Do you think it's necessary for BIS providing lockable binPBO?

[TRexian 0]

Here's a counter-analogy to the 'stealing' analogy.

There's a farmer who grows apples. Each year, he takes some of his apples and puts them in bushel baskets on his porch for his neighbors. He puts up a sign that says, "Free apples!"

Things go great, and his neighbors are happy, taking just a few apples at a time. The farmer doesn't really care what they do with his apples.

Until one year, a business man comes along and takes all the apples and sells them at the market. This, understandably, makes the farmer upset. He goes to the police and say that the businessman stole the apples. They point out that the sign said they were free, and you can't steal free stuff.

So, the farmer changes the sign: "Free apples, but if you try to sell them, I'll sue you for your ass." (Knowing that the business man had a donkey.)

Well, the business man decides he wasn't making enough money on them, so instead he takes a few and makes apple dumplings out of them - for his own consumption. But, the farmer REALLY doesn't like apple dumplings (a tragic childhood experience that is unrelated to this story).

So, he changes the sign again: "Free apples, but don't sell them, and don't make apple dumplings out of them, or I'll sue you for your ass!"

I think we all agree that the business man shouldn't be allowed to sell the apples, or the products of the apples. But, should the farmer be able to say what can and can't be made from them?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Here's a counter-analogy to the 'stealing' analogy.

There's a farmer who grows apples. Each year, he takes some of his apples and puts them in bushel baskets on his porch for his neighbors. He puts up a sign that says, "Free apples!"

Things go great, and his neighbors are happy, taking just a few apples at a time. The farmer doesn't really care what they do with his apples.

Until one year, a business man comes along and takes all the apples and sells them at the market. This, understandably, makes the farmer upset. He goes to the police and say that the businessman stole the apples. They point out that the sign said they were free, and you can't steal free stuff.

So, the farmer changes the sign: "Free apples, but if you try to sell them, I'll sue you for your ass." (Knowing that the business man had a donkey.)

Well, the business man decides he wasn't making enough money on them, so instead he takes a few and makes apple dumplings out of them - for his own consumption. But, the farmer REALLY doesn't like apple dumplings (a tragic childhood experience that is unrelated to this story).

So, he changes the sign again: "Free apples, but don't sell them, and don't make apple dumplings out of them, or I'll sue you for your ass!"

I think we all agree that the business man shouldn't be allowed to sell the apples, or the products of the apples. But, should the farmer be able to say what can and can't be made from them?

The real question is: Should the businessman be allowed to study the free apples without asking the farmer so he can grow his own apples?

This thread is full of false analogies btw. :p

Edited November 7, 2010 by NeMeSiS

[Mr. Charles 22]

How the f* can you study to grow own apples, if you look at free apples? Wouldn't it be better to get hold of a 'Grow Apples for Dummies' book? (aka TuTorial)

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Simple, by ripping the seeds out of the free apples and planting your own.

Basically he is saying that ripping bits of addons out to create new addons is acceptable.

BS

[Zipper5 74]

Could we stop with these analogies, please? They really aren't making any sense. :confused:

[TRexian 0]

It is an analogy, which by definition is NOT the actual event. :D

This one is supposed to illustrate the philosophical point, about which (IMHO) people can reasonably disagree. What are the limits of the rights of the creator of something, balanced against the rights of the person who has that thing.

What if the farmer said, "Free apples, but ONLY if you make apple pies." Would that be fair?

[dmarkwick 261]

Simple, by ripping the seeds out of the free apples and planting your own.

Basically he is saying that ripping bits of addons out to create new addons is acceptable.

BS

Analogies can sometimes be useful, on the other hand it allows some people to display their aptitude for getting absolutely nothing out of it at all, and fill in the missing void with what they are determined to think regardless.

Really I don't know how you got that conclusion other than you came blundering in already thinking it and simply blurted it out. Do you honestly think that's what "we" do?

[-ASA-ODEN 0]

T-Rex, somedays your profession shines through so intense.

Good analogy though. :)

[rksl-rock 1300]

It is an analogy, which by definition is NOT the actual event. :D

This one is supposed to illustrate the philosophical point, about which (IMHO) people can reasonably disagree. What are the limits of the rights of the creator of something, balanced against the rights of the person who has that thing.

What if the farmer said, "Free apples, but ONLY if you make apple pies." Would that be fair?

So if the Farmer attaches an EULA to his apples saying "This apple is for personal consumption ONLY. You must not use the seeds contained within this apple for growing apple trees. And you must not exploit the apple in anyway" would you pay attention to it?

Edited November 7, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[max power 21]

The farmer may have claim to a substance or technique he developed to make a better apple. Also if he developed a certain strain of apple, he can copyright that. Here is a local example:

Canadian Plant Breeders Right 388 - Ambrosia is protected in Canada and in the United States and the propagation and/or sale of the variety is prohibited without the consent of the PICO (okanagan Plant Improvement Company, Box 6000, Summerland, BC, Canada, V0H 1Z0).

So, you can take them home and eat them, bake them in a pie, but you can't 'do whatever you want' with them. You can't plant an abrosia apple tree, or sell them.

Even apples are protected by law. Why not creative works?

[dmarkwick 261]

So if the Farmer attaches an EULA to his apples saying "This apple is for personal consumption ONLY. You must not use the seeds contained within this apple for growing apple trees. And you must not exploit the apple in anyway" would you pay attention to it?

Unless that farmer has an aversion to better peaches as a result, it wouldn't stop me learning how to make my peaches better :)

---------- Post added at 08:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------

The farmer may have claim to a substance or technique he developed to make a better apple. Also if he developed a certain strain of apple, he can copyright that. Here is a local example:

So, you can take them home and eat them, bake them in a pie, but you can't 'do whatever you want' with them. You can't plant an abrosia apple tree, or sell them.

Even apples are protected by law. Why not creative works?

I think you're getting away from the topic here. Those apples aren't encrypted, they're protected in just the same way your work is. No-one is trying to deny you your actal rights.

Edited November 7, 2010 by DMarkwick

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@Max Power:

For personal use? I don't think so.

So if the Farmer attaches an EULA to his apples saying "This apple is for personal consumption ONLY. You must not use the seeds contained within this apple for growing apple trees. And you must not exploit the apple in anyway" would you pay attention to it?

I would apply common sense and think about what is exploitation. Grow for commercial exploitation? Naturally. Grow for personal use? Hardly. Grow for friends? Gray area, and I'd probably ask if I thought it would harm them significantly enough.

Flip it around a little to make it a bit more extreme:

"You have to be wearing a skirt and stand on your head to eat this apple".

Would I have to?

[dmarkwick 261]

"You have to be wearing a skirt and stand on your head to eat this apple".

Would I have to?

TRexian would. You'd be hard pushed to stop him.

[rksl-rock 1300]

I would apply common sense and think about what is exploitation. Grow for commercial exploitation? Naturally. Grow for personal use? Hardly. Grow for friends? Gray area, and I'd probably ask if I thought it would harm them significantly enough.

But growing for personal use means that you are exploiting the farmers good will. Maybe he wants to attract others with his free apples? Maybe he just want to make friends and keep people visiting him.

By taking his apples and using them to grow your own orchard without his consent or permission you are denying him the credit for his hard work as well as the possibility of making new friends. He may grow old and alone because no one comes for his apples any more. So he may stop giving out free apples and decide that people are just ungrateful for his efforts and retire. Depriving others of his apples because you were selfish enough to personally exploit his apples.

And what happens when your orchard has a parasite. One that you don't know how to fix/cure/remove and your only hope of a solution is to return to the farmer and ask for help. Would you expect him to help you after you abused his good will?

Flip it around a little to make it a bit more extreme:

"You have to be wearing a skirt and stand on your head to eat this apple".

Would I have to?

Hey you don't have to eat the apple if you don't like the EULA.

But be honest now you are just being silly. And no I wouldnt like to see you wearing a skirt while standing on your head. (unless you are a female lingerie model - you're not are you?)

Edited November 7, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[dmarkwick 261]

(unless you are a female lingerie model - you're not are you?)

That phrase is wide open to abuse :) he likes to model female lingerie therefore.... Well you get the idea there :)

[rksl-rock 1300]

That phrase is wide open to abuse :) he likes to model female lingerie therefore.... Well you get the idea there :)

After the word twisting that gone on in this thread i can imagine the "abuse" :D

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Hehe, at least stay on track :)

Why is it ridiculous? Because it isn't fair (not talking about fair use, that's something else)? There are limits to what you can hope to achieve with an EULA, and when such disputes actually goes to the legal system, often the practices of the law are given more considerations/heavier weight (but yes, not always).

Do I consider a "don't poke" clause fair in a system that allows it (since de-pbo/de-binarizing tools are not considered illegal or even malicious by BIS)? Absolutely not.

Example: Apple had to change theirs (not sure if it was EULA or Guarantee though) in order to not conflict with the laws in my country, which gave us more rights (consumer law, not sure what that is in english) than what Apple tried to go for.

As for the farmer example. How could my action of growing my own hurt him in any of the ways you suggest? Unless of course I put up a stand selling them at the crossroads to his farm. I wouldn't take anyway away from him. If I tried, then I would end up in trouble for it, since it isn't my product.

I admit I could have used a better example than the skirt though. The one I saw used "only pretty girls" and "while standing on your head". Somehow that turned into "wearing a skirt". Oh dear, what have I unleashed :D

Edited November 7, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[max power 21]

@Carl Gustafa:

If everyone had an ambrosia apple tree and was able to get them by sunshine and soil, there would be no reason for someone to purchase them from the store. Therefore, as the website says, no one is permitted to grow and / or sell them without permission. This is because the unauthorized production of ambrosia apples is at conflict with the goals of the people who created them.

[NeMeSiS 11]

No really. Stop with the analogies, it just makes this discussion worse.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Ambrosia is protected by law, a special breeders right especially made for them.

Creative works is protected by law. Copyright law, which is full of excemtions.

I know you can't call every use fair use, but I'm fairly sure most of our normal poke uses would be.

So, you can take them home and eat them, bake them in a pie, but you can't 'do whatever you want' with them. You can't plant an abrosia apple tree, or sell them.

Can they stop me from poking? No. Can they protect exploitation by other means than by the law? No. Why are we special?

How if someone is sick of people driving too fast in his street. The law is there to prevent it. But he manages to get through that all cars are to be fitted with electronics that prevents everyone from breaking that law. Gas pedal won't work if seat belt is not used. Forced to make blow an alcometer before even starting the car. Then add all the other small details in daily life where you bend the rules a little.

It makes it very easy to enforce the law. But is it worth it for the general good of the population? Would you like it?

Edited November 8, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

The current problem is neither BIS nor personnel will provides a accurately statistic list to show how many addons were not released due to that fact. So addon makers can hardly get support officially at present.

After reading so many posts above, i think we have to help ourselves to protect our works rather than rely on BIS.

[max power 21]

Would you like it?

There's no like about it. Lots of people like to do lots of things that break the law. We have both punitive and preventative measures.

I live in a society with a zero tolerance policy (instant license suspension) for driving and alcohol, where it takes 3 years to become a fully licensed driver. If these preventative measures were implemented, they'd probably be prototyped here, and they would not affect my habits very much.

The police state I live in aside, I find your argument to garner exactly zero sympathy points. All of these things you describe are inconveniences, and everything we're talking about is about the defense of rights. I don't know how many times we've already said that convenience bought at the expense of a tool to defend our rights is not attractive in the slightest. Specifically, the convenience to violate someone else's property who by employing that measure is sending a clear message that he doesn't waive his author's rights FOR your convenience.

The current problem is neither BIS nor personnel will provides a accurately statistic list to show how many addons were not released due to that fact. So addon makers can hardly get support officially at present.

After reading so many posts above, i think we have to help ourselves to protect our works rather than rely on BIS.

Well, we already do- I mean, we try our best.

[spooky lynx 73]

How many words...:butbut: And all they are about the things which happen seldom enough. After reading some post it is easy to start thinking that every week houndreds of thieves try to re-release every addon or campaign/mission as their own work.:rolleyes:

[TRexian 0]

@ [ASA]Oden-

Prolly looks familiar to you. ;) (BTW, is it ironic that I'm *now* the guy with the reputation for not supporting the rights of devs to choose?)

Late edit:

Interesting article -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11706476

"[Good ideas] come from crowds, they come from networks. You know we have this clichéd idea of the lone genius having the eureka moment.

"But in fact when you go back and you look at the history of innovation it turns out that so often there is this quiet collaborative process that goes on, either in people building on other peoples' ideas, but also in borrowing ideas, or tools or approaches to problems.

"The ultimate idea comes from this remixing of various different components. There still are smart people and there still are people that have moments where they see the world differently in a flash.

"But for the most part it's a slower and more networked process than we give them credit for."

Make of it what you will....

Edited November 8, 2010 by TRexian

[Pulverizer 1]

Free addons/mods (as in "The Free Software Definition") might be a good thing for progress, or it might just saturate the completed addons forum with a hundred thousand versions of the same M4 model :D