Conquer Club

DoomYoshi wrote:It's just fucking bullshit. If I buy a computer, I can put whatever the hell software on it I want. f*ck these fucking assholes.

DoomYoshi wrote:This is more evidence why we need the right to bear arms. It is a perfect instance in which everyday Joes should be storming Congress with bazookas.

DoomYoshi wrote:List of Apple Armaments:

1,458,697 People armed with $500 billion worth of weapons, including 5 000 nuclear missiles.

If all these people are working for Apple to take away my rights, who is working for me?

Absolutely nobody.

_sabotage_ wrote:Doom, If you live in Halifax, come to a meeting I'm hosting at Dal tomorrow.

DoomYoshi wrote:I hate all laws against technology. From now, I only buy open-source.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I feel similarly about gaming consoles. Or anything you purchase that the manufacturer tries to retain control over.

-TG

BigBallinStalin wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I feel similarly about gaming consoles. Or anything you purchase that the manufacturer tries to retain control over.

-TG

I want to agree, but would you lend me your ear eyes?

When one purchases a gaming console, presumably they exercise full property rights over the product. Property rights include use rights, which means that you may use your product however you see fit. Therefore, one should be able to do as they please with a gaming console.

However, suppose we have a voluntary exchange between you and a seller. The product traded is a gaming console for x-amount of your money. Generally, there is some contract which you agree to that curbs your use rights (e.g. when signing onto Playstation network, the console asks if you agree to the terms, which IIRC prohibit tampering with the console's hardware).

If you agree to the Playstation Network contract, tamper with the hardware, and they discover this, then what happens?

(1) You can no longer use the Playstation network.
(2) Some people are sued or IIRC issued a 'stop and desist' court order, or something to that effect.


I have no problem with #1 because it's their network, the contract was voluntarily agreed to, and then it was violated. Exile is an appropriate punishment.
I have a problem with #2 because although the contract was violated, the individual still retains the property rights of the gaming console. The punishment of #2 goes too far.


Are we in agreement so far?

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I feel similarly about gaming consoles. Or anything you purchase that the manufacturer tries to retain control over.

-TG

I want to agree, but would you lend me your ear eyes?

When one purchases a gaming console, presumably they exercise full property rights over the product. Property rights include use rights, which means that you may use your product however you see fit. Therefore, one should be able to do as they please with a gaming console.

However, suppose we have a voluntary exchange between you and a seller. The product traded is a gaming console for x-amount of your money. Generally, there is some contract which you agree to that curbs your use rights (e.g. when signing onto Playstation network, the console asks if you agree to the terms, which IIRC prohibit tampering with the console's hardware).

If you agree to the Playstation Network contract, tamper with the hardware, and they discover this, then what happens?

(1) You can no longer use the Playstation network.
(2) Some people are sued or IIRC issued a 'stop and desist' court order, or something to that effect.


I have no problem with #1 because it's their network, the contract was voluntarily agreed to, and then it was violated. Exile is an appropriate punishment.
I have a problem with #2 because although the contract was violated, the individual still retains the property rights of the gaming console. The punishment of #2 goes too far.


Are we in agreement so far?

I'm in full agreement with you. I've got no problem with (1). If, e.g., Microsoft wants to provide an online service like Xbox Live, then I understand they want to keep it free from detrimental hacks. You agree to "rent" that service. I personally think it's a bit excessive- I've heard of incidents where even hacks that have no effect on multiplayer or DLC (like single player hacks), and they just routinely ban those users as well, even though they may be on the Silver service. Basically, just connecting to Live will shut you down.

I could only support (2) if they could prove that the hack was used to steal property or service from the online service (movies, games, etc.). Otherwise it's just Microsoft, Sony, et al being intrusive.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:ummm.... I guess. If we are to assume that PS3 games' software is licensed property.

-TG

BigBallinStalin wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:ummm.... I guess. If we are to assume that PS3 games' software is licensed property.

-TG

It seems we're still more or less in agreement--and we can roll with that assumption.

So what's the deal with smartphones?

If the contract--which comes with the phone--states that one must not unlock the phone, and if this exchange is voluntary, then why all the uproar?

Now, we both know that unlocking the phone breaks the monopoly of app-suppliers (Apple's App Store), but it also allows the users to download illegal or quasi-illegal duplicates/cracks of apps which are sold in the monopolized market.

"If they could prove that the [unlocking] was used to steal property or service from the online service (App Store)," then isn't it correct for unlockers to be punished or restrained from unlocking their smartphones?

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:ummm.... I guess. If we are to assume that PS3 games' software is licensed property.

-TG

It seems we're still more or less in agreement--and we can roll with that assumption.

So what's the deal with smartphones?

If the contract--which comes with the phone--states that one must not unlock the phone, and if this exchange is voluntary, then why all the uproar?

Now, we both know that unlocking the phone breaks the monopoly of app-suppliers (Apple's App Store), but it also allows the users to download illegal or quasi-illegal duplicates/cracks of apps which are sold in the monopolized market.

"If they could prove that the [unlocking] was used to steal property or service from the online service (App Store)," then isn't it correct for unlockers to be punished or restrained from unlocking their smartphones?

I was under the impression that phones being locked is what prevents them from going to another service provider, i.e. cellular service providers force the consumer to use their service with their phone, which they may or may not manufacture.

If unlocks or hacks are being used to steal property or service, then sure, remunerative or punitive action is understandable. If these locks are enforced because U.S. Smellular doesn't want me to take my phone to T-Mobile, then idk. Plus, we're operating on the assumption that these unlocks are all criminally minded. I admittedly don't know much about programming or computer tech in general, but it seems like there are more uses for unlocking phones than just stealing services.

-TG

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, there are other uses, but if it's possible for people to unlock their phones to engage in "cyber crime" and "deep, dark cyber markets," then I have a hard time arguing against such laws. My basic stance toward the phone companies is "too bad; my phone, shut up, or make me sign a contract which explicitly states what I can/can't do--and good luck enforcing it." It's kind of a crappy position though.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, there are other uses, but if it's possible for people to unlock their phones to engage in "cyber crime" and "deep, dark cyber markets," then I have a hard time arguing against such laws. My basic stance toward the phone companies is "too bad; my phone, shut up, or make me sign a contract which explicitly states what I can/can't do--and good luck enforcing it." It's kind of a crappy position though.

<shrug> It seems like it would be less intrusive if they just pursued remunerations based on criminality. For instance, a store shouldn't lock its doors based on the idea that there might be theft. They pursue the thief and press charges after he's actually committed a crime.

-TG

Timminz wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, there are other uses, but if it's possible for people to unlock their phones to engage in "cyber crime" and "deep, dark cyber markets," then I have a hard time arguing against such laws. My basic stance toward the phone companies is "too bad; my phone, shut up, or make me sign a contract which explicitly states what I can/can't do--and good luck enforcing it." It's kind of a crappy position though.

<shrug> It seems like it would be less intrusive if they just pursued remunerations based on criminality. For instance, a store shouldn't lock its doors based on the idea that there might be theft. They pursue the thief and press charges after he's actually committed a crime.

-TG

This should go in BBS' "accidental strawman" therrad.

I say this because you've made a poor equivalency. Stores remaining unlocked is not the equivalent of banning unlocked phones. It's more like banning crowbars, because one of their uses is breaking into stores.

I mean, why not ban car tuning while we're at it? People could be using those upgrades to break the posted speed limits.

Timminz wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, there are other uses, but if it's possible for people to unlock their phones to engage in "cyber crime" and "deep, dark cyber markets," then I have a hard time arguing against such laws. My basic stance toward the phone companies is "too bad; my phone, shut up, or make me sign a contract which explicitly states what I can/can't do--and good luck enforcing it." It's kind of a crappy position though.

<shrug> It seems like it would be less intrusive if they just pursued remunerations based on criminality. For instance, a store shouldn't lock its doors based on the idea that there might be theft. They pursue the thief and press charges after he's actually committed a crime.

-TG

This should go in BBS' "accidental strawman" therrad.