It sounds like you have a fairly good idea of what a license might contain. I think that most informed consumers are in a similar position. With the magic of google I was able to find a copy of the license agreement for Spore. If I so chose I could read this and then decide that I don't want to pay for the ability to use the software at the terms offered. So the information is available, it's simply the responsiblity of the consumer to aqquire it. If you chose not to be informed, just to walk into EB and drop $60 on the counter...it's not EA's fault. It's not the retailers job to inform you either.
Since the intellectual property is owned by EA, they can set the terms they want to sell/lease use at. If you can't be bothered to find out those terms beforehand it's your problem, not theirs.
If you have a problem with the license agreements in general, what you need to do is organize the gaming community at large to boycott all game sales until manufacturers rework terms to the people's liking. I personally think that the vast majority of people don't really care enough about the issue to do anything.
Returning to the original point of this thread, your not liking the license agreement is not a justification to steal the product.
"
you're missing very key points here
its not the responsibility of the consumer to look for it. One cant be expected to "agree" to something thats hidden inside packaging that you cant open until bought. Intellectual property is a sham. Like I said, if i didnt agree to the terms, then its my property. Since they didnt show me the terms prior and have no signature, ethically speaking I should own the disc and everything on it and have the ability to send it to people I want to. If they made me sign the agreement, then thats a different story all together.
No, I wouldnt have the gaming community do it. This is a legal issue, and it goes beyond just gaming.
Returning to the original point: its not theft if the terms arent presented to you. You may say you can go online, but thats irrelevant, since some people actually dont have a computer still.
Most homeless people are just people who were too fucking lazy to do anything in life
That's totally unfair. Most homeless people are mentall unstable. Being homeless isn't really easy, though it might seem that way.
Of course because a vast majority of them are mentally unstable I steer way clear of them. I'm certainly not in a position to hand out money, but if I was I'd rather donate to a soup kitchen or shelter than hand out cash.
"
Prove it or dont say it. If theyre mostly mentally "unstable" (nice fucking vague term there) then it should be easy to prove, until then you are WRONG. "
That's the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance. You can't say things are "right or wrong" until "proven" so. (It's true or false whether or not someone proves it and it's absurd to say something is automatically wrong until proven right - though it might be wrong)
An article in the website http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/fact11.htm says:
SUMMARY: People with untreated psychiatric illnesses comprise one-third, or between 150,000 and 200,000 people, of the estimated 744,000 homeless population.
How many the other 2/3 are "mentally unstable," I didn't read in that article - I just glanced over it. Still, 1/3 is a big chunk. "
it is a big chunk. but still, its not most.
the biggest problem is where he said mentally unstable, because that can mean a lot of different things depending on who you ask.
"as long as the government has control over free people in the economy, well be talking about unemployment for a long time. The more the government gets involved the worse things get. They should have learned their lesson with the abuse of the banking system that caused the great depression.
Too bad were headed down the same path again"
Look, I know you wear your politics on your sleeve, but that doesn't AT ALL answer the question I asked."
No I didnt, buddy. If he said that he believes most are mentally unstable, it would be one thing(along with defining what exactly that even really means). But hes speaking as if its fact. When its just not at all.
This entire thread is based upon what peoples opinion is about giving money to the homeless. theres no right or wrong answer, however this asshole is coming off making statements that are provable and wouldnt be subjective, but he gives no reason to make anyone believe him. "
And you seem to speak as though what Jakob said were fact. You've trapped yourself.
I'll give a hobo a sandwich once in a while. Why not?"
No I dont speak as if he has facts. If theres some sort of study on homeless people, id like to see it. I dont like the fact that people try and act as if theres always some reason people cant get on in life that cant be conquered. There are many lazy homeless people, ive provided documentation for this. There are many people who are mentally retarded who cant get on with their lives. Mentally unstable is a vague term, and all it is is excuses. Jakob may be wrong with saying MOST are lazy, but theres more reason to assume most are lazy, at least from my personal experience with the homeless which is why I didnt object to his statement. All I ask is for him to be straight forward, and to give reasoning.
If you want to give a hobo a sandwhich, or money, or anything, thats your business.
Most homeless people are just people who were too fucking lazy to do anything in life
That's totally unfair. Most homeless people are mentall unstable. Being homeless isn't really easy, though it might seem that way.
Of course because a vast majority of them are mentally unstable I steer way clear of them. I'm certainly not in a position to hand out money, but if I was I'd rather donate to a soup kitchen or shelter than hand out cash.
"
Prove it or dont say it. If theyre mostly mentally "unstable" (nice fucking vague term there) then it should be easy to prove, until then you are WRONG. "
It seems you've run into a bit of a logical error there, buddy."
No I didnt, buddy. If he said that he believes most are mentally unstable, it would be one thing(along with defining what exactly that even really means). But hes speaking as if its fact. When its just not at all.
This entire thread is based upon what peoples opinion is about giving money to the homeless. theres no right or wrong answer, however this asshole is coming off making statements that are provable and wouldnt be subjective, but he gives no reason to make anyone believe him.
Log in to comment