First of all, that was the intent of the 5 updates/month, right? To allow a gaming groups to get by with 1 subscription.
Will this feature be present in the new CB? I actually haven't seen this question asked yet, though I haven't scoured all the threads.
First of all, that was the intent of the 5 updates/month, right? To allow a gaming groups to get by with 1 subscription.
No in fact it was against the EULA.
While, say, bringing your laptop to a game and letting someone use the CB was acceptable, actively letting them install the program for themselves was not.
It is admittedly confusing, and I don't think most people that did this were intentionally trying to abuse the system. Nonetheless, this sort of behavior is probably one of the key reasons that WotC switched to this new format. I imagine, again, the terms of service will indicate that this is not allowed, though I do not know what specific measures will be in place to prevent it.
They already do, you were just cheating them before.
Exactly.
WotC had to change this because people were ripping them off.
Wow. So for an entire group to get access to the CB WotC expects $50-60 per month? Seriously???
For a year long subscription for 6 people that is $36/month. But yeah, that is what they expect if you each want access on your own computers. Sharing a subscription on one computer and each building your character on it/having one person build all of them and then printing them out is fine and is $6/month.
I can say, without a doubt, that the players in my game won't be willing to shell out this kind of money for the CB. Which will, in all likleyhood, kill the game I run at home. I guess we'll probably end up switching back to Savage Worlds or something.
Consider: This equals each person buying two D&D hardcovers (at $35.00 a piece) over the course of a an entire year. And you actually get a lot more D&D goodness than two books can ever hold. You get it all, albeit digital as opposed to hardcover. I buy lots of books anyway but nowhere near what I get as part of the CB.
Problem is, there's an even *better* deal. There are loopholes that can be abused. And I don't blame anyone for taking advantage of them while they can. I'm as guilty as anyone-- I have bought a month sub and downloaded two month's worth of stuff. Not to mention, there's a fella in our group who mooches (he has his reasons but he's still a mooch). That's bad business (or so I'd guess).
I knew it couldn't last. It was simply too good. They tolerated the loopholes and abuses for a very long time, which I think is commendable but . . . I don't blame them in the least for trying to address the problem. That's what I believe this boils down to.
Some rambling thoughts.
/\ Art
Or you can just share your login information with your players. ;)
Which could easily get your account banned and your subscription immediately cancelled.
$72.00 a year for one person. Assuming each person in a group of five buys their own sub (and doesn't mooch), that's $350.00 for a full year's access, for an entire group. Not a bad deal, not in my book at least (mileage varies of course ;)).
Considering the content provided:
2 books per month at an average of $30 each
2 magazines per month, each easily worth more, but I'll quote at $3 each
Over 12 months, that's $792 for each person, or $3,960 for a whole group (of 5... and yeah, I know that in person groups can share one set of books, but online groups should be considered as well and do not have that option)
The best way to look at this deal: signing up for DDi gets you the whole [explitive deleted] game for just around a 90% discount.
Or you can just share your login information with your players. ;)
Which could easily get your account banned and your subscription immediately cancelled.
I highly doubt that. It has already been said that multiple computers could be logged in to the builder at the same time but that editing the same character simultaneously may cause problems. Do you really think they are going to limit you to one IP address per account? The whole point of it being online is you don't have to install any software and you can access it anywhere.
Besides, I see nothing wrong with sharing something that you paid for with a friend or even sharing the cost with them. It's the same as letting your friend log onto your WoW account to play your characters. Or sharing one account with a family household. In that situation, you couldn't both be logged in at the same time. Maybe Wizards will limit the number of users that can be logged in at once but that still doesn't prevent you from taking turns.
This could be fixed by having a log in "time-out" where it would log you out automatically after being "idle" for too long. This sounds restrictive and inconvenient but it could be done I suppose.
Again, this doesn't prevent you and another user from "taking turns".
Anyway, with the offline CB, I can allow the other players to use it on my laptop (without having to log in or reveal a password). The only concern for me there, is to make sure they don't set my laptop on fire (or something ;)).
I would imagine that the secrecy required of a password will discourage multiple users from the online CB.
/\ Art
The biggest drawback I can see with an online CB is that I'd have to reveal my password to the other players. They know my email and username but not my password (that's private and for good reason). I'm assuming that stuff won't change? I mean, my information for logging into the forums will be the same for logging into the CB.
Anyway, with the offline CB, I can allow the other players to use it on my laptop (without having to log in or reveal a password). The only concern for me there, is to make sure they don't set my laptop on fire (or something ;)).
I would imagine that the secrecy required of a password will discourage multiple users from the online CB.
/\ Art
That's an easy solution. Create a new account and share the cost with your players.
I just can't listen to "propriety talk" from people defending a company that did what it did to Gary Gygax. Have you no shame?
I see no one attacking TSR, nor anyone defending TSR.
Other than buying up the properties of a company that had long been detached from E. Gary Gygax (after the "what it did" to him I believe you are referring to), what did WotC do?
Nothing, that's what.
"They already do, you were just cheating them before."
Riiiiight. If Wotc could, they'd charge each person for 1 copy of the hardcover books too. But they can't. Because it's silly. And ridiculous to expect everyone to pay for a copy. We update our characters maybe 1 time every two months, sometimes with a few months off for the summertime, and we're supposed to pay for updates during the time we don't play?
Ridicuous to expect people to actually act as they agreed to when they installed the builder? Riiiight. It says, explicitly, that account sharing is against the rules. People did it anyway because there wasn't adequate enforcement. Now there might be, and you're throwing a fit?
There is no way they can enforce a 1 person login / account rule. If they check IPs they'll have to say, no you can only access the site from home OR work, OR this wifi hotspot. You can't filter paying subscribers by their IP, so you cannot filter out more than one person sharing an account. This is where corporate masters rub their hands together and think "lawsuit!" and get useful internet forum people to lash out at their paying customers for not paying more than they need to.
What they can do is prevent you from logging in twice at the same time. Nothing more, nothing less. No, it won't prevent the cheaters from cheating them. But that doesn't mean that just because you can rip them off that you should.
That's just unbridled GREED.
You mean like the kind of unbridled greed that lets you think that because you can steal something, you should?
Here's what I have set up with the current character builder.
I had installed the old character builder on my home PC and set up remote control such that my players could log into my PC remotely and launch the builder in order to update their characters. This only used 1 of my 5 installs. I ran the updates myself. No EULA issues there, I think.
Does this now mean that I won't have to do this? Can my players log into my account from anywhere and alter their characters? We are still only using 1 point to log in, alter and save characters? Wouldn't this be like sharing a World of Warcraft account? I.E. 2 people have WoW installed, but share usage of the same account?
Oddly, this may make it easier for me and my group without breaking the EULA. If there is an issue with sharing login info, then we will simply create a group account. I.E. DnDgroup@hotmail.com or something.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
So, you feel that there is no way that I should express my disapproval at your behavior because that would constitute a reportable offense?
If a person stole the CB (and by stole, I mean the definition of "use without paying for it"), then I think it's perfectly acceptable to criticize their personal character.
My friends use my entire RPG collection to make characters for various systems. They haven't paid me a penny. That isn't stealing, I presume?
But if they use my CB, that is? I don't follow.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who got one of the people in their group to pay for DDi and then share the five installs among people and who are now upset that doing so will be harder.
If you feel the CB is worth using, then pay for it. If you don't feel that it's worth paying for, don't use it.
But don't you dare come on here and defend pirates by saying "It's not technically stealing."
Sharing a book is one thing. People share books all the time, and it's a good thing to do. Sharing a $10 one-time "subscription" payment to avoid buying the entire library is another thing entirely.
But don't you dare come on here and defend pirates by saying "It's not technically stealing."
But it isn't stealing any more than it would be if I let friends, for example, play a game I've paid for. It's been paid for. I should have the right, once I've paid for it, to let other people use the product that has been paid for.
I'm not defending pirates. I do think that people who were buying a months sub to get were wrong. But we're dealing with people who have paid here.
What about it a group pays together? Is that still piracy?
Yes, because you're breaching a contract.
I don't think you understand what piracy is. Never mind the fact that EULAs are only questionably legally binding...
Debates on what is and what isn't piracy never, ever end up anywhere other than a flamewar.
Emotions are heated up enough about the web-based CB. I would really, really appreciate not throwing this can of gas into the mix.
My understanding was that the CB was available as a torrent and people were accessing it (and the monthly content) that way. I think that's the kind of piracy WotC is (and ought to be) concerned about.
I can say, without a doubt, that the players in my game won't be willing to shell out this kind of money for the CB. Which will, in all likleyhood, kill the game I run at home. I guess we'll probably end up switching back to Savage Worlds or something.
If people cannot implement simple devices known as pencil and paper, then I have no sympathy. If your gaming group is based solely on this, then it was doomed from the start.
Sorry, but it's true.
They already do, you were just cheating them before.
I suspect that was their intent, but I read the EULA carefully, and there is a loophole. That loophole, combined with the "Fair Use" doctrine of copyright law allows one person to install it on multiple computers. So, no, we were not cheating them before.
EXCEPTION: It was not valid to give the user account to multiple people. "You" still had to own the account and the PCs. So, doubtless many people were in violation after all.
They already do, you were just cheating them before.
I suspect that was their intent, but I read the EULA carefully, and there is a loophole. That loophole, combined with the "Fair Use" doctrine of copyright law allows one person to install it on multiple computers. So, no, we were not cheating them before.
Correction, you were not legally cheating them before.
They already do, you were just cheating them before.
I suspect that was their intent, but I read the EULA carefully, and there is a loophole. That loophole, combined with the "Fair Use" doctrine of copyright law allows one person to install it on multiple computers. So, no, we were not cheating them before.
Correction, you were not legally cheating them before.
I'm pretty sure "not legally cheating" and "not cheating" mean the same thing.
I'm pretty sure "not legally cheating" and "not cheating" mean the same thing.
Pretty sure that they don't.
My group "shares" a single DDi account. But what that actually means in practice is that I have everyone's characters stored on my PC(s). I let my friends use my CB software on my laptop(s) when they want to. I don't think that constitutes stealing. Others may disagree.
So when the CB goes online, I'll continue to keep everyone's characters in my account - this time in the cloud. And I'll have to let my mates log in to it occasionally to level up their characters and so on.
Now, if I do that by logging on myself, and I update their characters, whilst they tell me what options they want to select, is that stealing? I'm pretty certain it isn't.
What if I log my friends onto my account myself, and I stand in the room with them and watch as they use the tool to update their characters, is that stealing?
What if I log them in and then leave them to update whilst I go away?
What if I remote desktop into their PC and log them in from my house?
What if I tell them my password so they can do it themselves, and then as soon as they are finished change my password so it was a one off?
What if I trust my mates totally, and tell them my password and just let them update their characters whenever they want - effectively sharing the account between us?
I think this is not as clear cut as some might suggest.
Keep up the intelligent, reasoned and polite debate!!
Blakey
First of all, that was the intent of the 5 updates/month, right? To allow a gaming groups to get by with 1 subscription.
I think the intent was more users like myself with multiple computers (two desktops and a laptop) any of which I might be using to work on a game. I think they gave you five because it was more than most people would need but not so many that you could freely give out your password to everyone in your FLGS.
But don't you dare come on here and defend pirates by saying "It's not technically stealing."
It may or may not be, depending on how it is done. Please understand that no matter what the EULA says, individuals have certain rights under copyright law. One of them is called "Fair Use". It's the reason the RIAA and other groups file lawsuits and lose them: People are allowed to make a limited number of copies of copyrighted information, no matter what the holder of the copyright says.
For example: Let's say I buy Clinton's memoirs in book form. When I'm done reading it, I have the legal right to loan it to someone else. I can also sell it to them instead. Clinton or his publishers do not have any rights in this area. (In fact, and this should get you thinking: I can donate it to a library, so THOUSANDS of people can use it!)
Now, let's suppose the publisher put a statement on the book. Let's assume you had to agree by breaking a seal of some kind. The statement says that I cannot loan or sell it to anybody else. I "agreed" to this by breaking the seal, right?
Wrong. The publisher did not have the legal right to add that to the book. So, their statements are legally irrelevant. In fact, doing so could run them afoul of federal trade regulations, but that's a different question.
HOWEVER, the 1996 Digital Millenium Copyright Act changed some of these parameters. Software vendors played by slightly different rules. But, the Fair Use doctrine still exists, and publishers (software OR hard-copy) do not have the right to overrule it. It's been firmed up and scoped somewhat narrowly, but not eliminated.
Companies still (illegally) try, but that's irrelevant.
In order to find out what's valid in a EULA, one must understand all of copyright law. That gets far too complicated for most people, so they just assume that since the EULA was written by lawyers, it's valid in all respects.
But, this is incorrect, and it is painfully obvious to those willing to even briefly think about it. Just ask the question: How many people have been SUCCESSFULLY sued for sharing software with immediate friends? I'm not talking about sharing a copy that's then shared with someone else. I'm talking one person gives or sells a copy to one other person, either temporarily or permanently.
The answer is none (at least in the US). And, the reason is painfully clear: If the software company ever did try to sue, they would lose the case badly (AND probably have to pay damages for filing a frivolous lawsuit, if the offended party had enough money to file a countersuit). Losing such a lawsuit would overturn their EULA so badly that they simply can't afford to even chance it.
Lawsuits for software use that ARE filed always deal with multiple people, more than two.
Debates on what is and what isn't piracy never, ever end up anywhere other than a flamewar.
Emotions are heated up enough about the web-based CB. I would really, really appreciate not throwing this can of gas into the mix.
While you may be correct, posters were called pirates by other posters. As my previous post shows, for some customers this is a false statement. They should have the right to defend themselves, unless the offending (pirate-calling) post gets dealt with.
Debates on what is and what isn't piracy never, ever end up anywhere other than a flamewar.
Emotions are heated up enough about the web-based CB. I would really, really appreciate not throwing this can of gas into the mix.
While you may be correct, posters were called pirates by other posters. As my previous post shows, for some customers this is a false statement. They should have the right to defend themselves, unless the offending (pirate-calling) post gets dealt with.
The proper way to deal with it is not to respond, but to report the post.
They already do, you were just cheating them before.
I suspect that was their intent, but I read the EULA carefully, and there is a loophole. That loophole, combined with the "Fair Use" doctrine of copyright law allows one person to install it on multiple computers. So, no, we were not cheating them before.
Correction, you were not legally cheating them before.
No, the original statement is correct. In fact, it's the opposite of yours: What I've done is prevent Wizards from cheating ME out of my legally granted rights in the copyright sphere. Just because the vendor says something does not make that statement valid. Vendors have limited rights in this area, and so do customers.
I'm pretty sure "not legally cheating" and "not cheating" mean the same thing.
Actually, I have to defend the writer on this point. The accusation in the new wording is that I am morally cheating, even if I'm not legally cheating. The addition of the word simply clarifies.
Guys, this is a really interesting thread, please keep it civil so that it doesn't get shut down, as I for one am really interested to hear everyone's opinions on this one. But please do all keep posting on this thread as I really do think that there are a lot of people/groups that this effects.
My group "shares" a single DDi account. But what that actually means in practice is that I have everyone's characters stored on my PC(s). I let my friends use my CB software on my laptop(s) when they want to. I don't think that constitutes stealing. Others may disagree.
No problem as far as I can tell.
So when the CB goes online, I'll continue to keep everyone's characters in my account - this time in the cloud. And I'll have to let my mates log in to it occasionally to level up their characters and so on.
Questionable, letting others log in to your account.
Now, if I do that by logging on myself, and I update their characters, whilst they tell me what options they want to select, is that stealing? I'm pretty certain it isn't.
Seems fine.
What if I log my friends onto my account myself, and I stand in the room with them and watch as they use the tool to update their characters, is that stealing?
Seems fine.
What if I log them in and then leave them to update whilst I go away?
Seems fine.
I think the key of it to me (not necessarily to Wizards, just me!) is that when you give your user name and password (even as a one-off) to another user who has not subscribed, that's where you've entered questionable territory. But only then.
news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20002689-71.h...
If you feel the CB is worth using, then pay for it. If you don't feel that it's worth paying for, don't use it.
I think there's a good number of people on these boards that perceive this notion as abusive.
The fact that they don't want to pay for that service doesn't mean they don't feel entitled to it.
I think the key of it to me (not necessarily to Wizards, just me!) is that when you give your user name and password (even as a one-off) to another user who has not subscribed, that's where you've entered questionable territory. But only then.
I agree with you about not giving out your password so anyone can access your account, and I have never given out my info.
So here's a question. What if I tell the browser on my friends PC to "remember username and password" and I type the info in for him the 1st time. My friend doesn't know the password, can't log in by himself but still gets to access the online character builder and other tools. Is this a EULA problem?
These are the kinds of grey areas that will drive us all bonkers.
No, the original statement is correct. In fact, it's the opposite of yours: What I've done is prevent Wizards from cheating ME out of my legally granted rights in the copyright sphere. Just because the vendor says something does not make that statement valid. Vendors have limited rights in this area, and so do customers.
Then we simply have different opinions on what is and what is not cheating.
If you replace WotC with an individual, would you take the same liberties and try to take advantage of the agreement (or the spirit of the agreement)? Or is it simply because WotC is a company?
The proper way to deal with it is not to respond, but to report the post.
Possibly. But, it seems to me that they're not being malicious (at least not in the posts still remaining). They're just misinformed. So, reporting them isn't really proper, either.
Perhaps the copyright law stuff should be in a thread by itself, but I suspect it won't need to be in the end.
...What if I log them in and then leave them to update whilst I go away?
Seems fine.
I think the key of it to me (not necessarily to Wizards, just me!) is that when you give your user name and password (even as a one-off) to another user who has not subscribed, that's where you've entered questionable territory. But only then.
Depends on the product being offered. Software has specific rules that are covered by the various copyright laws in this country. Services are covered by different rules, and much of copyright law would no longer apply. Contract law would reign supreme in a higher percentage of the questions that could be asked of both products.
This is why it is so critical to me: Wizards is trying to enforce their will by changing the product so they can do something they wished they could do via copyright law, but cannot. Once they get the database onto their own server(s), customers ARE obliged to abide by most or all of their EULA. Thus, this becomes a huge reason to not allow them to execute this change unchallenged.
First of all, that was the intent of the 5 updates/month, right? To allow a gaming groups to get by with 1 subscription.
I think the intent was more users like myself with multiple computers (two desktops and a laptop) any of which I might be using to work on a game. I think they gave you five because it was more than most people would need but not so many that you could freely give out your password to everyone in your FLGS.
I'm not sure that was the intent, either- despite what people said on the forums, the EULA only allows you to install the character builder on one computer.
Ahhh, sorry. I guess I misread what you said. I thought you were referring to the current CB.
But there would still be ways for WotC to track the number of locations from which you log in. They could create a unique machine specific key each time you log in and simply count how many different keys a single account creates. Additionally, they could then simply allow only one session with a specific machine key to run at a time. Many MMOG are doing this already. If you log in from a second computer while already logged in the first session is automatically logged out.
Your comparison with WoW fails because you can't play at the same time when your friend is logged in to your account (see above). If your main char is a blood elf paladin and your friend's main char is a night elf druid you can't play both at the same time. Never. Ever. Also, sharing your WoW (or pretty much any MMOG) account with anybody can easily get the account suspended for ToS/ToU violation. ;)
And that's the difference to the CB - you're not "sharing" but copying. It's the same problem with eMule, Kazaar, and other file "sharing" platforms. They are not sharing but copying, because sharing implies that you either use the thing together at the same time or that only one can use it at a time. If you share your Arcane Power with a friend and your friend takes the book home, you can't read it until he returns it. But if you want to be able to read your book while it is at your friend's home you either need a second book or a copy of it.
@Artifact:
Another easy solution: log in without your players watching you, then hand over the laptop. They can use the CB without seeing your login credentials.
@MtlKnight:
And why are you still here, supporting the company you despise so much with your money (*points at the DDI icon under your screen name*)? Haven't you found the "Delete Account" button yet? An even better question would be: why did you subscribe in the first place if you hated WotC that much?
Also, "60 bucks a month"?
@Blakey:
I think it comes down to whether or not a non-subscriber can use the product (CB in this case) independently from you. Anything that allows a non-subscriber to use the CB independently from you is probably a no-go.
Allowing others to use your account on your computer: imho no problem.
Allowing others to use your account on their computer: very dangerous with the old CB (because it works without login), imho no problem with the nCB (because it requires a login at each start).
Sharing your login credentials with others: in both cases very dangerous and a clear breach of the ToS/ToU.
@Daddicus:
You're also confusing "sharing" and copying. Your example with the book falls short because you can't read the book any more after selling or loaning it to someone else. However, your buddy can still use the CB after you've gone home already if you installed and updated it on his computer. And that's the difference. You're not sharing but copying.
I'm not sure that was the intent, either- despite what people said on the forums, the EULA only allows you to install the character builder on one computer.
Yeah, there are likely a number of reasons behind the intent. I am fairly certain that one of those reasons was not so you can install it on all of your buddies' computers so they can all use it.
I can say, without a doubt, that the players in my game won't be willing to shell out this kind of money for the CB. Which will, in all likleyhood, kill the game I run at home. I guess we'll probably end up switching back to Savage Worlds or something.
If people cannot implement simple devices known as pencil and paper, then I have no sympathy. If your gaming group is based solely on this, then it was doomed from the start.
Sorry, but it's true.
4e was obviously designed with power cards in mind, which is one of the primary benefits of the CB. Creating one's own power cards is onerous (I tried doing so with MSE before CB came out, what a pain that was), and I'd rather play a different game than go through the trouble of doing so.
Additionally, as has already been mentioned in this thread, the sheer amount of errata makes in practically impossible to play with the books as your primary source.
The CB is practically required to play D&D efficiently.
@MtlKnight:
And why are you still here, supporting the company you despise so much with your money (*points at the DDI icon under your screen name*)? Haven't you found the "Delete Account" button yet? An even better question would be: why did you subscribe in the first place if you hated WotC that much?
Maybe because, like me, the cancellation and refund haven't been processed yet?
@MtlKnight:
And why are you still here, supporting the company you despise so much with your money (*points at the DDI icon under your screen name*)? Haven't you found the "Delete Account" button yet? An even better question would be: why did you subscribe in the first place if you hated WotC that much?
Maybe because, like me, the cancellation and refund haven't been processed yet?
When I cancelled it was a good two weeks before the icon disapeared from my name.
Additionally, as has already been mentioned in this thread, the sheer amount of errata makes in practically impossible to play with the books as your primary source.
The "sheer amounts of errata" existed pre-digital. It was always contained in Dragon Magazine and occupied approximately one page each month. My old manuals were filled with cut-out squares of errata.
So people got along just fine with that type of errata, or none of the errata at all.
The CB is practically required to play D&D efficiently.
Convenience has a price tag, particularly this day and age.
Listen, I do get it. I understand that it may be more convenient to have an offline tool, but I cannot disagree with the direction that Wizards wants to go in regarding DDI, either. A lot of companies with a software presence are headed in this direction and it is a growing trend.
Then we simply have different opinions on what is and what is not cheating.
If you replace WotC with an individual, would you take the same liberties and try to take advantage of the agreement (or the spirit of the agreement)? Or is it simply because WotC is a company?
Our opinions are irrelevant. Only the law matters, and it is opinion-blind (at least in theory).
Regarding individual vs. company: First, please recognize that no thinking individual would ever attempt this, at least not as an individual. The risks would be astronomical and the gains minimal. So, the question is moot.
However, let's hypothetically take the question up anyhow. Would it change my opinion? Absolutely not! For this kind of purpose, there's really no difference.
This is why it is so critical to me: Wizards is trying to enforce their will by changing the product so they can do something they wished they could do via copyright law, but cannot. Once they get the database onto their own server(s), customers ARE obliged to abide by most or all of their EULA. Thus, this becomes a huge reason to not allow them to execute this change unchallenged.
But this is nonsense. You're citing contract law and then say this?
It's a contract - it's only natural that Wizards is trying to enforce their will. It's the entire point of a contract. If the original contract they stipulated allows them to suspend that contract in favour of a new one, they're free to do so by contract law. It's not like users are forced to accept the new contract. Even more importantly, users retain the capability of using the tools they payed for in the state they were when they stopped paying for them.
It's a textbook example of faithful transaction.
WotC is stopping to sell a certain product and offering a new one. Users can buy the new one or keep the old one they already payed for.
There's nothing illegal.
There's nothing immoral.
I seriously hope what you're going at isn't the fact that users are for some reasons entitled to the expectation that the product they subscribed for is mantained through the years in the same form, because that is nonsense. I received faxes and mails monthly telling me the service or materials my factory uses is now 15% more expensive. Unilateral changes are a perfectly normal part of the contract mechanics.
Our opinions are irrelevant. Only the law matters, and it is opinion-blind (at least in theory).
That's sensible; and if the contract the user signed stated that he obliged to make personal use of the software without sharing it with others, then the potential for unfaithful behaviour is there.
Now, concerning property, there's a number of uses of your property the seller can't interfere with. I bought a movie, I lend the movie to a friend and the guy selling me the movie has no say in that. He can't in any shape or form interfere.
WotC knows they can't stop people from "lending" the CB to others to make Character Sheets; they can't stop the digital distribution of PDFs and so on. So they stop selling the product they can't make a profit on and offer a new one that offers the same services but isn't as easy to share.
Exactly what is illegal in this?
@Daddicus:
You're also confusing "sharing" and copying. Your example with the book falls short because you can't read the book any more after selling or loaning it to someone else. However, your buddy can still use the CB after you've gone home already if you installed and updated it on his computer. And that's the difference. You're not sharing but copying.
No, I'm not. If multiple people or an incorporated or partnered entity is the purchaser, fair use does not apply. If a copy is copied, fair use does not apply.
But, the original purchaser can make copies for his/her own use. The purchaser, though, cannot then give or loan these copies to another entity.
The original purchaser can loan it to a friend. But, that friend cannot loan it to another friend.
The originial purchaser also cannot call an infinite number of people "friends" for this purpose. This was how Napster was eventually forced to capitulate: They called all of their customers "friends", and the courts rejected that argument. The courts also cemented the number of "friends" one can have for this purpose: Under 20. However, that number may have been reduced by either a later court case or by Congressional action. It seems to me it's 8 now.
The original purchaser can transfer it to someone else, friend or business. However, all rights and copies go with the transfer. The original purchaser cannot keep a copy for himself.
etc.
Our opinions are irrelevant. Only the law matters, and it is opinion-blind (at least in theory).
...
However, let's hypothetically take the question up anyhow. Would it change my opinion? Absolutely not! For this kind of purpose, there's really no difference.
This is an awfully draconian mindset. I hope for your friend's and family's sake that they contract every agreement with you, no matter how trivial. And thank you for answering the hypothetical, as you have established quite well what you are and that price is no object.
There is no reason for us to discuss this further. Because opinions actually DO matter, whether you want to believe that or not.
When you let someone else use your program, do you have the ability to also use it at the same time?
If the answer is no, you're okay. You have lent him your copy, similar as to how you would lend a book, and when he is done you get the use of the program back. An example would be letting a friend sit at your computer and use the character builder program.
If the answer is yes, you're crossing a line. You have duplicated the program, similar to photocopying all the pages of a book and giving them out, and you've given him full use of a 2nd version of the product without him having to pay for it. This seems to be what several player groups have done.
Now, before Daddicus calls me on it, intuition is not the same as legality, and I am not trying to claim it is. However, I think the above is a good rule of thumb for the various scenarios being floated in posts in this thread.
I seriously hope what you're going at isn't the fact that users are for some reasons entitled to the expectation that the product they subscribed for is mantained through the years in the same form, because that is nonsense. I received faxes and mails monthly telling me the service or materials my factory uses is now 15% more expensive. Unilateral changes are a perfectly normal part of the contract mechanics.
No, I'm not. I'm addressing the very narrow issue of whether a person can put more than one copy of software onto two computers that personally they own. The discussion has necessarily veered into contract law vs copyright law in order to answer the question of ethical vs. inethical. It's also touched upon the definitions of a person and a corporation.
NOTE: I don't think I've said it, but if someone does place a copy of software onto two of their own computers, they cannot both be in use at the same time. So, if you want to play a game with one of your kids, you should have two copies.
@canormorum:
Your comparison with WoW fails because you can't play at the same time when your friend is logged in to your account (see above). If your main char is a blood elf paladin and your friend's main char is a night elf druid you can't play both at the same time. Never. Ever. Also, sharing your WoW (or pretty much any MMOG) account with anybody can easily get the account suspended for ToS/ToU violation. ;)
You obviously lack reading comprehension. I did mention the fact that only one user can be logged on at one time but this doesn't prevent you from taking turns.
Our opinions are irrelevant. Only the law matters, and it is opinion-blind (at least in theory).
That's sensible; and if the contract the user signed stated that he obliged to make personal use of the software without sharing it with others, then the potential for unfaithful behaviour is there.
Now, concerning property, there's a number of uses of your property the seller can't interfere with. I bought a movie, I lend the movie to a friend and the guy selling me the movie has no say in that. He can't in any shape or form interfere.
WotC knows they can't stop people from "lending" the CB to others to make Character Sheets; they can't stop the digital distribution of PDFs and so on. So they stop selling the product they can't make a profit on and offer a new one that offers the same services but isn't as easy to share.
Exactly what is illegal in this?
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Wizards is operating outside of the law. All they're doing is attempting to get a customer to follow a contract which isn't necessarily legally binding. If the customer follows it, that's between the customer and the vendor. In a way, this set of actions encourages people to follow their conscience, even though their conscience might be inclined to having them go above and beyond what they are required to do.
So, no, Wizards is not doing something illegal.
WHy EULAs must be taken with a grain of salt:
news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20002689-71.h...
That's kind of a silly statement. There is plenty of evidence that EULAs are enforced. They also circumvent most legal agreements and even obligations. I think it was a Seattle firm that had 3rd party technicians install contruction estimation software. The click wrap made the software developer not liable for the damages if the software didn't work. In the end the builder underbid a project and lost its shirt.
www.porterhedges.com/NewsPublications/Pu...
In the example you posted... unenforceable statements get stricken from EULAs.. the rest stands.
They already do, you were just cheating them before.
Exactly.
WotC had to change this because people were ripping them off.
One could argue DDI was ridiculously overpriced, and they were ripping us off initially.
Stop being a homer. DDI is overpriced for what it offers, and always has been. EULA or not, wotc has a bad business model, bad pricing scheme, and piss poor content other than the old CB.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Wizards is operating outside of the law. All they're doing is attempting to get a customer to follow a contract which isn't necessarily legally binding. If the customer follows it, that's between the customer and the vendor. In a way, this set of actions encourages people to follow their conscience, even though their conscience might be inclined to having them go above and beyond what they are required to do.
So, no, Wizards is not doing something illegal.
I would say this is more the case of WotC knowing they cannot practically stop the abuse of the previous contract form, and even in terms of legal enforcing they would step into murky ground; so they change the form of the service offered to ensure in practice what they can't in intentions.
To make a comparison, it's like a bookstore owner making a contract with users stating "I will allow you and only you to have access to 1 book for 1 month for 1€" and then seeing people taking the book out of the store and lending it to everybody.
It's practically impossible for him to chase people and stop them from lending the books; if he was to take legal action, he would be faced with the uncertainity of what the court would decide in terms of definition of the "you and only you" part, and more important the definition of "access" (which would likely end up being labeled as possess and thus infer the right to lend it).
So what he does is ending all such contracts at the end of the month, and then offering a new one that states "I will allow you access to 1 book for 1 month for 1€ inside my store, in the reading area". By inserting peripheral requirements he ensures that the spirit of the contract is preserved.
They already do, you were just cheating them before.
Exactly.
WotC had to change this because people were ripping them off.
One could argue DDI was ridiculously overpriced, and they were ripping us off initially.
Stop being a homer. DDI is overpriced for what it offers, and always has been. EULA or not, wotc has a bad business model, bad pricing scheme, and piss poor content other than the old CB.
Please.
It's 2010. No matter the nature of the service, a single digit monthly fee for anything is commercially unviable.
Besides, DDI was redicolously underpriced. If you think that a 1x dollar fee for 2 magazines (no matter what their quality) and a few applications that are updated monthly with the content of the equivalent of several dozen dollars of books is too much you seriously lack economical awareness.
You're free to say the quality doesn't satisfy you, but the quantity was and is there and it massively overshadows the fee. Your mistake is that of thinking that if quality doesn't satisfy you you're entitled to a discount; if quality doesn't satisfy you, don't buy the product. But as long as quantity is there, the service cannot be overpriced.
One could argue DDI was ridiculously overpriced, and they were ripping us off initially.
Stop being a homer. DDI is overpriced for what it offers, and always has been. EULA or not, wotc has a bad business model, bad pricing scheme, and piss poor content other than the old CB.
One could argue that DDI is perfectly priced and they are giving us a good value for our dollar.
Stop being a hater. DDI is perfectly priced for what it offers, and always has been. EULA or not, WotC has a standard business model, normal pricing scheme, and high quality content, including the old CB.