(il)legalities?

[jazz5150 0]

If I give the blueprint of someone's house, a description of the locks and where the valuables are hidden that might not be illegal.

If someone actually breaks in to get the valuables, that is illegal. I might now also be prosecuted for providing the information (unless it was common knowledge before I handed it over).

 

What is the general consensus: providing the information illegal or not?

[DaSpungie 1]

dunno if illegal but it's no ones business

you telling them when the owner is away and other security stuff?

why not just walk in with them as long as you do not take any thing

get locked in the garage then sue the owners for distress cuz you had to eat dog food

 

but

 

what if the owners are not mild mannered like me

and make you into dogfood

or find our who and bust you knees

hmm maybe I'm not so mild mannered

 

I have been in the construction industry for quite a few years.

I build houses and design them

everyone knows were the keys to a house are kept on a job site

but some one always knows when appliances are delivered and the next night some buggers show up and try to break in and steal them.

so as it is general knowledge is this alright

 

duh

no

so just keep this little tid bit to yourself

and read the 10 commandments out of exodus 20

and maybe a little more.

[jazz5150 0]

Interesting response, but I need to explain I see.

I was not talking about actually aiding a criminal, I was thinking about a parallel with certain threads about software in these forums.

So, I did not and will not give described information to any one (I like to be able to keep working for defense and government agencies) but I was trying to make a point.

 

Hope this clears things up a little, sorry for the confusion.

 

Thank you for the advice on my religion but I do know the bible...

[tank03 1]

If I give the blueprint of someone's house, a description of the locks and where the valuables are hidden that might not be illegal.

If someone actually breaks in to get the valuables, that is illegal. I might now also be prosecuted for providing the information (unless it was common knowledge before I handed it over).

 

What is the general consensus: providing the information illegal or not?

 

The question isn't whether or not providing the info was illegal; depending on the jurisdiction, that should be a cut and dried answer based on statute law. Civil law clearly states what is and isn't illegal in cases like this; and therefore it's really a moot question. If the law says what you did was illegal, then it was illegal, regardless what you may have to say about it.

 

The real question is what was your intent in providing the information? A reasonable person (and the law always looks at this from the stand point of reasonability) would probably see no reason for someone to provide such information unless their intent was nefarious. Why else would you give away the detailed information on the security and location of valuables?

 

Based on the brief scenario you provided I'd have to say that you are guilty; for no other reason other than I can see no reasonable justification for providing that type of info that didn't involve theft.

[eraser_tr 29]

I see just what you're referring to. It's a really bad analogy.

 

A better would be if you got the blueprints and layout of a house, made a mold of the key, walked in and replaced their old TV with a brand new 52in flatpanel TV.

 

Or used their interior layout to remodel the house you bought, made by the same contractor and based off the same structural design. Because you love how they decorated, but didn't like their choice of color.

[jazz5150 0]

I see just what you're referring to. It's a really bad analogy.

 

A better would be if you got the blueprints and layout of a house, made a mold of the key, walked in and replaced their old TV with a brand new 52in flatpanel TV.

 

Or used their interior layout to remodel the house you bought, made by the same contractor and based off the same structural design. Because you love how they decorated, but didn't like their choice of color.

 

I don't really agree that it's a bad analogy, it is somebodies else property your tinkering with, you only have the right to use it. You did not buy it like you buy a car, you bought the right to non exclusive use of the product, like a movie, a book or music. You have the right to listen to the music, but you don't have the right to change it.

 

But I will take your analogy, but then I would say you are renting a place including the furniture instead of having bought it. Can you just change everything in the house against the will of the owner?

[tank03 1]

I don't really agree that it's a bad analogy, it is somebodies else property your tinkering with, you only have the right to use it. You did not buy it like you buy a car, you bought the right to non exclusive use of the product, like a movie, a book or music. You have the right to listen to the music, but you don't have the right to change it.

 

But I will take your analogy, but then I would say you are renting a place including the furniture instead of having bought it. Can you just change everything in the house against the will of the owner?

 

Ah, intellectual property can be a legal quagmire. When you talk of a book, do you mean the material object (the binding, pages, ink) or the thoughts, ideas, and intangibles contained therein?

 

"Can you just change everything in the house against the will of the owner?" Yes, you can, but only under very specific circumstances.

 

I don't really know what this debate is actually about, care to enlighten me? Or perhaps it may be better for me to get out of the way now if this is one of those arguments that enrages more than enlightens?

[eraser_tr 29]

Yes, if I was renting the place and I was the only person living there, I'd rearrange all I want, and that certainly wouldn't be stealing or illegal. I certainly wouldn't throw out or sell anything. The owner migt not like it, but ultimately there's nothing wrong with it. But we're not talking about renting, but buying and owning.

 

I don't buy into the DMCA BS. I went to a store, I gave the cashier $50, he gave me a box with a DVD in it. Just as if I bought a car, house, couch or TV, it's my property. It's basic human law. Chefs do not license food to customers and say it must be eaten a certain way, or in a certain order. Ford cannot dictate how you drive or tune your car.

 

(For those unaware, this is about modding IL2 and to a deeper level, flawed copyright laws)

 

Further, I'm not altering the game itself, the DVD is exactly as they made it. I'm changing the copy it has placed on my hard drive, and no convoluted corporate pandering can say someone else holds ownership over my hard drive.

Edited October 29, 2007 by eraser_tr

[jazz5150 0]

I hope it does not enrages, that is not the intention. I am just curious about peoples perceptions. I am not really objective in this matter, although I do not work for a gaming company. It is not only about Il2, it is just as much about EAW and F4. I love to be able to tinker all I want, but that's why I buy all TK's stuff, use Linux next to my Windows and not only have MSFS installed but also Flight Gear.

Eraser, I am not saying you are wrong, I just have another opinion.

[eraser_tr 29]

It can be a very sticky matter, yes, if you decide to read all the clauses and fine print. I always cut through the complexity and BS through a simple analysis.

 

Am I claiming or selling a work as mine, even though it is someone elses? Am I giving away something you have to pay for to get? Have I acquired something and use it without paying for it? Can the mod produced be used without paying for the original product? No? then there's no problem, I've not infringed on anyone's intellectual property or rights.

[tank03 1]

Yes, if I was renting the place and I was the only person living there, I'd rearrange all I want, and that certainly wouldn't be stealing or illegal. I certainly wouldn't throw out or sell anything. The owner migt not like it, but ultimately there's nothing wrong with it. But we're not talking about renting, but buying and owning.

 

I don't buy into the DMCA BS. I went to a store, I gave the cashier $50, he gave me a box with a DVD in it. Just as if I bought a car, house, couch or TV, it's my property. It's basic human law. Chefs do not license food to customers and say it must be eaten a certain way, or in a certain order. Ford cannot dictate how you drive or tune your car.

 

(For those unaware, this is about modding IL2 and to a deeper level, flawed copyright laws)

 

Further, I'm not altering the game itself, the DVD is exactly as they made it. I'm changing the copy it has placed on my hard drive, and no convoluted corporate pandering can say someone else holds ownership over my hard drive.

 

Ah, I think I understand the point of all of this now.

 

"I don't buy into the DMCA BS. I went to a store, I gave the cashier $50, he gave me a box with a DVD in it. Just as if I bought a car, house, couch or TV, it's my property. It's basic human law." The examples you gave are of material/tangible objects designed to be given away (legally called Real Property, as opposed to Intellectual Property). The analogy between a car, house, or TV and a computer program (or written work) doesn't really work as they are vastly different forms of property; apples and oranges.

 

"Further, I'm not altering the game itself, the DVD is exactly as they made it." -The copyright doesn't protect the material object (the DVD) it protects the so-called "intellectual property" contained therein; the programs, code, etc. Much like the copyright that protects published works. The difference is that a digital product can be manipulated in ways that a printed product can't.

 

Having clarified that though, I do agree with you. I can't see how any corporation can have a say if you alter the product in your own home and for your own use. If you start to distribute the product of your efforts (free or otherwise), then that's a different story. But, you should be able to manipulate all you want for your own use.

[eraser_tr 29]

A digital product can be manipulated, but so can a more physical product.

 

Take a painting for example, the artist who creates it, it will forever be his work of art, his intellectual property, I cannot claim I painted it. But if he sells me the painting, it becomes my painting. And if I decide to paint a mustache on a face he painted, I can. I can lay claim to the mustache, but nothing else.

[JediMaster 451]

On a basic level I think the idea is more about proliferation.

 

In other words, you can do whatever you want with the software you just paid for. However, if anyone else gains access to what you've done, the law is there to stop it.

You want to find a way to crack the CP on a product you bought? Go ahead. Tell someone else how or worse yet provide the files to do so, and you're in trouble.

[tank03 1]

A digital product can be manipulated, but so can a more physical product.

 

Take a painting for example, the artist who creates it, it will forever be his work of art, his intellectual property, I cannot claim I painted it. But if he sells me the painting, it becomes my painting. And if I decide to paint a mustache on a face he painted, I can. I can lay claim to the mustache, but nothing else.

 

True, very true, but I would argue that the painting is more real property than intellectual property. That's why paintings aren't copyrighted (nor are TV's or houses). They are considered real property legally. Society and the artist may recognise the artistic and intellectual component of the painting, but they are real property first and foremost and the owner can do what they want with it.

 

I use a book as an example because it most closely resembles the issues relative to digital works.

 

If I were to buy a book, I could rip out the binding and color on the pages, but I could never alter the thoughts, ideas, impressions, and other intangible aspects that were contained and communicated through the words of the author. That is how digital works are so different form other things that can be copyrighted. I can't manipulate the authors intentions/ ideas, but I can manipulate a computer program. This is a development that has never been encountered before in history. Sure, one could plagerize a work before, but never has one been able to so drastically and essentially been able to alter what is considered someone else's intellectual property. Never has the intangible been made tangible through computerization.

 

I still think that you should be able to do what you want with it for your own private use, but outside of that I recognise some serious and far reaching legal conundrums.

[eraser_tr 29]

But what if said copy protection violates your right as a consumer? We have a right to make a personal copy, ex backup, or so my brother could play the same game on his computer at the same time as me( otherwise why have LAN multiplayer?)

 

But if what they gain access to what you've done is purely your work( for example if I made a P-35 and put it into IL2)? Wouldn't that mean they have a right to distribute their intellectual property, but I do not have a right to distribute mine?

 

Round and round we go hehehehe

[tank03 1]

On a basic level I think the idea is more about proliferation.

 

In other words, you can do whatever you want with the software you just paid for. However, if anyone else gains access to what you've done, the law is there to stop it.

You want to find a way to crack the CP on a product you bought? Go ahead. Tell someone else how or worse yet provide the files to do so, and you're in trouble.

 

 

My thoughts exactly, I just wish I thought to put them as succinctly rather than rambling on about intellectual property (though I have enjoyed the debate).

[tank03 1]

But what if said copy protection violates your right as a consumer? We have a right to make a personal copy, ex backup, or so my brother could play the same game on his computer at the same time as me( otherwise why have LAN multiplayer?)

 

But if what they gain access to what you've done is purely your work( for example if I made a P-35 and put it into IL2)? Wouldn't that mean they have a right to distribute their intellectual property, but I do not have a right to distribute mine?

 

Round and round we go hehehehe

 

Yeah, it is kind of a circular argument isn't it?

 

I see your point, but I would argue that what you have made is akin to plagerism. I can take a passage from a book and try and call it my own by changing a few words here and there. That would still be considered plagerism because the thought/ idea was someone else's that I usurped as my own. I can share that thought/idea, but I need to come up with my own way to express it. That's why quotation marks exist. To deliniate to the reader whose thoughts they are reading.

 

The model you made is really just a manipulation of what already existed. The game engine/code that allowed the maker to produce their models is what allowed yours to "exist". Making a new model is like just changing a few words around. Both are relying on the original work too much in order for it to truly be yours.

 

"But what if said copy protection violates your right as a consumer?" There is a hierarchy of rights and rarely does the consumer's right supercede that of a creator of a copyrighted work. Reason being is that our society views the protection of intellectual property more important than consumer concerns. Kind of like, I have a right to free speech, but I can't go into a crowded theater and yell, "FIRE". My right to free speech doesn't supercede the public's right to safety.

Edited October 29, 2007 by tank03

[eraser_tr 29]

Well then its a matter of how we're looking at a computer program. However, no matter how much I change, his creation(ideas, code, etc) remains untouched, on a secured hard drive in the developers office, on the millions of CDs/DVDs, including my own. So its no more changed than writing on the pages of a book.

 

I could plagerize software, or a paper I'm writing for class, I could run over people in my car, or do an infinite number of illegal or harmful things. But because I could, doesn't mean I have, it doesn't mean I will.

 

So the painting I mentioned, my moustache relies on the original canvas and image painted on it. Is that plagerism then?

If the model was my creation in 3dsmax, it wouldn't. If i shaped the vertices and surfaces, then what am I plagerizing?

Edited October 29, 2007 by eraser_tr

[tank03 1]

Well then its a matter of how we're looking at a computer program. However, no matter how much I change, his creation(ideas, code, etc) remains untouched, on a secured hard drive in the developers office, on the millions of CDs/DVDs, including my own. So its no more changed than writing on the pages of a book.

 

I could plagerize software, or a paper I'm writing for class, I could run over people in my car, or do an infinite number of illegal or harmful things. But because I could, doesn't mean I have, it doesn't mean I will.

 

So the painting I mentioned, my moustache relies on the original canvas and image painted on it. Is that plagerism then?

If the model was my creation in 3dsmax, it wouldn't. If i shaped the vertices and surfaces, then what am I plagerizing?

 

It's not a matter of how we look at it, it's a matter of how those who create the laws look at it. Your model doesn't exist outside of the digital world created by the developer. It's sole intent is to function within that world, a world you didn't create. It's not a matter of his creation remaining unchanged in a secured hard drive, its a matter of you using his creation for your own means. Much like me using someone else's words for my own means; both are contrary to copyright. You can make all the models you want on a desktop, but once they are plugged into that game things change. You need his creation in order to give your model life, so to speak.

 

You are not plagerizing the painting because the painting isn't copyrighted. It's real property and you can do what you want with it.

 

Making the 3D model isn't plagerism, you can make all the models you want. It potentially crosses the line when you use it in the game. You are relying on someone else's creation to allow your model to exist. You can't fly your model without their digital world. You are relying too heavily on their work for it to exist as you intended. Surely, you didn't create the model to have it sitting around on your computer? You created it to fly; specifically, you created it to fly in an environment not of your creation. It's all about intent. You using your model in someone else's game is the same as me writing a story and using someone else's words. We are both relying too heavily on the copyrighted work of someone else. Now, I could use quotes to get around it, or the author could give blanket permission to use his work as we want. Same with the game. In the TW sims, Tk has given permission to modify and share certain aspects of the games. Other producers have not.

 

What it comes down to is the copyright will always supercede the consumer right, regardless of how right or wrong we may view this.

Edited October 29, 2007 by tank03

[jazz5150 0]

On a basic level I think the idea is more about proliferation.

 

In other words, you can do whatever you want with the software you just paid for. However, if anyone else gains access to what you've done, the law is there to stop it.

You want to find a way to crack the CP on a product you bought? Go ahead. Tell someone else how or worse yet provide the files to do so, and you're in trouble.

 

Ah Jedi, Thou are truly a master. I can't say these were my thoughts exactly but you have enlightened me!

[tank03 1]

I just realized I've spent a better part of my work day on this topic. My lack of production might have been noticed if it weren't for the fact that nearly everyone is hung over from last night's world series win.

[eraser_tr 29]

All modern games work in and interact with windows, a comparable environment to the flight sim and model. Does this mean all games plagarize windows and violate microsoft's copyright? It would following your arguement.

 

Using your own modding work in someone elses game is absolutely nothing like copying words someone else wrote and using it as your own work. If I took the La-7 model out of IL2 and used it in a different game, that is plagarism, not putting your own work into something.

 

So you would say the rights of a company are more important than the right of an individual? That might(money) makes right? No, their rights end where my rights begin. And now we're getting into the moral fiber of the american legal system.

[tank03 1]

All modern games work in and interact with windows, a comparable environment to the flight sim and model. Does this mean all games plagarize windows and violate microsoft's copyright? It would following your arguement.

 

Using your own modding work in someone elses game is absolutely nothing like copying words someone else wrote and using it as your own work. If I took the La-7 model out of IL2 and used it in a different game, that is plagarism, not putting your own work into something.

 

So you would say the rights of a company are more important than the right of an individual? That might(money) makes right? No, their rights end where my rights begin. And now we're getting into the moral fiber of the american legal system.

 

"So you would say the rights of a company are more important than the right of an individual?"-

- I'm not saying that. I never have. You are reading things into my comments that just aren't there; please read more carefully (I did have to mention 3 times that a painting isn't copyrighted). The American legal system has established the precedent that copyright, typically, takes precedent over consumer rights. That's the way it is. It's not my fault that's the way it is, but that's the way it is. If you are seeking blame then point the finger at society in general who has quite a significant say in what is and isn't acceptable legal theories. Though, most people usually just like to bitch about the seemingly inequitablility of the laws after the fact, rather than do anything about it to begin with. Besides, I don't believe you have had any rights infringed upon, as I'll explain further on.

 

"No, their rights end where my rights begin."-

- Just because you say it, doesn't make it true; their rights don't end. By definition a right doesn't "end". What can happen, and does happen, is that one person/entities right supercedes another's based on a hierarchy created by both common law precedent and civil practise. Our society has decided that copyright is a very important right and therefore precedent has been established over that of the consumer; besides, you haven't had a right infringed upon.

 

"And now we're getting into the moral fiber of the american legal system."-

- The American legal system is neither as complex, nor as flawed as many would like to believe. Certainly, there are areas in which significant changes could be made, however, relative to the rest of the world's democracies, our system is quite equitable. Unlike some systems based on civil law (such as in France, IIRC), in which what is legal and illegal is determined solely through a strictly civil process (the government writes the laws it sees fit to write), the US operates significantly through a system known as common law in which what is legal/illegal is determined through precedent and societal/cultural expectations. In this way the populace has significant influence on what is ultimately determined to be legal and what isn't. Due to the use of the common law system, the "moral fiber" of our legal system reflects the moral fiber of our society quite closely.

 

"All modern games work in and interact with windows, a comparable environment to the flight sim and model. Does this mean all games plagarize windows and violate microsoft's copyright? It would following your arguement."-

- No, it wouldn't because you've missed my arguement entirely. I'll take one more stab at it for you; see below.

 

"Using your own modding work in someone elses game is absolutely nothing like copying words someone else wrote and using it as your own work. If I took the La-7 model out of IL2 and used it in a different game, that is plagarism, not putting your own work into something."-

- First, you must realize that reasonable intent is a key component of most legal theories, and certainly applies here. Company "A" sells you a flight sim. You have full use of all the features of the game they want you to have. They are allowed to do this because it's their intellectual property. They don't want you, or anyone else, mucking around with their game engine/code. They are allowed to do this because it's their intellectual property. They say you can't make your own planes and fly them in their game. They are allowed to do this because it's their intellectual property.

 

Thus far, you have not lost any rights. You still have full use of the features of the original game, which you paid for. Now, you may wish that you could do things to the game to make it better for you (like adding planes), but that is not your right, no matter how much you would like it to be. The only thing you paid for, and thus, the only thing you're entitled to is the original game and it's original features. So far no rights have been taken away.

 

Any manipulation/modification that you make beyond what was intended by the manufacturer could be construed as a violation of the copyright because it is above and beyond what they intended the for the consumer. They can do that because it is their intellectual property, not yours. The only thing you own, and the only thing you have a right to is the features which composed the original game. They have taken away nothing from you.

 

The parallel to plagerism (and it's an analogy, I never said it WAS plagerism, I merely used that term as it's the closest meaningful term which corresponds to the situation we are discussing)is because you are using their game engine in order to bring your planes into existence. The manufacturer never intended for that to take place. They only wanted you to have use of the original features of the game; which they can do because it's their intellectual property. You are now using their game engine to give "life" to your models. You are using the game for your own purposes and in a manner contrary to the intent of the games manufacturer and in violation of the implied agreement created at the time of purchase. In the book world this would be called plagerism, I have no idea what it's called in the computer industry.

 

The important point here is the implied agreement at purchase and the manufacturere's intent. They wouldn't sell you a copyrighted work if they thought you would violate the copyright. By purchasing the game you have created an implied agreement that you won't viloate their rights. By selling it to you they acknowledge that implied agreement.

 

As long as you have access to the features that were present in the original game and at the time of the original agreement then you have lost no rights. You paid for 'A', they delivered 'A'. That you want to take 'A' and make it into "B,C,D,...", against the wishes of the copyright onwers means that you want to deny them their rights.

 

Having said all that, what you do in the privacy of your own home is probably inconsequential to the game publisher. AS someone has said previously, it's the proliferation that they are really concerned about.

[eraser_tr 29]

No, the laws don't represent society's values, but the values of those who can hold their influence over the law IMHO. Lobbyists are all too pervasive.

 

Company "A" sells you a flight sim. Intellectual or physical property, you sell something, it becomes the customers. Honda can't come to my house and say I can't change the hubcaps or put in a new radio, even though the Honda Civic design is their intellectual property. So I would argue I have, or in that trying to prevent me from modding a game does infringe on my rights, they are in effect saying I don't own my own hard drive. Nor am I infringing on their rights by doing what I wish with my property.

 

They should go after my old english teacher too for that matter, I just remembered an assignment where we had the change the ending of a stephen king story.

[tank03 1]

"Company "A" sells you a flight sim. Intellectual or physical property, you sell something, it becomes the customers. Honda can't come to my house and say I can't change the hubcaps or put in a new radio, even though the Honda Civic design is their intellectual property."-

- The something that they sell is the use of their intellectual property for your use, under the guidelines they stipulate; they can do that because it's theirs, not yours. They are not selling you their game. They are selling you a license to use the game under the condtions they stipulate. There is a certain amount of trust invloved in that they are selling you this licence with no actual commitment from you, prior to the sale, that you will adhere to their conditions.

 

The real issue here is that you are not understanding the concept of intellectual property. You keep making comparisons to other things, like cars, that aren't in the same realm. The packaging, the box, and the CD are only a means by which they distribute their game, it's not the game itself. The "something" they sell is intangible, it doesn't exist as a thing. It's a bunch of electrical impulses that can be used by a computer; it's more a concept than a thing. The CD is not the game.

 

You keep thinking that you have all rights to this "something" because you paid money for it. What you keep ignoring is the fact that your purchase was conditional. Whether you like it or not, they sold it too you on the condition that you wouldn't violate their copyright. It's implied. You bought the use of the game as they see fit, not as you see fit. No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, that is the reality of the situation. If only you could understand this concept you'd see how reasonable it is. The reason it's called "intellectual" property and not "real" property is because it doesn't physically exist. The packaging and all of that is merely a means of transmitting and distributing their intangible product. It's like buying a movie ticket. The movie isn't the little slip of paper you receive. Additionally, by buying a movie ticket it doesn't entitle you to start adding or changing scenes (if that were possible)

 

"Intellectual or physical property, you sell something, it becomes the customers."- It's only the customers to the extent that the seller wishes. No amount of saying, "But I bought it...", is going to change the fact that you bought it with conditions. Conditions that are entirely legal and entirely reasonable. See the movie analogy above.

 

"So I would argue I have, or in that trying to prevent me from modding a game does infringe on my rights, they are in effect saying I don't own my own hard drive."-

-That's ridiculous. They say nothing about your hard drive. They have not infringed on your rights because they have stipulated how you may use their game. Again, if you understood the concept of intellectual property you'd see how absurd your argument is.

 

"Nor am I infringing on their rights by doing what I wish with my property."-

-But you are. This all goes back to you not really understanding what you own and don't own. You are infringing on their copyright by not using the game in the way in which they intended it to be used by the consumer. The ONLY thing you own is the right to use the original game with the original features ONLY. Again, see movie analogy above.

 

It would seem that we are reaching a deadlock in terms of hashing this out. I truly believe that you are not grasping the whole concept of intellectual property and copyright, or are unwilling to recognise that concept. The laws make sense and they serve an important purpose. If it weren't for copyright laws I can't imagine the number of games that wouldn't exist. And those that did exist would probably be so overpriced that they would be out of reach for most of us.

 

I'm not sure if any more debate is going to convince either of us that the other is right. I've enjoyed the back and forth and I'm always up for a good debate, but I just don't want to go so far that one of us starts to feel insulted or offended. I supported my arguments as best I could, and I just hope that they were seen in the spirit of lively debate and not offensive. I'm not sure how productive it would be, but I'd be happy to continue if you wish.

 

I wholeheartedly agree about the lobbyists. I think that whole system is one of the embarressments of our democracy.