I didn't mean to suggest it is bad (although it looks kind of bad.) I was simply stating how I find it a little ass backwards that making money off of copyright infringement is A-OK but allowing the end user to exercise rights expressly permitted by the copyright act is forbidden.

That's a valid point. I suspect that they do it as a way of trying to lure potential pirates back to paying, or at least those that might not know about alternatives, but you do have a point about how that looks.

I'd be genuinely curious as to what impact if any it has on negotiations.

The issue is civil vs. criminal law. The government does decide what are matters of civil law how those should be written up, but they are not the ones who prosecute in civil matters and thus the rules of civil law are different than for criminal law. When private citizens/companies are in court against each other, the rules are different than if the government chooses to go after a private citizen/company for a criminal law crime.

You may still be guilty of violating a law in civil court but is not the government who is prosecuting you and the same burden of proof is not required. As such there is no "innocent until proven guilty" or "beyond reasonable doubt". That's not as much of a boon to the prosecuting side as you might imagine since the defendant doesn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt their defense. It's simply which side presents the most convincing argument to the jury or judge.

For someone with unlim. broadband connection it's just about unnoticeable... Crap, the problem is: most people don't care until this DRM issue concerns them personally. This lack of 'public front' against DRM probably led to what we have now. Sad.

Actually, i've just remembered: i still have Settlers 7 installed - it had problems with that novel perma-connection DRM after the release that made the game unplayable. Completely turned me off at that time, now it's probably fixed, but... :(

Okay, so pretty much an act is just a guideline for people to follow. Something that says "Companies can sue if ____" not like a law that the government enforces.

Anyway, ignore that.

Pretty much a company could only win if they somehow got a third party to go through the person's computer and found a copy, or keep track of if he downloaded it from the site after selling it (if attached to his account).

Seems kinda unlikely that they'd ever get the evidence in the first case (doubt a judge would demand the guy hand over his stuff if there is no reasonable cause that he still had copies, if they even do that in civil cases), leaving the second option as the only reliable one.

So they'd have to know when he sold it and then make sure he doesn't download it. But if they know he sold it then they might as well remove it from his downloadable games list.

So really, there is nothing to worry about. If you don't download the game then there is only a your word against my word case, which I doubt a company would waste money on (then again, could be wrong...) and if you do redownload a game you sold, evidence of deleting a previous copy wont save you, as it is a recently downloaded copy they are bringing up.



Still think it's messed up that the act is written in such a way to put the burden of proof on the seller,as they're being asked to prove something impossible to prove. Granted, since it is a civil case a video recording of the entire process would probably work more than well enough.



Hopefully that made sense, it's late here.

I copy and/or burn the installer to DVD.
I buy a game when it's on sale, but I only play (and thus install) it when I feel like it.

Looks like he has a point.

They are both DRM. Gamersgate is one because they officially wrote in their FAQ that an internet connection is needed to install their games, even they let everybody hacking this. A day, they could enforce their DRM and sue or forbidden the trick.
Maybe you talked about some of my posts as I think I'm the only one writing (many times) that Gamersgate is a DRM.

I love your post. :)
"If it might be considered an DRM would rather turn into a philosophical question. ": LOL Gamersgate bastards!
"That the games are DRM free from our part merely means we do not require you to be logged on to your GG account to play the game. But to download it you need to use our client.": And to install it, see Gamersgate FAQ...: log to Gamersgate site needed.

Personally my point on the subject and on what I consider DRM-free or not is quite easy :

Can I play it on any computer without having to connect to the internet either directly (online activation) or indirectly (obtain a serial number based on your computer hardware) ? If yes then I consider the game as being DRM-free.

But I also differentiate a game being DRM-free and it's installer being DRM-free, for example with GoG both are DRM-free.

You can install games on any computer without needing to activate it online and you can play the game without needing to activate it online either.

But, for example with Impulse some games are DRM-free but the installer is not. For example Braid.

You can play Impulse version of Braid on any computer without ever needing to activate online, just copy the install folder and you are good to go, so I consider the "game" itself to be DRM-free, but the "installer" is not. You have no way to install/reinstall the game without using Impulse. As a result it's not as good as GoG but it's still much better than a Steamwork or Securom using games.

Gamersgate is in the middle between the two. The games are 100% DRM-free but you have to use a trick to obtain a DRM-free version of the installer. It's not as good as GoG or Dotemu (or even DRM-free's D2D games) where the DRM-free installer is available without effort, but it's still much better than DRM-free Impulse games where there is no way to obtain a DRM-free installer.

This has happened to me with a video DVD. I paid for it and could not play it on my PC. So I had no choice but to crack the DRM and burn it to another DVD.

Wondering if I could have sent them an invoice for that, though, because I had to fix their product before I could use it, like this:

1 DVD - 0.70€
2 Working hours a 15€ - 30.00€
-------------------------------------------
Total - 30.70€
Payable within 14 days

Just sell the gift code!

No, an Act is a Bill which passed both the House of Commons and a Settlement and obtained Royal Ascent, that Bill is now Law. The Government does reinforce it (in this case the courts), but they don't actively seek out violators, but that has to do with it being a civil matter not to do with it being an Act. In a civil matter the wronged party has to seek out the violator as opposed to police, since it is more about damages paid to that individual than it is about having done anything wrong to the society as a whole. But again, that has nothing to do with whether it is called an Act or not, all Bills which pass become legally enforceable unless the directly conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982)

Why not just call it a law. >.>

Whatever, I get it now. Thanks.

edit: Probably has to do with it being Canada.

They're called Acts in America too though, the difference being that they're Acts of Congress as opposed to Acts of Parliament, but they're roughly the same thing.

Example: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

I was pretty disappointed by GamersGate definition of DRM-free also. I made my first GG purchase - all the Wadjet Eye games as they were 50-60% off. It was trivial to copy the unencrypted setup files, before being deleted and the installer worked great in wine, but I doubt I'll make further purchases unless they officially provide DRM-free installers.