Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 15:56:43 09/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2003 at 10:26:48, Joachim Rang wrote:
>On September 09, 2003 at 03:45:34, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On September 09, 2003 at 03:02:06, Robin Smith wrote:
>>
>>>On September 09, 2003 at 02:37:45, Roger D Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>>On September 08, 2003 at 20:40:07, Jeroen van Dorp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have followed the discussion, and I have no particularly relevant opinion
>>>>>about programs like this deadking.
>>>>>
>>>>>But from the discussion I can conclude that the legal status of such a program
>>>>>is unclear. As a result you changed your opinion to "Let's ban these subjects
>>>>>because most people here don't like these kind of subjects". This has nothing to
>>>>>do with violating the charter, but with catering the majority (or maybe a
>>>>>minority - who knows) of posters.
>>>>>
>>>>>So from your own observation you can't conlude that it violates the charter, and
>>>>>given the many responses it's also hardly clear that these subjects are indeed
>>>>>unwanted here.
>>>>>
>>>>>Suddenly you leave the discussion, make a new top post and state that the
>>>>>subject is violating the charter.
>>>>>
>>>>>You may understand that although I have no thoughts about deadking, I _do_ have
>>>>>some thoughts about your way of handling this.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your claim of upholding the charter simply doesn't cause the subject to violate
>>>>>the charter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>J.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jeroen,
>>>>
>>>>You said, "from the discussion I can conclude that the legal status of such a
>>>>program is unclear." In other words, it's questionnable...which is the wording
>>>>of #5 of the charter... That means you have to support the moderator.
>>>>
>>>>Roger
>>>
>>>Roger,
>>>
>>>Supporting a moderator's ban of postings, and supporting a moderator's
>>>accusations of piracy ("if you are using deadking, you are using illegal
>>>software", "deadking is illegal software", etc.), are two different things. I
>>>use deadking with my legal copy of Chessmaseter, and I took offense at these
>>>statements. I don't enjoy, in essence, being called a thief for using something
>>>I paid for. Why is this so hard to understand?
>>
>>Consider it from this perspective:
>>
>>"Here is a key which will unlock any porshe car door and start the engine.
>>Please use it only if you lost your key and not to steal a porshe."
>>
>>It would be a useful thing to have if you are a porshe owner and lost your key.
>>But it would probably not be a real good idea to give such a thing away
>>willy-nilly.
>
>
>Your analogy is bullshit. With deadking or whatsoever I _can't_ steal nothing or
>any program. All I can is to convenienttly use chessmaster without the
>copyright-protection-crap _if_ I have the program.
>
>The problem with software is that getting the program via filesharing is
>relatively easy - much easier than to steal a Porsche. But nevertheless deadking
>won't enable me to steal chessmaster.
>
>Why people stop thinking when it comes to Copy-Protection?
>
>regards Joachim
My guess is that the Terms of Use Agreement of Chessmaster explicitly disallows
tampering with the copy protection. Why don't you check and report back? Then
we can determine whether you are in violation of the user agreement and whether
your activities are illegal, even if deadking doesn't allow you steal
Chessmaster.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.