LOL. more proof people can complain about ANYTHING...

This is a reply to that thread from a guy called |FRITZ|


|FRITZ|

You guys are all dorks!
Its kewl to hate valve, get with the times people
 
He was just "helping" 56kers. Well, where does it stop?

My friend doesn't have an internet connection, so I will sell him this free "preload" of Half-Life 2 for a small profit.

My friend doesn't have a credit card, so I will send him this burnt copy of Half-Life 2 for a small profit.

My friend doesn't have any money, so I will sell him this burnt copy of Half-Life 2 for a small profit so he can play too.
 
The whole idea was pointless... You can't get the game off steam until it becomes available at the store, There's your burnt files.... Here's one for ya.... "Avoid mail fraud, send $5 for information"...LoL
 
Champ said:
Rubbish analogy, 56k are indeed allowed to download off steam.
Click to expand...
no analogy stands up to pressure. but for 56ks to get the ice cream, they have to wait in line for a very very long time
 
hehe my favorite part is where he lists his expenses.

He talks all about "giving" it away to "56kers" etc but yet lists expenses. Even expected compensation for listing it on ebay and labor.

I thought giving something away meant GIVING something away.

Although this line is a classic:

And I think a majority of people would agree with me that Valve and Steam is evil especially when they put all this crap in the EULA that makes stuff like selling your account illegal.
Click to expand...
 
Illegal is illegal, regardless of the good intentions. This guy's a ****ing a moron for thinking that reselling those files was okey-dokey. but he's a prick for being so righteous about it as well.
 
And I think a majority of people would agree with me that Valve and Steam is evil especially when they put all this crap in the EULA that makes stuff like selling your account illegal.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that one's just genius. God forbid Valve would actually want people to give money to them rather than Joe-whats-his-****ing-face making a profit off of ebay.
 
The law is inflexible. You can't justify breaking it just because you think you are doing a good thing. I'm sure Warez groups think they are doing the right thing by providing software for free that evil corporations charge far too much for. I'm sure terrorists who bomb government buildings think they are doing the right thing by fighting for their religious beliefs. If law didn't apply whenever someone believes they are doing the right thing by breaking it, suddenly it becomes useless, and the world lives in chaos.

Basically, it doesn't mean squat that this guy thought he was helping people. It was against the law, and that should be enough for him to either not do it, or accept the consequences (potentially much, much worse than what actually happened) if he does. What makes this guy laughable, is that he complained about Valve's intervention.

Valve handled this perfectly - they didn't make a big deal about it, they just stopped him doing it, and that was that. They didn't "shoot themselves in the foot" at all. They are simply seeing to it that the EULA is followed by those who are legally bound by it, and that is their right, and responsibility. If they let things like this slide, it wouldn't be long before people exploited it to make considerable profit. You've got to draw the line, and that line was drawn in the EULA.
 
Logic said:
The law is inflexible. You can't justify breaking it just because you think you are doing a good thing. I'm sure Warez groups think they are doing the right thing by providing software for free that evil corporations charge far too much for. I'm sure terrorists who bomb government buildings think they are doing the right thing by fighting for their religious beliefs. If law didn't apply whenever someone believes they are doing the right thing by breaking it, suddenly it becomes useless, and the world lives in chaos.

Basically, it doesn't mean squat that this guy thought he was helping people. It was against the law, and that should be enough for him to either not do it, or accept the consequences (potentially much, much worse than what actually happened) if he does. What makes this guy laughable, is that he complained about Valve's intervention.

Valve handled this perfectly - they didn't make a big deal about it, they just stopped him doing it, and that was that. They didn't "shoot themselves in the foot" at all. They are simply seeing to it that the EULA is followed by those who are legally bound by it, and that is their right, and responsibility. If they let things like this slide, it wouldn't be long before people exploited it to make considerable profit. You've got to draw the line, and that line was drawn in the EULA.
Click to expand...

You just said everthing I was thinking in my Norwegian mind, but didn't bother writing down in English (because it would contain to many typos and incoherent language)
 
-=jt=- said:
no analogy stands up to pressure. but for 56ks to get the ice cream, they have to wait in line for a very very long time
Click to expand...

You're right on both points here. But still, what he did was foolish, and I still do not believe he did this just to be nice.

Logic: Right on the money!
 
Champ said:
You're telling me, that this guy voulentarily goes to the store to buy DVDs, spends time burning the files, sets it up on ebay, ships the CDs to the buyers (He never got that far, but that's besides the point) just to be nice? Give me a ****ing break here, not even Mother Theresa would do such a thing.
Also, what makes you think he needs gas? The store could be around the corner, he might not even be old enough to drive judging from his posts.
Electricity? $2.50. No no no NO! It does NOT cost $2.50 in power to burn a goddamn CD!
I saw no obnoxious members in that thread, I only saw the wurez thing making a fool of himself.
Click to expand...


What makes you think he didn't need gas? And the electricity required for a 56k'er to preload all hl2 files would be immense; way more than $2.50. This is a bargain to them.

And browse more threads on Rage3D before you make the assumption that they aren't obnoxious.
 
The truth is, is that he was not selling the game, what he was doing was preloading it for them basically, they'd still have to buy the game in order to play it, because of the .exe files...But he's still a moron for thinking somoene would pay five dollars for it, and the fact that it's illegal, he doesn't understand this, he's not gay, just a misinformed moron...i mean person...kid...whatever...
 
Biozeminade said:
My friend doesn't have an internet connection, so I will sell him this free "preload" of Half-Life 2 for a small profit.
Click to expand...

Nice, but he can't get a steam account to play, not having 'teh interweb' and all.

Biozeminade said:
My friend doesn't have a credit card, so I will send him this burnt copy of Half-Life 2 for a small profit.
Click to expand...

Again, nice of you, but he won't be able to use them with out a credit card to actually buy an account to unlock them.

Biozeminade said:
My friend doesn't have any money, so I will sell him this burnt copy of Half-Life 2 for a small profit so he can play too.
Click to expand...

Nice again, but unfortunately he can't afford an account to play them. (How did he pay you anyway?)
 
I think that while what he was doing isnt exactly really bad or anything, but the fact that he blames it on valve and crap like there all terrible is what makes me think he's an idiot. He probably knew that it was illegal, and if he got caught, o well! But he had to bring it up and says its Valves fault for his own actions...he's just dumb. And the 56krs could easily DL HL2 before it comes out! :)
 
I don't understand what's wrong with what he's doing. He's trying to help 56Kers. Valve will actually profit from him because now 56Kers will have reason to purchase it off steam.
 
VGJosh said:
I don't understand what's wrong with what he's doing. He's trying to help 56Kers. Valve will actually profit from him because now 56Kers will have reason to purchase it off steam.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how kind it is of him to go to all that trouble, the fact is, it's illegal to sell something that isn't yours. It doesn't matter if he made a million dollars profit, or one cent profit. It's still breaking the same law.

Justifying his price by listing "expenses" isn't going to make it any more legal, either, firstly because by charging anything at all, you're not "giving" it away (you're selling it), and secondly because it's too hard to prove the accuracy of those expenses, and eventually you'll get people exploiting the system by claiming higher expenses that can't be proven either way. The law can't be specific to each person's intentions, it has to apply to everyone, so in order to prevent people from making money out of Valve's hard work, it is simply not legal to sell Valve's data. That's just how it has to be.

The end doesn't justify the means. If this guy REALLY wants to help 56kers get the preload data, there are legal ways he can do it, like offering B&Ps (where people send him a blank DVD, with a postage paid envelope to send it back in, and he burns the preload data to DVD and sends it back, free of charge). Basically, he was SELLING the preload data (regardless of cost\expense, that doesn't enter into it), and he had absolutely no right to do so.
 
Liam said:
But Why Is It Funny.
Click to expand...
It's funny because he's angry and surprised at Valve for stopping him from breaking the law. What the hell did he expect? He should be thankful he didn't get sued, but instead, he goes on a forum and calls Valve "ghey". Just seems more than a little stupid to me.

In today's comedically challenged world, stupidity is probably our biggest source of entertainment.
 
Logic said:
The law is inflexible. You can't justify breaking it just because you think you are doing a good thing.
Click to expand...

Well, actually you can. Sometimes there are unjust laws, and it is the responsibility of the citizen to engage in civil disobedience in order to protest the injustice. Take Ghandi, for example. He made a lifetime commitment to breaking laws in order to expose their inherent injustice and embarrass the British authorities. He acted illegaly because he knew that it was the right thing to do, and eventually the British came to agree with him.

Now, Ghandi was breaking the law over the matter of the lives and freedoms of millions of people. This, however, is some kid trying to make a buck selling marked-up preload data to 56k'ers. The laws in question aren't what most people would call "unjust." They exist to protect publishers, and aren't in themselves objectionable except to a small minority who believe that ownership of ideas is wrong. It's a very different situation.

But it is important to note that in Ghandi's case, he accepted the consequences of his illegal actions: the punishment of the legal system, in order to show the strength of his opposition to the law. He was willing to be convicted in order to make a point. In this situation, the perpetrator is whining about his treatment even though it was perfectly apparent that he had no right to distribute the data in question and that doing so was prohibited by law.

Anyway, I just wanted to make the point that it's not always right to obey the law, and you can indeed justify breaking it, in contradiction to the strong claim made in the quote above. Laws are there to serve the public interest, not define it.
 
STAFFp18 said:
What makes you think he didn't need gas? And the electricity required for a 56k'er to preload all hl2 files would be immense; way more than $2.50. This is a bargain to them.

And browse more threads on Rage3D before you make the assumption that they aren't obnoxious.
Click to expand...

You seem to miss the point here buddy. We're not talking about the 56k'ers buying these preload cds. We're talking about the fella selling them. Read my post again with this newly aquired info and you might notice what the hell this is all about.

Also, I do not need to browse more threads. They weren't obnoxious in that particular thread, and that's all that matters. I couldn't care less on how they are in other threads, even if they wear hats made of onions.
 
Dr Awkward: Welcome! And you're absolutely right. Laws aren't always fine and dandy, but these cases are millions of miles apart.
 
Dr. Awkward said:
Well, actually you can. Sometimes there are unjust laws, and it is the responsibility of the citizen to engage in civil disobedience in order to protest the injustice. Take Ghandi, for example. He made a lifetime commitment to breaking laws in order to expose their inherent injustice and embarrass the British authorities. He acted illegaly because he knew that it was the right thing to do, and eventually the British came to agree with him.

Now, Ghandi was breaking the law over the matter of the lives and freedoms of millions of people. This, however, is some kid trying to make a buck selling marked-up preload data to 56k'ers. The laws in question aren't what most people would call "unjust." They exist to protect publishers, and aren't in themselves objectionable except to a small minority who believe that ownership of ideas is wrong. It's a very different situation.

But it is important to note that in Ghandi's case, he accepted the consequences of his illegal actions: the punishment of the legal system, in order to show the strength of his opposition to the law. He was willing to be convicted in order to make a point. In this situation, the perpetrator is whining about his treatment even though it was perfectly apparent that he had no right to distribute the data in question and that doing so was prohibited by law.

Anyway, I just wanted to make the point that it's not always right to obey the law, and you can indeed justify breaking it, in contradiction to the strong claim made in the quote above. Laws are there to serve the public interest, not define it.
Click to expand...
A very good point, though it raises some interesting questions.. If a terrorist believes that what he's doing is right, with the same conviction that Ghandi believed what he did, does that justify their actions? Given the subjectivity of morality (different people, with different upbringings believe different things are right\just) I guess what is believed to be 'justified' will differ from person to person. That's why the law is oblivious to personal opinion (inflexible), and that's why it generally works.

Anyway, I do certainly concede that I was wrong in saying "You can't justify breaking it...." but considering the subjectivity of what is and isn't justifiable in any given situation, the issue remains highly debatable. I guess it's a matter of determining whether or not a law does more good than harm, but even that is subjective.
 
Logic said:
A very good point, though it raises some interesting questions.. If a terrorist believes that what he's doing is right, with the same conviction that Ghandi believed what he did, does that justify their actions?
Click to expand...

Without even getting into relativist vs. objectivist moral arguments, it probably does not, mostly for pragmatic reasons. A wise person would assume that there's some chance that they don't know enough about a situation--both sides of the story--to wage a violent war, and certainly not enough to kill over it. Remember that Ghandi was very adamant that none of his followers ever use violent methods, because then they would lose the dignified moral high ground that was the only tool they had against their oppressors. That's a good way to approach such a situation.

I suspect that if the people out there in the world who feel like they are justified in killing would adopt non-violent means of fighting their enemies, they would have more success. Certainly it would mean that the general public would have more sympathy for their side of the story. How do you hate an enemy that won't lift a hand against you, only refuses to cooperate with your oppression of them?

I really do think that "terrorists" who kill for political reasons think they are justified. But I also think they're wrong in thinking that, but without needing to invoke any absolutist morality in order to hold my position. I think it's just a foolish idea that will end up with them not getting what they want and making bigger and bigger enemies. Of course, I think that about all violence...look at what the wars of late have accomplished for both sides. Iraq and Afghanistan are in ruins, and the U.S. bleeds money into the middle east. It just builds upon itself with no end in sight, because if you kill someone their friends come to kill you, and your friends come to kill them, and their friends come to kill your friends, etc.

You just have to be non-violent. You can't win otherwise. So morality aside, it's just going to end up with all sides losing.
 
Dr. Awkward said:
Without even getting into relativist vs. objectivist moral arguments, it probably does not, mostly for pragmatic reasons. A wise person would assume that there's some chance that they don't know enough about a situation--both sides of the story--to wage a violent war, and certainly not enough to kill over it. Remember that Ghandi was very adamant that none of his followers ever use violent methods, because then they would lose the dignified moral high ground that was the only tool they had against their oppressors. That's a good way to approach such a situation.

I suspect that if the people out there in the world who feel like they are justified in killing would adopt non-violent means of fighting their enemies, they would have more success. Certainly it would mean that the general public would have more sympathy for their side of the story. How do you hate an enemy that won't lift a hand against you, only refuses to cooperate with your oppression of them?

I really do think that "terrorists" who kill for political reasons think they are justified. But I also think they're wrong in thinking that, but without needing to invoke any absolutist morality in order to hold my position. I think it's just a foolish idea that will end up with them not getting what they want and making bigger and bigger enemies. Of course, I think that about all violence...look at what the wars of late have accomplished for both sides. Iraq and Afghanistan are in ruins, and the U.S. bleeds money into the middle east. It just builds upon itself with no end in sight, because if you kill someone their friends come to kill you, and your friends come to kill them, and their friends come to kill your friends, etc.

You just have to be non-violent. You can't win otherwise. So morality aside, it's just going to end up with all sides losing.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree with you there, which is almost a shame, since I always welcome debate, and you are clearly a more than worthy adversary :)

Incidentally, welcome to the forums :cheers:
 
Thats a pretty good idea, guy is the next p diddy.
 
Logic said:
It doesn't matter how kind it is of him to go to all that trouble, the fact is, it's illegal to sell something that isn't yours. It doesn't matter if he made a million dollars profit, or one cent profit. It's still breaking the same law.

Justifying his price by listing "expenses" isn't going to make it any more legal, either, firstly because by charging anything at all, you're not "giving" it away (you're selling it), and secondly because it's too hard to prove the accuracy of those expenses, and eventually you'll get people exploiting the system by claiming higher expenses that can't be proven either way. The law can't be specific to each person's intentions, it has to apply to everyone, so in order to prevent people from making money out of Valve's hard work, it is simply not legal to sell Valve's data. That's just how it has to be.

The end doesn't justify the means. If this guy REALLY wants to help 56kers get the preload data, there are legal ways he can do it, like offering B&Ps (where people send him a blank DVD, with a postage paid envelope to send it back in, and he burns the preload data to DVD and sends it back, free of charge). Basically, he was SELLING the preload data (regardless of cost\expense, that doesn't enter into it), and he had absolutely no right to do so.
Click to expand...

That's a good point (actually I was just about to argue against your point, then I saw the light). This is a business that Valve could be duplicating to make money and I bet they already have plans to do what this character tried, that's why they're upset.
 
-=jt=- said:
now imagine that instead of down the isle, the person is sleeping at 56k gutter street and isn't allowed in the shop.

imagine he really needs the delicious hl2 flavoured ice-cream

(and that he somehow has money)
Click to expand...

Follow that analogy and essentially there's an ice-cream shop being opened IN 56k gutter street at the same time this ice-cream can be sold inside the original shop.

As in, the game will be available on store shelves to everyone.

Bah, confusing now. Either way, he was reselling Valve's intellectual property.
 
VGJosh said:
That's a good point (actually I was just about to argue against your point, then I saw the light). This is a business that Valve could be duplicating to make money and I bet they already have plans to do what this character tried, that's why they're upset.
Click to expand...

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the current lawsuit over the issue of distributing HL2 on media vs. direct download? Unless I'm mistaken, Valve isn't legally allowed to distribute any part of the game on any kind of permanent media because Vivendi-Universal has the rights to that channel. So if they were to start mailing out DVDs to all the 56k'ers, Vivendi would step in and go "aha! Violating our contract, I see!"

Also, this may play into V-U's hands, because now they can point to guys like this as evidence that Valve's distribution process is cutting into their game-on-disc sales because "you can just have some shmoe mail you a copy of the game, then go online and activate it." Perhaps Valve forsees this, and is taking action partly to protect themselves against such accusations.

Edit: Thanks for the welcome, Logic.
 
refering to the first post.

thats a perfect example of the kind of stupid people that are bread from capitalist society.

the one thing that strikes me as shocking is the complete passive attitude to the fact that what hes doing is totally illegal :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
Another G-Man Theory
Replies
19
Views
3K
kineaesth
kineaesth
Back
Top