Frankly, I don't really care.

It's not yet been demonstrated that an EULA, which you agree to without the ability to even read the terms, is enforcable. It hardly meets the definition of a contract by contract law.

In either case, I live in a practical world where it's simply prudent to make a personal backup of a thing I purchased.

I won't argue that the most effective way of obtaining a fully functional backup, thanks to various copy prevention measures that do not stop real software pirates pumping out duplicates in China, is to puchase a second copy from the original publisher.

Obviously, that doesn't mean everyone can afford to do so or believes its not within his right to make a personal backup, however disfunctional thanks to copy prevention means, that backup may be.

It could be that software publishers know full well that their copy prevention schemes do not stop professional software pirates making 1:1 duplicate copies with commercial duplication equipment. The true goal of copy prevent could be to force the very action Beery has wrapped himself up in like a warm blanket: repurchases due to unintentional damage or destruction.

Gives me warm fuzzies.

I fully supported Ubisoft.

They have my $42 or whatever I paid.

But, no, I won't pay them twice for their work because I might want to make a backup. The original purchase prices covers the sum Ubisoft felt it was necessary to recoup to earn the return on investment they desired.

Case closed.

...hopefully.

JCC

Deleted, as it was off-topic. :ping:

** Message deleted by me cause of it being off-topic **

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[quote="NZ_Wanderer"]There's always the USB hack.

You have to unplug all your CD/DVD-ROM drives or disable them, then plug in an external USB2 DVD-ROM and run your backup of SH3 from that. It's been confirmed that Starforce will fail 'open' and allow you to proceed.

It's a lot of trouble to go to to play a game you legally bought, though.

HMMMMMM.....

Yea, your line of thought is goood, and i dont mind MUCH spending that money. éé of age, no job, and no income++Yet-50 bucks for a second copy of SH3 is better than drinking for weeks because of a depression.

cheaper, cleaner and more interesting too. :D

and dont get an heacdache either.

not to forget that i dont stink, or have an ugly face.
and women diont run away from me++lets buy it as often as required.

:D

"Seawolves" contains mods by ...
 

This thread is getting off topic and it worries me.

I have nothing against a debate about protection measures of the industry, but not on this thread, please!
This thread was dedicated to the Seawolves scam and even anounced so by Onkel Neal on the subsim home page.

This thread has been extremely lively a few weeks ago when the comunity became aware that the X 1 Seawolves project intended to make commercial use of mods, provided for the community by our modders. We showed a lot of commitment, quality debate and above all broad solidarity with our modders, and within a week or so our comments filled a dozen pages or more.
The community basically agreed on broad lines that it was highly unethical if not illegal to use the work of modders for the community on a commercial basis, especially without their consent or after misleading them about the Seawolves project.

Therefore this thread is something the subsim community can use as a reference for others, the gamers press for instance.
Let's stay serious and on topic in this thread.
Let's keep it a high leveled discussion and let's follow the actions of X 1 with the necessairy suspicion.
Let's post whenever there is news on Seawolves!

I wondered if you had seen my last post Abraham?
I'd like your thoughts on the matter.

"Seawolves" contains mods by ...
 

First of all an excuse, Shadow9216.
You've asked me a question and I haven't responded. I've visited SAIL 2005 in Amsterdam a couple of times the last four days and not been too active on the site.
Second of all a cautio.
I've studied law, but intellectual ownership is not my specialism. I'm more into real estate... So I don't consider myself an expert and I am sure that others with a legal background may know more about this.
Third of all, you pose your question in a way which points in the direction of criminal law when you mention 'culpability'. I may be mistaken here because of the very specialist and narrow definitions of legal terms and the fact that I do not master legal English enough to comprehend all its nuances.

Having said all this I doubt if under the circumstances that you describe Matrix would be as culpable in the criminal sense as X 1.
X 1 is the active party and takes the initiative to misguide.
Then the question has to be raised if X 1 is culpable in a criminal way by selling its DVDs with 'stolen' mods.
I have my doubts about that and I am sure that in The Netherlands a criminal claim filed by either the buyer or the modder(s) would not lead to prosecution. The prosecutor would first want to establish if rights of third parties were being infringed upon, which means a civil case first. Furthermore, prosecutors in Holland hate to be 'used' as they see it in procedures that can be referred to civil courts. They don't want to start a criminal procedure that may backfire if a civil court would give a contrary ruling.
Finally I would foresee a lot of problems gathering proof for a criminal case.

A civil case may have a better chance.
If it can be proved that Matrix is made absolutely aware of the situation that X 1 is in fact using pirated material and ifthey know that one of their employees is actively working for X 1, and if that employee held a position of a certain influence at both Matrix as well as X 1, than Matrix might have no alternative but to take immediate action against its own employee in order to escape civil liability.
Interesting indeed and worth giving a second thought.
From a practical point I would add that Matrix runs graver risks and has more to lose than X 1 so it might be more carefull and could distance itself from X 1 if a serious problem arose.
That may be one reason why Marc Schwanebeck seems to be supressing Beery's postings on the Matrix forum, which means that this could be their weak spot.

Does anybody who have actively participated in this discussion or feels strongly about this scam think that we should inform Matrix just to make sure that they are aware of the problem? I mean not (just) by posting on their forum, but sending then an e-mail or even a letter by registerd mail.
Personally I think our modders are worth the effort.
Anybody's thoughts please...

I haven't really been posting actively , but I feel that Matrix hi-up's (people in charge) should be informed about this whole thing just incase they do not know about it...

Not only are they informed, they are involved.

Read back a few pages.

Thanks for your input Abraham- I knew you'd have something useful to say. :up:

I agree with you about formally presenting Matrix with all the evidence we have collected so far- this does not have to be done in an adversarial fashion, we can simply present them with the facts we have collected about X1's use of mods, Schwanebeck's involvement with the DVD, his supression of threads at Matrix, etc. and ask them to clarify their position- done in this manner, it allows them the "out" of disavowing their employee's action, if they were aware of it; they may be completely innocent (sorry, keep using criminal terms :roll: - I'll work on it :P ) and this would provide them the grounds they would need to take action.

Finally, it gives us a clear indication which way the wind is blowing over there. If they choose to ignore us and hope we'll go away, or if they come over to the attack as Schwanebeck did, we'll have an answer, of sorts.

"Seawolves" contains mods by ...
 

Thanks for your nice compliment, Shadow9216.

Let's wait one more day or so for some more reactions. I would like to get some imput from Terrapin, Jasonb885, Beery, perhaps John Channing and others about this. Everybody who takes an intrest in this matter should feel free to give us his/here thoughts...

Then one of us should draft a letter, as you said presenting the case in a non-adversarial way and inquiring after Matrix' position. We should make clear that the community is troubled by the steps that X 1 is taking. I further think we can refer to the two threads on this forum.

I feel that as many of us should sign this letter, in order to make an impression. It should be clear that it is not 'just' an action of some frustrated modders but a letter based on broad support within the community, modders and non-modders alike.

Since such a letter could possibly have a strong 'subsim.com-smell' I feel that we should inform Neal Stevens about this plan in an early stage and perhaps even ask his OK for the draft. If he would advise us against a letter (more or less) on behalf of the community, the letter could be written by some of us on a personal basis, without strong references to subsim.com.

Just some thoughts...

Works for me. I'd like to hear from the others as well.

In the meantime...

I know several people downloaded the alleged "beta" version of Seewolves from X-1's server; does anyone have a legitimate copy provided to them by X1 themselves? Not one they "helped themselves" to?

I ask because it would be expected for anyone with something to hide/lose at Matrix to claim this was either a) "tainted" evidence, as it was acquired illegally- referring to criminal law again, such evidence would most likely be ruled inadmissible- or b) "manufactured" evidence, created by someone here with an axe to grind. If someone was freely provided a copy of the Seewolves package and would be willing to (essentially) affirm that in an affidavit (I exaggerate a bit), it makes it harder for X1 and/or Matrix to cry "foul"

...thoughts?