Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Using the occasion,

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Using the occasion,

    I'd like to congratulate all women in the world and wish them what every girl would desire: good husband, lots of sex, nice kitchen and'a emm, I guess that wraps it up : ) Cheers!

    https://youtu.be/PXUfBxMbC3A

  • #2
    Kinder, Küche, Kirche and sex hehe, cool, thanks a lot!

    Comment


    • #3
      somehow he project his wishes on females. LOL
      some guys will never learn it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bafonet View Post
        https://youtu.be/If9fC9aJd-U

        Comment


        • #5
          ответить на вопросы:
          является профессия pr-менеджер популярны в наше время?

          какими качествами должен обладать pr-менеджер?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ederl View Post
            ответить на вопросы:
            является профессия pr-менеджер популярны в наше время?

            какими качествами должен обладать pr-менеджер?
            Both of us were dreamers ...



            https://www.amalgama-lab.com/songs/s...a_forever.html

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dmitri11 View Post
              https://youtu.be/QrU1hZxSEXQ

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ederl View Post
                ответить на вопросы:
                является профессия pr-менеджер популярны в наше время?

                какими качествами должен обладать pr-менеджер?
                Wow things are getting really heated up in here aren't they? Oh and thanks for the mod manager- you guys really help make what would otherwise be a very messy game to modify into something err... a little more manageable. I also fully understand your decision regarding steam check. I've also had reason to research the subject at hand a little while ago (while I was working in what felt like some slightly less well cast version of the twilight zone) so do forgive the disorganized self-contradicting and inconsistently sarcastic and/or serious bits of words that follow. Well I'm on my way back from working in... the strangest place I have ever been. Almost a of time to kill between various flights and change overs so I might as well get some of the pent up crazy out- enjoy I think you can actually see me starting to suffer from greater and greater air-port induced sleep deprivation as it goes on and on... Slightly sane version: - The conspiratorial nonsense (I assume people were joking) made me laugh so hard that I shot beer out of my nose. The steam check is not the entirety of the access-type content protection used for new Vegas but the simian-typed (Shakespeare monkey joke, I'll get to that later) law this all comes back to does not distinguish between the circumvention of one or all of the methods with which a piece of content is protected. - While I am not naive enough to think that most people who circumvent DRM do so for legally protected reasons it is not in and of itself a violation of US law nor most state laws let alone the laws of many signatory nations to the WIPO (oh yes, and there are plenty of legally protected reasons many of which can be frighteningly stupid) - Calling people who circumvent DRM criminals is not only over-zealous in some cases completely incorrect, it is also in a general sense technically incorrect. Unless someone violates copy-protection or DRM (they are treated as separate matters under the law too) for personal and financial gain (legally established to be more than simply gaining use in violation of copyright) they have committed only an actionable violation of the statues involved. Without attempting to gain from their circumvention of DRM in some other way they have not committed a criminal act in most States and most of the WIPO signatory nations. All this means is that, as opposed to something like breach of contract, they can be made to pay statutory punitive damages in addition to and well above actual damages. With the exception of the bizarre use of law enforcement as agents of the plaintiff this is like any other civil suit in which statute dictates punitive damages - like wrongful termination. -The principal problem with the law regarding most of what has been discussed here, besides people making up what they think is in it as they go, is that there is a requirement of intent as well as an exemption for reasons of interoperability which is stated thus- with brilliant specificity and foresight on the part of the monkey authors of the bill - "reverse engineering to achieve interoperability of computer programs is allowed;" The irony is that the statement, added in order to protect competition by ensuring the law did not suddenly make the long-established and legally accepted act of figuring out how a competitor's product works did not suddenly become both an actionable violation of copyright as well as a criminal offense (since financial gain would be involved). Is it irony that a statement meant to delineate between violating and non-violating intent with regards to circumventing content protection utterly failed to convey the intent of its authors? - An EULA is a strange beast and treated very unevenly depending which state you are in (and which circuit court has jurisdiction in the case) and sometimes which state the plantiff is in. Most of the EULA is standard limitation of liability that you would think would not be needed to be said or at least would hope could be left unsaid. I suppose car window shades have the warning "do not drive while in use" on them for the same reasons. Lawyers want us all to feel very condescended to whenever we read their handiwork. Oh and people are stupid- I'm sure that fits in somewhere. Anyways, beyond absolving the content creators from liability should your comptuer happen to coincidently become skynet when you install their product, there are a few other relatively common clauses that may or may not be enforceable where you live. From what I can remember, only two states have adopted UCITA - a legal code meant to treat software as a special exception to the Uniform Commercial Code (particularly the idea of inherent rights of fair use and the long established idea that there is a type of"self help" with regard to contract disputes that is not only improper but also potentially a felony criminal act.) Sadly people living in the countless states that have passed UCITA are quite probably subject to even some of the portions of an EULA which may be explicitly illegal under federal law. Oh wait, those states may be more countable than I thought- there's two. There are only two states in which most of the terms of an EULA beyond the the limitation of liability and warranty are supported by written law. - So these lonely two UCITA states - One of them is, of course, Maryland where Bethesda is. If you live somewhere besides Maryland or Virginia though then the enforcability of a particular portion of an EULA besides those that are considered normal under the UCC is up to the whims of the judges of your particular court of appeals circuit. Why is that? The supreme court has seemed unwilling to rule on this newfangled "software" for quite some time (regardless of the liberal or conservative makeup of the court.) Because of this highly questionable and equally reliable cowardice on the part of our nations highest court, the validity of many of the terms of almost every EULA is never entirely certain- probably why there are relatively few suits where the principal complaint made by the plaintiff has been EULA violation. They usually try to use more predictbly settled laws in copyright suits, and suits that have focused on the EULA have varied from circuit to circuit. Oh and Maryland is in the 4th court of appeals circuit. They have a relatively long history of giving deference to ideas like parody being fully protected as free speech (some landmark cases establish and affirming that even in cases where the parody version was less of a caricature of the original than a close and somewhat accurate facsimile that was mocked. - If only 2 states passed UCITA you probably wonder if any of the other states that voted its adoption down were busy doing. If you are familiar with the frantic and high-energy workings of your state legislature you probably know that almost all of the states did nothing with regard to updating or altering the UCC with regard to software (the sad thing is that it does make sense to have a serious and reasoned consideration of the fact that software and digitally stored media are a little bit different in some non-trivial ways when compared the goods the UCC had traditionally applied to such as a toaster or a car. Well while almost every state failed to produce any binding legislation on the matter, there are at least 4 (and I think now 5) states that passed a rebuke of the stalled UCTIA. These "anti-UCTIA" or "UCTIA Bomb Shelter" bills declared contracts specifying that they were subject to the laws of a state which had passed UCTIA to be invalid within the state. I live within the jurisdiction of a comsumer friendly court of appeals AND inside an anti-UCTIA state. Of course the validity of these laws has not been thuroughly tested gainst the commerce clause. That will depend on where the sale is accepted to have been completed. If the transaction is considered to be complete when the vendor or digital distributor accepts your payment in exchange for the product then a court which holds that beleif generally will give very very little weight to anything inside a shrink-wrap or click-wrap contract. If you're in the 7th or 8th circuit appeals court jurisdictions ell you should probably actually read your EULAs because you may be suprised to know what you have probably bindingly agreed to at game store a half an hour ago when you gave the cashier 60 bucks for a cool looking box not knowing you had already agreed that in doing so you were bound by most if not all clauses of the as yet unrevealed EULA if you decided to agree to it and even if you didn't well it still stipulates the consequences or options you have in that case to. Pretty impressive lawyers who can offer you a contract where even wheen you refuse the terms they can argue that you have agreed to abide by the terms of refusal.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ederl View Post
                  ответить на вопросы:
                  является профессия pr-менеджер популярны в наше время?

                  какими качествами должен обладать pr-менеджер?
                  At least most EULAs not really do very much of that anymore despite it being upheld. - My Example of Legally Protected Circumvention of DRM (DOES NOT CONTAIN INSTRUCTIONS OR TOOLS FOR DOING SO) I'm currently in a US territory right now and living in what you could describe as a corporate campus environment. Network access within the site is relatively restricted in the sense that there is a through set of policies and requirements for access. While, for the sake of logistics, we are allowed and even encouraged to bring and use our personal laptops on the network we must consent to have them reformatted and configured to an acceptable state by one of the IT admins. This does not just mean updating anti-virus software, starting from a clean and secure installation, or other things people would consider to be good common sense. It also means that after the system is reformatted (nuke and boot not just quick format) and the computers internals are thoroughly inspected for unauthorized devices the first things that are installed are a set of programs that constitute our security suite. This suite includes your standard enterprise security software such as a clunky and proprietary VPN connection manager, their anti-virus software of choice, a VERY nosy firewall that also submits report files detailing any and all instances of you making an exception to the default permissions (you're also required to enter an explanation when you click to allow an non authorized access and you better have a good one), and an installation manager that will only install packages delivered by are application server unless an IT admin personally enters their override along with an explanation in the always convenient justify-your-actions-or-else text box. It almost goes without saying that any attempt to circumvent, remove, or otherwise alter any component of the required security software constituted a breach of my employment contract and would result in immediate termination and potentially restitution if those actions threatened the integrity of network or site security. In my head this translated to "if you even look at a button that sort of looks like "remove program" and even though that wouldn't do you any good, we'll feed you to the Krampus." This means that to install something like a game we have to visit an IT admin in person, show them the software and proof sufficient to convince them that it is what it appears to be and nothing more sinister. Oh now of course my employers are not monsters by any stretch of the imagination - the IT admins are more than happy to allow us to install games on our personal laptops. It's not like this is some cult-like compound in the middle of the jungle where we are deprived of our last vestiges of humanity and sense of selves. No no no, it's on the edge of a jungle and it sticks out far too much to be anything more than a shell operation for the Illuminati (at this point I think it may be relevent to mention the term on my employment contract was up yesterday and I'm currently in what I think is the 4th airport on my "a limited number of connecting flights may be required" trip home, so I am allowed to make these sorts of jokes finally- although I may have to submit an explanation for overriding the allowable joke policy settings on the microchip I'm absoutely cretain they implanted in my brain while I was sleeping.) So yeah, they have no problem with Fallout New Vegas a policy exception can be entered into the security suite they require we install on our laptops before granting us network access. Steam on the otherhand is not treated quite so kindly. It is not merely flagged by the installation manager as an "unregognized software install requiring admin override." No, they really don't think highly enough of Steam let it off as lightly as pretending not to recognize it. The security suite and install manager liked to refer to it as "Software containing tools for unauthorized file transfer and non-secure or unauthorized communication with entities unknown in violation of site policy regarding the potential transmission of protected information.and acceptable extra-site communications." Oh yeah, I memorized that one. I thought it was the IT admin playing a joke on me at first. It said "entities unknown." I mean I know they bill the places as "A Level 4 data center operating above and beyond all recommendations as laid out in the NIST's STIG and possessing full FISMA accreditation" And here I thought the head-hunter was a big fan of the show Top Gear and just had a bit of a stuter. So here you find yourself, in a strange combination of the sitcom The IT Crowd and the Joseph Conrad Novel the heart of darkness. Your IT and managment overlords will graciously allow you to play this wonderful game on your own time and will even let you install it on the very computer they graciously allow to sully their otherwise harmonious beautiful network. Their is of course a catch - they are convinced that Steam is a tool with which the Antarctic tree people plan to spy on them and learn the secrets of their power. They will, understandably, not allow their secrets to fall into the hands of the treacherous Antarctican. Oh ok yeah they're not that crazy for seeing it as a security breach since it does constitute a potentially unmonitored and out-of-compliance means of communications were they to make a firewall exception for it. What was crazy was what I was told would be an allowable and acceptable way for me to play my game (on my own time of course) without leaking vital sectrets to our polar nemises. They suggested I should just go ahead and try to circumvent the copy protection. Ok so my boss sounded morally questionable the whole time he was saying this (even if he didn't really rant about an impending invasion of imaginary snow people). Just as I was about to leave thinking about how odd it was that my boss just told me to go download a crack tool over our secure network since a legitimate piece of software was too dangerous he explained yet another catch. Of course even attempting to download greyware could be considered an attempted security breach and seen as a threat to FISMA compliance and was likely counter indicated by the STIG. At this point I was absolutely certain that someone somewhere was messing with me and then he explained that he meant I was free to try to circumvent the DRM myself. If I did not download something or attempt to access suspicious sites in the process, he said there would be no problem. They already verified that the game did not pose a security risk if used on my personal laptop and only accessed outside of work hours. He joked (I think) that this was assuming whatever Frankenstein code monster I created to bypass DRM for the software did not do anything too suspicious. Now I was absolutely certain I was being messed with, so - when I was After looking up the actual laws regarding access-restriction type content protection I realized that what he said was perfectly legal according to historic and recent precedent as well as the language of the law. I sort of felt like if I spent the time to effectively dissect the DRM even in a very basic and loose sense and then crack it that I would have wasted hours of my free time that I could have otherwise spent doing something that my boss did not tell me to do. First thing I did when I got inside the first... of many airports... was reload my backup system image, install a couple months worth of updates and then install steam. It was odd but that is the first time installing something with DRM made me feel slightly less like I was being taken advantage of by paranoid Illuminati for the sake of their secret war with the Antarctican snow-mole-crab-people. The Rambling Crazy Old Man in Novac Version of My Argument (but if anyone asks I didn't say anything): Sure steam takes up a tiny but non-zero amount of system resources. I suppose some people might also feel its a little creepy to be playing a game like this and have it being able to record/report your in-game actions to some extent. It would be creepier still if you weren't able to disable that function already if you don't care about achievements. I think I also get people being irked over not being able to use a mod because of how they may have modded their game. From some points of view it might seem like the pot calling the kettle black- a mod judging you for modding your game. Thing is, I think the reality of all this has far less to do with collusion between NVSE author, FOMM creators, and Zenimax Media than it does with people who created these tools having a reasonable amount of caution. There's a nice bit of irony in all this too- particularly for people who have legally purchased the game and simply want to avoid the

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ederl View Post
                    ответить на вопросы:
                    является профессия pr-менеджер популярны в наше время?

                    какими качествами должен обладать pr-менеджер?
                    DRM with no other motives or nefarious intent. They're not protecting themselves or even Bethesda- they are (probably unintentionally) protecting you. That might sound corny but it's not-. I's actually proof that there are an uncountable number of monkeys in some room somewhere who will eventually - by chance - type the collected works of Shakespeare; but for the moment they're keeping busy by writing our laws. Why do I think this? Well in the United States it is defined as a actionable (not criminal) act to circumvent access-control type copy-protection - unless the primary intent is not such circumvention, but achieving interoperability with other software and systems. That's a bit confusing on the face of it, but only because when you read it your brain is asking you to find and slap the 8 year old who wrote it using his daddy's copy of Webster's Thesaurus of American Legal Terms. Yes- this law says you can't circumvent access-control mechanisms in copyrighted material unless you are doing so to achieve interoperability with any (legally obtained) other piece of software or computer system. Most obviously- yes it is considered an actionable violation of the content owner's copyright to decrypt or crack software you did not purchase; not just that though because this means that there is (potentially) one penalty related to how you obtained the content in the first place and another still for bypassing the DRM. This also means that bypassing the DRM because you do not like it and want to do without it is a violation even if you own the software legally. Yes, if you purchase software and then were to decrypt it yourself because you felt like it or because you disliked the idea of DRM or just for the sake of doing it you have committed an actionable civil offense. What is really silly about this law though (beyond the fact that they added an "intent" exemption which even a 12 year old kid who happened to watch a lot of court-t could tell you is a rookie mistake) is that it renders the same act legally protected if one were to do so for the sake of using a trainer or cheat program blocked by steam; this is as long as you completely avoided communication with Steam while doing so as any unauthorized access to the Steam network could constitute yet another and separate actionable offense against the rights holders. So- bypassing DRM on something you purchased just because you want to do so is a violation. Similarly, bypassing access-control type content protection is proscribed if you are doing so to protest such protection - again, even if you obtained the content legally in that protected form. Bypassing DRM because you want to cheat - as long as you are not accessing a protected netowrk while doing so - is perfectly acceptable and is in fact outright protected by this law. Don't tell me you're surprised that congress passed a law that punishes the actions of a contrarian while protecting the exact same actions of a cheater as long as they really intended to cheat. So how is it that they're not at least also protecting themselves right? Yeah that part is also a gift from the type-writer-using monkeys. Distributing, creating or otherwise trafficking in tools with which to circumvent access protection is frowned upon by the law with the full force of civil suits- sort of. It is not considered to bs such a tool for the circumvention of access protection if its primary purpose is is not such circumvention and if such circumvention is necessary to ensure interoperability of the protected content with other software and systems. Well that means that if even one of these two tools or ANY content created to be used with either one of them were to be unusable unless steam-check and DRM were bypassed then the creators of either tool would be perfectly allowed to do so. Even if some people were to use the software to bypass DRM and solely to bypass DRM and even if the software could be used just for that purpose, they would still be in the clear. Anyone who downloaded the tools for that purpose would be committing a an actionable violation of WIPO however. However, without some concrete example of steam needing to be bypassed for the sake of interoperability with another piece of software or content - as well as the fact these tools can theoretically perform any and all of their intended purposes without such circumvention - the authors are probably doing the smart thing for now. They also don't want to create a tool that could be used to violated the access-type protection of the game. Here we find another layer of irony in our law - more evidecne that the monkeys are getting closer to Shakespeare every day. If they actually wanted to do so they could while remaining legally protected all the while. Someone, even the tool authors themselves, would simply have to create a plugin or complimentary tool that would fail if steam was loaded. Obviously it would have to do something other than check for one of the DRM mechanisms - that would almost suggest intent right there. The thing is they're honest about the functions and intent of these tools, and realized they could ensure interoperability of their tools and the dependent mods without circumventing DRM. Once this has been stated they have effectively tied their hands with regards to producing subsequent versions that can load the game without steam running. And no, just because circumventing steam check does not in and of itself bypass ALL access-restriction type content protection does not mean it doesn't count. It bypasses one of the protections and that would be enough - as long as interoperability can be achieved without such circumvention. So how do I mean to suppose that the moderators s and the creators of these tools are, regardless of actual intent, protecting the people who have been banned or people intending to bypass DRM more so than they are protecting themselves? The authors actions, the functionality of their tools, and their consistent response to the issue has already established their lack of malicious intent. They're in the clear already - they don't have to do or say anything further. Anyone who has posted their intent to bypass the DRM - and given no explanation that would otherwise exempt them - has provided potential evidence against themselves if they ever were to find themselves facing a suit for violating sections of the Yo. I know it doesn't seem like it is legally in the same vein as contract violation or wrongful termination since unlike most civilly actionable violations of statute this one empowers law enforcement to storm your house and seize your personal property in advance advance of any findings of fact by a judge or verdict by a jury. Instead a subpoeana (in some states its handled more like a warrant) is all it takes. Yes this is extremely unlikely and yes you can probably count the number of times it has happened on your fingers and maybe a couple toes. The thing is though- if you posted about bypassing the DRM because you wanted to bypass the DRM or even just the team check and you DON'T awaken in the middle of the night to law enforcement agents seizing your computer while dowsing you in pepper spray because you were "non-compliant" then there is a small chance you were saved from that by the moderators and the authors of these tools. They saved you from getting tazed bro! To be clear- anything I said that seems like an exaggeration is just that. It is true that what little legal (very little) jeopardy may have existed in this thread and been brought up by the potential capabilities of the tools mentioned herein existed only for those who said they wanted to circumvent the steam check because they didn't want to run steam (even assuming they did not pirate the game.) Asking the creators of the too do so is a non-starter because if they responded to such a request to circumvent the copy protection by releasing a version of their tool that would then do that they would have demonstrated an arguable AND exempted intent to circumvent said protection. I can not end without once again taking issue with the attitude and one of the moderators and some similarly antagonistic users who posted a few pages back. Installing the game without steam is not in and of itself illegal nor is it only a relevant action for someone who has pirated the game. While some reasons for doing so would be actionable under US law in a civil court - there are many that are not illegal but in-fact are legally protected by to a very mixed degree by combination of federal law (think that was an accident on their part really and it is applied by the courts with an annoying lack of consistentcy on everything from whether a contract (EULA) invalidates a federal law to how "exempt" something that is "exempt" really is. For some reason the only matter that some legal scholars beleive to be settled is the idea that if the EULA forbids reverse engineering the software then encrypting it is a violation of the DMCA and subject the defendent is subject to punitive damages. If you read the section of the bill talking about this (I think I've harped on it a few times here though) you must conclude without any doubt that on that day in the 7th circuit court room it had to be opposite day fish don't fry in the kitchen. Desigur.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bafonet View Post

                      DRM with no other motives or nefarious intent. They're not protecting themselves or even Bethesda- they are (probably unintentionally) protecting you. That might sound corny but it's not-. I's actually proof that there are an uncountable number of monkeys in some room somewhere who will eventually - by chance - type the collected works of Shakespeare; but for the moment they're keeping busy by writing our laws. Why do I think this? Well in the United States it is defined as a actionable (not criminal) act to circumvent access-control type copy-protection - unless the primary intent is not such circumvention, but achieving interoperability with other software and systems. That's a bit confusing on the face of it, but only because when you read it your brain is asking you to find and slap the 8 year old who wrote it using his daddy's copy of Webster's Thesaurus of American Legal Terms. Yes- this law says you can't circumvent access-control mechanisms in copyrighted material unless you are doing so to achieve interoperability with any (legally obtained) other piece of software or computer system. Most obviously- yes it is considered an actionable violation of the content owner's copyright to decrypt or crack software you did not purchase; not just that though because this means that there is (potentially) one penalty related to how you obtained the content in the first place and another still for bypassing the DRM. This also means that bypassing the DRM because you do not like it and want to do without it is a violation even if you own the software legally. Yes, if you purchase software and then were to decrypt it yourself because you felt like it or because you disliked the idea of DRM or just for the sake of doing it you have committed an actionable civil offense. What is really silly about this law though (beyond the fact that they added an "intent" exemption which even a 12 year old kid who happened to watch a lot of court-t could tell you is a rookie mistake) is that it renders the same act legally protected if one were to do so for the sake of using a trainer or cheat program blocked by steam; this is as long as you completely avoided communication with Steam while doing so as any unauthorized access to the Steam network could constitute yet another and separate actionable offense against the rights holders. So- bypassing DRM on something you purchased just because you want to do so is a violation. Similarly, bypassing access-control type content protection is proscribed if you are doing so to protest such protection - again, even if you obtained the content legally in that protected form. Bypassing DRM because you want to cheat - as long as you are not accessing a protected netowrk while doing so - is perfectly acceptable and is in fact outright protected by this law. Don't tell me you're surprised that congress passed a law that punishes the actions of a contrarian while protecting the exact same actions of a cheater as long as they really intended to cheat. So how is it that they're not at least also protecting themselves right? Yeah that part is also a gift from the type-writer-using monkeys. Distributing, creating or otherwise trafficking in tools with which to circumvent access protection is frowned upon by the law with the full force of civil suits- sort of. It is not considered to bs such a tool for the circumvention of access protection if its primary purpose is is not such circumvention and if such circumvention is necessary to ensure interoperability of the protected content with other software and systems. Well that means that if even one of these two tools or ANY content created to be used with either one of them were to be unusable unless steam-check and DRM were bypassed then the creators of either tool would be perfectly allowed to do so. Even if some people were to use the software to bypass DRM and solely to bypass DRM and even if the software could be used just for that purpose, they would still be in the clear. Anyone who downloaded the tools for that purpose would be committing a an actionable violation of WIPO however. However, without some concrete example of steam needing to be bypassed for the sake of interoperability with another piece of software or content - as well as the fact these tools can theoretically perform any and all of their intended purposes without such circumvention - the authors are probably doing the smart thing for now. They also don't want to create a tool that could be used to violated the access-type protection of the game. Here we find another layer of irony in our law - more evidecne that the monkeys are getting closer to Shakespeare every day. If they actually wanted to do so they could while remaining legally protected all the while. Someone, even the tool authors themselves, would simply have to create a plugin or complimentary tool that would fail if steam was loaded. Obviously it would have to do something other than check for one of the DRM mechanisms - that would almost suggest intent right there. The thing is they're honest about the functions and intent of these tools, and realized they could ensure interoperability of their tools and the dependent mods without circumventing DRM. Once this has been stated they have effectively tied their hands with regards to producing subsequent versions that can load the game without steam running. And no, just because circumventing steam check does not in and of itself bypass ALL access-restriction type content protection does not mean it doesn't count. It bypasses one of the protections and that would be enough - as long as interoperability can be achieved without such circumvention. So how do I mean to suppose that the moderators s and the creators of these tools are, regardless of actual intent, protecting the people who have been banned or people intending to bypass DRM more so than they are protecting themselves? The authors actions, the functionality of their tools, and their consistent response to the issue has already established their lack of malicious intent. They're in the clear already - they don't have to do or say anything further. Anyone who has posted their intent to bypass the DRM - and given no explanation that would otherwise exempt them - has provided potential evidence against themselves if they ever were to find themselves facing a suit for violating sections of the Yo. I know it doesn't seem like it is legally in the same vein as contract violation or wrongful termination since unlike most civilly actionable violations of statute this one empowers law enforcement to storm your house and seize your personal property in advance advance of any findings of fact by a judge or verdict by a jury. Instead a subpoeana (in some states its handled more like a warrant) is all it takes. Yes this is extremely unlikely and yes you can probably count the number of times it has happened on your fingers and maybe a couple toes. The thing is though- if you posted about bypassing the DRM because you wanted to bypass the DRM or even just the team check and you DON'T awaken in the middle of the night to law enforcement agents seizing your computer while dowsing you in pepper spray because you were "non-compliant" then there is a small chance you were saved from that by the moderators and the authors of these tools. They saved you from getting tazed bro! To be clear- anything I said that seems like an exaggeration is just that. It is true that what little legal (very little) jeopardy may have existed in this thread and been brought up by the potential capabilities of the tools mentioned herein existed only for those who said they wanted to circumvent the steam check because they didn't want to run steam (even assuming they did not pirate the game.) Asking the creators of the too do so is a non-starter because if they responded to such a request to circumvent the copy protection by releasing a version of their tool that would then do that they would have demonstrated an arguable AND exempted intent to circumvent said protection. I can not end without once again taking issue with the attitude and one of the moderators and some similarly antagonistic users who posted a few pages back. Installing the game without steam is not in and of itself illegal nor is it only a relevant action for someone who has pirated the game. While some reasons for doing so would be actionable under US law in a civil court - there are many that are not illegal but in-fact are legally protected by to a very mixed degree by combination of federal law (think that was an accident on their part really and it is applied by the courts with an annoying lack of consistentcy on everything from whether a contract (EULA) invalidates a federal law to how "exempt" something that is "exempt" really is. For some reason the only matter that some legal scholars beleive to be settled is the idea that if the EULA forbids reverse engineering the software then encrypting it is a violation of the DMCA and subject the defendent is subject to punitive damages. If you read the section of the bill talking about this (I think I've harped on it a few times here though) you must conclude without any doubt that on that day in the 7th circuit court room it had to be opposite day fish don't fry in the kitchen. Desigur.
                      If you're in distress, I suggest you speak to the flight medic. http://forum.interpals.net/forum/int...3609-hello-all

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X