often a full-price title) ... so as such its actually helping to increase the games market in some aspect by fueling people to be able to purchase games they might not otherwise be able to afford (bit like a garage taking a trade in car to shift a new model).

The things which DO hugely affect games publishers and developers are pirates, especially those which are sold as 'legitimate' copies to people either as second hand or new ....

To emphasive this somewhat if you consider that there are at least 8 warez versions of FM* for every purchased game the second hand sales hit we take from second hand copies of FM is a drop in the ocean compared to the loss from piracy.

*According to studies which various publishers have done over the years the figures for piracy on our titles is normally between 8-12 copies per actual sale - I generally quote the low end figure to be on the safe side, unfortunately this isn't lower on low selling titles in case you wondered and is often considerably higher ... which is one of the reasons why publishers are so reluctant to take on risky new titles.

(runs away from soapbox before he falls into his favourite rant ;) )

[Antmeister]

Hmm.. you must be talking about someone other than PackerFanatic, cause he's still in the box.

Okay, I must be reading his profile wrong then. It does say he is in the penalty box, but it also shows his last activity was today. I guess that means he can view, but can't post. Damn, I am just making mistake after mistake, but at least I will admit them. :D

[Joe]

Okay, I must be reading his profile wrong then. It does say he is in the penalty box, but it also shows his last activity was today. I guess that means he can view, but can't post. Damn, I am just making mistake after mistake, but at least I will admit them. :D

Yeah, when you're in the box you can be logged in and view but not post. When you're banned, you can't.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Dola...

And neither of you guys (SkyDog and JonInMiddleGA) have really proven what he did was against the EULA so why do you guys proceed to hammer what was done is okay.

Bzzt ... never been my gig. In fact, if you look back at the beginning of the thread, you'll find where I questioned how a trade was a EULA violation in the first place.

The point isn't the EULA as far as I'm concerned -- my point is that "He who holds the keys makes the rules". Period. End of discussion. That's true of pretty much every privately held forum on the 'net. It's "okay" with me because of that + the reality that I don't expect I'll miss some random infrequent poster.

Hell, my biggest & most consistent gripe about SD's entire moderation tenure would be that he's far FAR too lenient about what he allows to be posted, so why on earth would I get bent about this? I'd personally like to see about a 25% culling of the registered user list anyway, so one random poster? Like I said earlier, "Pfft" to me.

Do I wish the rule were more clearly stated and/or more consistently applied?
Yeah.
Do I wish the definition of "improper trading" were expanded?
You're damned skippy I do.
Have I spent more than a few minutes of my life worrying about it?
Not really.

[Draft Dodger]

good food for thought, Marc.

I don't want to come off like I'm supporting piracy, but I am one to question the real effect piracy has on sales. I generally look at it as the person using a warez version as not being someone who was going to buy the game anyway (this applies to music too, IMO). So you could have a zillion downloads of of a warez of FM, but you aren't really losing any sales there. At least with a used game, you know there's money a consumer was willing to spend on the title in the first place - I see warez people as downloading games they had no intention of paying any amount of money for.

again, that doesn't justify piracy, and it's pretty easy for me to have that opinion, as there are NO versions of my games being pirated. :)

[Dekanth]

I grabbed the closest manual to me, the Bard's Tale, and it says:

"You may permanetly transfer all of your rights under this License Agreement, provided the receipient agrees to the terms of the EULA and you agree to remove the program from your home, business or portable computer."

[Honolulu_Blue]

16 members and 5 guests viewing this thread. It's 5 pages long. You guys are clearly not letting sleeping SkyDogs lie.

What part of the title do you people not understand?

[Chubby]

It's quite clear that Ben has over-reacted on this issue.

It's also quite clear that he's not the type of guy to readily admit to being wrong.ding ding ding! we have a winner!

[st.cronin]

Since locking this thread didn't work, I will now DELETE IT!!!!


*poof*

[Chubby]

Yeah, and talking about the kids Skydog deals with at highschool, or magnifying every single word used in all his post isn't reaching.

If I were the moderator here (and obviously I'm not) but as many whinefest threads like this there are, I'd of quit by now. You couldn't pay me to filter through this shit on a regular basis.

You do realize who the original author of this thread is, right?

[gstelmack]

good food for thought, Marc.

I don't want to come off like I'm supporting piracy, but I am one to question the real effect piracy has on sales. I generally look at it as the person using a warez version as not being someone who was going to buy the game anyway (this applies to music too, IMO). So you could have a zillion downloads of of a warez of FM, but you aren't really losing any sales there. At least with a used game, you know there's money a consumer was willing to spend on the title in the first place - I see warez people as downloading games they had no intention of paying any amount of money for.

again, that doesn't justify piracy, and it's pretty easy for me to have that opinion, as there are NO versions of my games being pirated. :)
I have had PERSONAL experience with pirates:

1) Taking up tech support time trying to solve issues caused by them having a pirated pre-release version of the game.

2) Reviews impacted by similar tech support reports on game forums which caused the reviewers to ding the game because even though they didn't have similar problems, they could not ignore the reports being posted in the forums.

Both cost money, with the tech support costs being a direct impact, while the lower reviews an indirect impact in lost sales.

The key here was that the pirated version was pre-release. The issues being reported by the pirates were all fixed in the final, shipping version.

So yes, pirates are very capable of having a direct, negative financial impact on the game even if they never would have spent the money anyway.

[Honolulu_Blue]

You do realize who the original author of this thread is, right?
Yes. But he was merely pleading for all y'all to let sleeping SkyDogs lie. He was obviously very tired and perhaps even a little bit cranky. Mayhap She Who Must Be Obeyed kept him up all night or something.

Poor SkyDog... He must be so very... very tired.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I have had PERSONAL experience with pirates:

Did they look anything like... this?

http://www.pubcat.org.uk/images/pics/Pirates-028.jpg

[Airhog]

I wish we could get Jim and arlie to chime in on this. Although I think it would be doubtful, since jim rarely posts, although this is one instance were his input might be appreciated.

[st.cronin]

I wish we could get Jim and arlie to chime in on this. Although I think it would be doubtful, since jim rarely posts, although this is one instance were his input might be appreciated.

What would be even better is if we could get Jim and Arlie to start FIGHTING about this.