Yeah, sorry, I wasn’t as precise as I could’ve been. I was really just trying to convey the motivations (i.e. that it was due to being mistaken for foreign as opposed to being targeted for using a VPN), not go into the details of exactly which aspect of the VPN (the entrance IP geolocation, the exit IP geolocation, or the company HQ location) would actually trigger the “foreign-ness.”
Stop parroting copyright cartel lies.
Due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, both affected regions have experienced physical impacts to infrastructure as a result of drone strikes. In the UAE, two of our facilities were directly struck, while in Bahrain, a drone strike in close proximity to one of our facilities caused physical impacts to our infrastructure. These strikes have caused structural damage, disrupted power delivery to our infrastructure, and in some cases required fire suppression activities that resulted in additional water damage.
Translation: servers got turned into charred scrap.
Those are the ones that would cause them to surveil you.
The issue isn’t necessarily “the government will target you for using a VPN;” the issue is “if your IP makes you look like you’re outside the US because that’s where your traffic exits the VPN, the laws against domestic spying won’t protect you properly because you’ll look like a foreigner.”
Frankly, the headline is heavily spinning it to be anti-VPN fearmongering.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
(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.
In the comment you replied to, I was talking about (2). In a bunch of other comments (the ones disputing the validity of EULAs), I was talking about (1).
Also, I’m not necessarily intending to attack people on the same side as me; I’m just sick and tired of all the corporate-serving misconceptions being bandied about in this thread (and in every other discussion of this topic, for that matter). It’s fucking exasperating how many people have drunk the corporatist and copyright cartel flavor-aid. Corporations don’t get to decide what people are “allowed” to do!
Atlantan here, but I’ve never seen Deliverance (one of these days I’ll get around to it).
The ironic thing about Bender’s ditty is that he’s freaked out by the cultured, urban Atlantan merpeople, let alone the weird rural hillbillies.
Also, IRL Atlanta is nothing like that. Something like this is far more accurate, LOL!
Just because a right is infringed upon doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Moreover, being subjugated under tyranny doesn’t mean you should accept the rhetorical framing of the tyrant!
Uhh… you can resell a disc based one, doing it do a downloaded one wheter still under license or not, is all hells kind of illegal. Because one’s a license, which can usually never be sold or transferred, but each specific contract you agree to specifies this
That’s a textbook circular argument. You’re trying to argue that things are licenses because they’re licenses.
We know your angle and game.
What, standing up for property rights? Do you have some sort of problem with that?!
You can’t even rip the disc and then try and sell that,
Yes you can! If you don’t keep the original (or any other copy) for yourself. Then you’re actually selling your (albeit format-shifted) copy, not making new copies (plural). It’s doing things that increase the total number of people who have it that makes copyright law kick in; otherwise it’s just reselling an individual good.
And yes, the same applies to a downloaded file. It’s still just format-shifting!
If you think that’s wrong, cite the “all hella kind” of laws it breaks. Surely it’ll be easy for you, being so confident.
And these are the terms of use for that purchase.
That sequence of words is literally nonsense. There is no such thing as “terms of use for that purchase;” it is simply not a concept that exists.
What part of the Doctrine of First Sale do you not understand?
If I sign a contract with a party magician for them to come and perform, and then violate the terms of the contract, they can stop providing their services without being in breach of contract.
We’re talking about goods here, not services. A magician is providing a service, not a good, and is therefore irrelevant.
Curious why you ignored disc based games? Those you actually own and no one can take them away.
Because I didn’t need to mention it separately. There is no meaningful difference between a disc-based game and a downloaded one; you have all the same ownership rights in both cases.
And none of your examples are licensed, you actually own those items.
Exactly! And neither is software, as you literally just admitted!
Why are you talking about copyright? Are you thinking that we’re talking about it owning part of the copyright or having access to it?
I am explicitly making as clear a distinction as I can between “holding the copyright” and “owning an individual copy” in order to emphasize that I am not talking about the former. I’m genuinely trying to be as precise as humanly possible, and I’m honestly baffled that you still somehow got it so backwards.
Or do you just not know what a license is? You realize that these are based on something in real life right? Like licenses to own guns, operate vehicles…. You don’t actually own those items, and they can be taken away. Just like a digital game!
You realize that just because something applies in one context doesn’t mean it applies the same way in some entirely different context, right?
Also, by the way, not having a license to operate a vehicle on public roads isn’t the same thing as not being allowed to own a car. Perhaps it’s you who is struggling to understand WTF you’re talking about.
Get lost.
You first.
Their user agreement doesn’t claim they can remove files from your computer.
Then GOG must be restricting access only to the service itself, not to your property, despite what the text says.
If GOG suspends my account, I can no longer access the content I paid for
You still own the copy of the game; it’s hardly GOG’s fault if you lost or destroyed it.
Expecting to have continued access to re-download indefinitely is like buying a physical book from a brick-and-mortar store, throwing it in the trash, and then expecting to be allowed to swing back by the place later to grab another copy off the shelf. Sure, it’d be nice if the store let you do that, but it would be silly to claim that not letting you do it somehow meant you never owned your copy of the book.
Even accepting the argument that a tyrannical law invalidates rights rather than violating them (which I don’t, BTW), the DMCA only applies to things that are DRM’d, not everything on Steam.
Your consideration is being able to access the game.
No it isn’t; the purchase itself granted that right.
(At least, to obtain the copy once, because otherwise you’re not getting what you paid for. You could argue that some license offers continued access to re-download – i.e. access to the GOG service, not the copy of the game itself – but it would be absurd to argue that it can hold hostage your use of that first copy you already downloaded.)
What else ya got?
I understand that you’re grasping at straws to avoid addressing the essential part of my argument (which, restated again, is that you can’t receive legal ownership from somebody who doesn’t have the right to give it to you), which is tantamount to conceding the point.
Prove me wrong.
And do it by citing the law or the courts, not the adverse party.
Okay then, I guess GoG is lying the same way Steam is after all. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, but concede that I was wrong.
“Licensed not sold” is still bunk, though. They do not have the right to confiscate games you’ve previously purchased, no matter what their fucking User Agreement claims.
🙄 “Copyright infringement is not theft” is usually an argument I’m the one making, but that’s not the point right now. It was meant to be an analogy, not a strict equating of the two concepts.
The point is that acquiring something by other-than-legal means, whatever they are and regardless of whether the act of transference was a crime or a civil tort, does not confer legal ownership. That’s just a fact, not an ethical judgement, and isn’t really debatable.
Oh really? Explain how I’m wrong, then!
What regulatory capture of the FTC does to MFer.
All this shit should be considered false advertising, at the very least.