That's because giving the advice means you are inherently justifying it. You are saying that your workaround is an okay compromise.Bara_no_Hime said:You know what, never mind.
Everyone with Origins - you're on your own. I tried to help, but apparently everyone would rather scream about how evil Origins is (really, you're surprised?) than listen to purely technical advice. Fine then. Enjoy your arguments. I'm out.
Don't bother replying to this, cause I'm going to ignore any quotes from this thread from here on out.
This, so much.CriticKitten said:elvor0 said:snipNo, it's not a new phenomenon, and no, it's not brand new just because you think it is. It's a policy that has always existed in gaming. Always. Read the ToS on your 2002 or so games and I guarantee you'll find very similar legal clauses in there.SirBryghtside said:snip
There are simply two key differences between then and now:
1) they're taking it much more seriously (since pirating has only grown more and more with the rise of digital ownership)
2) they actually have the means by which to enforce those clauses (because short of sending suits to your home to break your CDs, there weren't exactly options back then)
It's just like with music: the industry didn't really stamp down on people's cassette mix tapes even though the spread of music was pretty common, but as pirating in a digital age has become commonplace and as new methods have arisen to enforce the "no-theft" policies, the industry has put its foot down more and more in a rather ugly attempt to up their profits even more.
True, your old games will continue to work, but that doesn't change the fact that the gaming industry has always believed it was selling you a "license" and not a game. As users such as Crono1973 have tried to point out, it's the industry basically saying "we'll sell you a game, but then turn around and claim it's not really yours". And until the law steps in and says otherwise, it's only going to continue to get worse now that they actually can do that to you.
The first-sale doctrine. The lawful owner of a copy of a piece of media has the right to resell it without interference from the copyright holder.mad825 said:You're not answering the question. what law or act/bill prevents them from doing this?, NAME IT.
What the hell?!trlkly said:That's because giving the advice means you are inherently justifying it. You are saying that your workaround is an okay compromise.
We already have a way of getting around the problem. The problem is that it's a way that the company would prefer us not to use. Yours would be giving in to them, and encouraging the practice.
Necromancy becomes more and more widespread as time goes on it seems D:Bara_no_Hime said:What the hell?!trlkly said:That's because giving the advice means you are inherently justifying it. You are saying that your workaround is an okay compromise.
We already have a way of getting around the problem. The problem is that it's a way that the company would prefer us not to use. Yours would be giving in to them, and encouraging the practice.
**looks at thread, notes date of last comment**
... why are you resurrecting a thread from LAST YEAR?!
**reports and ignores**