In which case doesn't GOO acknowledge the rights given to public? If I have understood correctly the available features  in GOO:

- your copy is linked to you, not to your hardware. It is yours forever.

- you need to prove to be the legitimate owner only one time (at least on each install you make)

- There isn't any prohibition how many times you can install it.

- There isn't any prohibition on backup

- GOO allows you to resell your copy (unless the publisher decides otherwise)

Which consumer rights are missing? The only thing that may be problematic is the fact that in order to prove you own a legitimate copy, some authenticating servers must be available.

BTW,  since GOO wraps the executable, this means that DRM isn't built in the source code of a game. So when the source code of the game is made available, there isn't any DRM to worry about.

pyalot,

Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and the Law/Norm Gap hosted on PirateBay...^^

I *could* have some sympathies for your stance, as I am very sceptical about all this kind of copy protections and DRMS and so on. They are indeed often annoying to the customer. But you were very unfriendly in this thread and actually...

What do you want, what do you actually demand?

No DRM/copy protection at all?

I think you forget that basing a company like Ironclad on Stardock on the good will and honor of the customers/gamers alone is the other extreme, and also quite naive. A balance has to be found, hopefully not a foul compromise, but something both sides can live with well.

I am not sure and happy about GOO and the principle behind it. But it is still more user-friendly than being bound to Steam or Impulse or whatever else alone. They are trying, at least.

I highly doubt anyone's worried about such a time frame.  I highly doubt you are worried about such a time frame, and if you are, I'd like to know why, because it's sure as hell not for the "good of the public domain".

This has been asked before, pyalot; you've just chosen not to respond until now:

Answer the question as posed: Given all of your "concerns", what is your idea of a digital (sales and) distribution platform?  And if there is no validation at any point in the process, how do you expect the servers to cope with what will inevitably be >50 to >90% pirates?  After all, if you can get it for free, and easily, and from the developer/publisher directly, what possible reason could you have to pay for it?  You can't expect everyone to be honest.

I really think you're giving human beings too much credit.

If you have a better idea, I'm certain all of us are interested.  But you have not put forth a better idea, and in fact due to lack of details, I would contend that you have not put forth an idea at all.

Again: Just exactly what is your idea of a digital sales and distribution platform?

120 Years is the length of the current copyright term. After the end of it the content would theoretically go into the public domain. Practically due to the dubious benefits of DRM that isn't going to happen. I didn't invent this irrealistic timeframe, you've got Bono to thank for that. Yes I am worried about the public domain 120 years from now.

Just because I will not be around by the time doesn't mean I should not be worried. Our children and childrens children will inherit the earth and its society we create today. If you incur massive cultural debt today and expect future genrations to pay for our unsustainable mistakes you exhibit an extremely short sighted frame of mind.

Sure I have a problem with copyright. But this compounded by rights holders decision to make it even worse (with DRM). Is writing to a congressman your idea of abdicating yourself of the responsibility to act ethically?

If you believe in equality under the law then its not hard to see that copyright holders can curb your (public) rights by technical measures. Cheer on.

Modernizing the terminology at the *International* level might be a good idea for specific TYPES of copyrights, i would agree.

But, the virtual space has yet to be addressed successfully in any shape or form because there is no coherent approach by Law(s) which would satisfy *everyone* worldwide.

When the US stops trying to make a code pre-registered & as exclusive to the thinkers of it all BEFORE it's even compiled, lemme know. Cuz, i'm sure there's a number of outsiders who'd start proving the method is illegal.

There's the real Law and there's their infamously manipulated Rule of Law -- as in, protectionist idealism.

Then, somebody is gonna have to replace it with a system that protects their investments while making it feasible to even just think about creating compiled code, yet to be distributed to balance a profitable equation for both sides (as in Commercial transaction) -- i must add.

A software you pay for is not Public Domain.

Manufacturers of that software pay real people to design, produce and distribute it.

THAT's the correct behavior.

Quand tu veux Zyxpsilon. Tes commentaires étaient parfait. Paylot est un peu attardé c'est tout LOL

It'll be cracked long before the copyright expires. I'm not worried.

Sure, I should act ethically. And if the ethical problem is a problem with a law - then the solution should be in the law. I'm a firm believer that fixing something at the root cause is far more effective than trying to mess around with the side effects.

Please list the rights you believe I should have, along with explanations.

After that, list the rights you believe copyright holders should have, along with explanations.

I've read the law. I am not a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice, but I know of only two ways for a work to enter public domain:

• If the original copyright holder explicitly puts the work into the public domain (via a written waiver), or
• If the copyright expires and is not renewed.

I know of no other way for a work to become public domain.

Strictly speaking, the law grants exclusive rights to the copyright holders - it does not grant rights to the public.

"Public domain" is, strictly speaking, a loss of those exclusive rights.

The rights are as follows (Circular 92, §106):

Maybe you agree with that, maybe you don't. Maybe you think the rights should be changed.

But those are the rights set forth in copyright law.

Love them, hate them, say whatever you want about them. But please don't misrepresent them.

Do you dispute the intentional presence of the expiry of the copyright term?

Do you dispute the right of fair use?

Do you think that the entering of works into the public domain is just a silly accident only waiting to be corrected?

The copyright intentionally in full recognition of the effect it has is limited for good reason, such as not to extract too hefty a price from society. If you destroy this limitation for your own greed and sheer short sightedness and because its currently legal then you do not act ethically.

Congratulations, you can google. Now if only you could actually understand the stuff you've surely read on wiki about fair use and public domain.

For one thing, the whole "beneficial nature of works for society thing" is generally referring to artsy things, not software (and most certainly, not games).

Second, the "public" never had any granted right to any work for copyright to take away. As much as you may wish it to be so, there was never a law that granted you rights which was then taken away by copyright. You never had any. Fair Use allows you to gain limited rights over copyrighted work until it becomes public domain (since you undoubtedly read it on wiki, pay special attention to the whole "fair use" thing being deliberately vague so the courts can do it case-by-case and that "fair use" has a legal meaning that's not open to your interpretation of what's fair).

Nope.

Yep.

It's worded as a limitation of the copyright, not as a new right.

Nope.

Agreed.

So the answer is to ask for the laws to be changed. Which is pretty much what I said in the first place.

Copyright (as of 1790) was intended for sheet music. It is neither "intended" for books, music recordings, blog posts, twitter updates, statistical data, university papers and art. etc. That does not stop it from being applied to all those, including games.

And now you're arguing "oh but the publicly beneficial parts of copyright where't intended for what we do". Well sunny, you don't get to cherry pick the law.

Also I find it really demeaning to put games in one category... and arts and societally beneficial things in another. For one thing, it's not you who gets to decide that, it's the public. For another, you insulted a whole lot of game developers/designers in one sweep stroke by implying they create societally unimportant trash.