Look, it is best to let sleeping SkyDogs lie.

[vex]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

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]

Originally Posted by 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'.

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]

Originally Posted by vexroid

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]

Originally Posted by dervack

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]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

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]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

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]

Originally Posted by vexroid

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]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

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]

Originally Posted by 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'.

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]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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]

Originally Posted by vexroid

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

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]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

...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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

...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]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

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

Well, clearly your way is wrong.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

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]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

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.

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

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]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

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]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

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.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Chubby

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]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I have had PERSONAL experience with pirates:

Did they look anything like... this?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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