Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
Mikkowl, you're analogies... 1, 2 and 3 are complete crap. You also seem to agree with your rhetoric on "dangles" that NP is entitled to protect their software and prevent any "unlicensed/ illegal" connecting to it.
|
"Dongles", not dangles. Also, you just said that I am analogies!
Why are the analogies crap? Doesn't the companies in those examples have a right to protect their software then if NP can refer to the same reasons?
You misunderstand the differences in the rhetoric - they have a right to try to stop people from using it by implementing stopping measures in the software itself. The question then of course is - who would want to use it? And then, I also think it's completely OK if someone managed to use it despite the triple dongle, invasive malware and internet requirement protection. All it says it that they can put in these things, but not trying to use the state police power to forcefully interfere with what people do privately with their own hardware and software.
EDIT (because he edited too):
Quote:
Is 1c, in your mind, also disallowed from protecting their software? should you it insist it be open architecture, so any punk can just come along and do what the heck they want with it after they've bought (cough not bloody likely cough) a license to it?
Julian265.... would it be fair to say NP doesn't want others hacking into/ taking advantage of their software, in any form?
|
1C can protect their stuff with as much crap they want (to make it hard for people to use it). It then comes to the point of how much people are willing to put up with to pay them money for them to supply a copy of it. This is an ongoing thing with different publishers and developers.
Selling someone elses work is not acceptable however. For example, someone trying to sell and profit copies of Storm of War. Or NaturalPoint's software.
EDIT 2 (Because I forgot to reply to the last bit, oops): It is fair to say they don't want people to do anything than pay them lots of money, but the question is how far they can legally and ethically take it. 'Hacking into' is no different than interfacing with something. Just because they don't want people to do it does not give them a right to stop people from doing it. That is exactly where my analogies 1.2.3. came in, they are no different.