Games as licenses and EULAs

[Nimzabaat]

That's like saying giving someone the date-rape drug =/= rape. Mods are legal. "Cracking" is the term for illegally removing the copy protection from something. The legal terms for things tend to be more boring.

Examples:
Logging in with your username and password = legal / hacking = illegal
Removing the copy protection with the permission of the softwares owners (ala GoG) = legal / cracking = illegal
Consensual sex = legal / rape = illegal

your false equivalence does not make you any righter.
No, giving somone date-rape drug is not the same as raping somone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_rape_drug
"The three drugs most commonly used for DFSA are alcohol[8][9] and two prescription-strength sleep aids".
Alcohol is a most commonly used date-rape drug. therefore according to you giving someone alcohol = raping.
sorry, but this makes no sense.

Correction then. It's like saying giving someone the date-rape drug and then raping them =/= rape. Happy now?

By the way, most people accuse people of "false equivalence" when they're losing the argument and need an out without being able to think of anything usable. It's as bad as throwing the whole "strawman" thing in there without knowing what it actually means.

No there aren't.

you were given plenty of examples. you are wrong.

I wasn't given a single valid example. There is a big difference.

EDIT: All the examples I was given seem to have been flagged for endorsing illegal activity. That pretty much speaks for itself. Well okay, they are good examples, they just good examples of what not to do.

So please note that "cracking" refers to the illegal removal of copy protection. If you are given permission by the copyright holder to remove the copy protection that's what it is called. And please don't endorse "cracking" in this forum as it breaks the rules of conduct. Which is really advice some one should have dropped earlier

 

[Austin Manning]

Depending upon where you live, an electronic signature, such as clicking "I Agree" for an EULA, can easily be considered legally binding.

This actually baffles me because there are a number of ways the "I Agree" button can be clicked without me being involved, unlike if I actually signed a contract with a witness. If the controller falls and lands face down the button can be pressed, a pet can walk over it while I'm out of the room, A small child might pick up the controller and hammer on the buttons to try and play the game, etc. Since I haven't actually given my consent in those instances is the EULA still legally binding? Also, why did no one take this crap into consideration when they made clicking "I agree" a binding signature?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Depending upon where you live, an electronic signature, such as clicking "I Agree" for an EULA, can easily be considered legally binding.

This actually baffles me because there are a number of ways the "I Agree" button can be clicked without me being involved, unlike if I actually signed a contract with a witness. If the controller falls and lands face down the button can be pressed, a pet can walk over it while I'm out of the room, A small child might pick up the controller and hammer on the buttons to try and play the game, etc. Since I haven't actually given my consent in those instances is the EULA still legally binding? Also, why did no one take this crap into consideration when they made clicking "I agree" a binding signature?

Because a more rigorous form of binding that is more universally acknowledged would be so incredibly inconvenient most software simply wouldn't get installed. Imagine if you had to go through an actual Notary then mail the the sealed document before being able to use software. You probably just wouldn't use it or, if you did, you'd just steal it instead. In this way they get a modicum of legal coverage in a package that requires almost no user inconvenience.

 

[Nielas]

Depending upon where you live, an electronic signature, such as clicking "I Agree" for an EULA, can easily be considered legally binding.

This actually baffles me because there are a number of ways the "I Agree" button can be clicked without me being involved, unlike if I actually signed a contract with a witness. If the controller falls and lands face down the button can be pressed, a pet can walk over it while I'm out of the room, A small child might pick up the controller and hammer on the buttons to try and play the game, etc. Since I haven't actually given my consent in those instances is the EULA still legally binding? Also, why did no one take this crap into consideration when they made clicking "I agree" a binding signature?

Because a more rigorous form of binding that is more universally acknowledged would be so incredibly inconvenient most software simply wouldn't get installed. Imagine if you had to go through an actual Notary then mail the the sealed document before being able to use software. You probably just wouldn't use it or, if you did, you'd just steal it instead. In this way they get a modicum of legal coverage in a package that requires almost no user inconvenience.

There is also the fact that game EULAs most of the contents are really just restating copyright law. They try to avoid any non-standard clauses because the courts in the US have tendency to strike those down when it comes to EULAs.

If you claim that "your dog pressed 'agree'" then you are essentially claiming that a mistake was made which should nullify any implicit agreement. Even if a court agrees with this, it still means that you lose the right to play the game until you actually agree to the EULA. The courts will look at what a reasonable person would expect from the software and a EULA and rule accordingly. Just because you have a 'trick legal argument' does not meant that the court will let you enrich yourself for what is clearly your own oversight.

EULAs are simply a legal convenience. The software makers want the contract to protect their rights but any other way of doing this would be economically unfeasible. Thus US courts accept EULAs as valid but restrict how strong the contract can be before it is deemed unenforceable.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

Problem is we don't know because most of the conditions have never been tested in court
The ABC's the Checkout did an article on Online terms and conditions a while ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTfmiCkdylE

 

[Jaded Scribe]

I first want to admit I have very little knowledge on this.


However, I have to wonder if it isn't just an outgrowth of the technology we have available. As I understand (and could be waaaaaaaay off), if I "own" my copy of the game, the developer could not force me to apply patches as it changes *my* product. While for some games, like Skyrim, where the gameplay is 100% offline, this doesn't present much of an issue. Even in terms of tech support, companies can just say "apply the patch or we won't help you troubleshoot". But what about online games? World of Warcraft is completely online and multiplayer. Players refusing patches would cause countless problems. And it seems most games these days have an online multiplayer component, and forcing a level playing-field doesn't seem unreasonable.

Back when I started gaming, the internet was young. Download a whole game? That would take a week. And no way your parents weren't going to need you to disconnect so they could make a phone call before then. Piracy was lower. Games didn't really get updated. And once you bought the game, your relationship with the developer was essentially over and done with.

I agree some companies take it to a scuzzy level. But with the changing technology, could licenses be just "the way it has to be" for companies to care for their game and provide the updates that we, as a community, are starting to demand?

 

[Strazdas]

Couple years ago?

verbal contracts became legally binding only couple years ago in my country.
Courtesy of phone-marketeeers.

Correction then. It's like saying giving someone the date-rape drug and then raping them =/= rape. Happy now?

By the way, most people accuse people of "false equivalence" when they're losing the argument and need an out without being able to think of anything usable. It's as bad as throwing the whole "strawman" thing in there without knowing what it actually means.

I wasn't given a single valid example. There is a big difference.

Your false equivalence just got worse. Cracking is not raping.

There is no "Argument" to loose. Cracking is modification of software you own. you are allowed to modify your own software (for example: mods). yet you somehow managed to wrongly compare cracking with piracy, rape and havent even stopped there.

Here, let me quote it to you: "Format shifting, time shifting, backups, using blind accessibility software, and watching a DVD"

If you still fail to grasp the concept of legal DRM cracking, ill give you a recent example: GTA 4. Now that Games For WIndows Live is shut down, legal copies of GTA 4 cannot be played, unless they are cracked to not use GFWL. This has been endorsed on their own forums and is a requirement for doing anything with the game other than playing a now shut down servers.

Because a more rigorous form of binding that is more universally acknowledged would be so incredibly inconvenient most software simply wouldn't get installed. Imagine if you had to go through an actual Notary then mail the the sealed document before being able to use software. You probably just wouldn't use it or, if you did, you'd just steal it instead. In this way they get a modicum of legal coverage in a package that requires almost no user inconvenience.

Or, wait for it, how about we use actual current laws and not let corporations set legal tender? you know, the way sane people would do it.

EULAs are simply a legal convenience. The software makers want the contract to protect their rights legal monopolies and ability to hold software ransom but any other way of doing this would be economically unfeasible not allow companies to rob us. Thus US courts accept EULAs as valid but restrict how strong the contract can be before it is deemed unenforceable.

fixed this.

Back when I started gaming, the internet was young. Download a whole game? That would take a week. And no way your parents weren't going to need you to disconnect so they could make a phone call before then. Piracy was lower. Games didn't really get updated. And once you bought the game, your relationship with the developer was essentially over and done with.

I agree some companies take it to a scuzzy level. But with the changing technology, could licenses be just "the way it has to be" for companies to care for their game and provide the updates that we, as a community, are starting to demand?

Now my country never subscribed to that dialup crap so even in the 90s we had cable internet, and downloading a game (that back then was less than 1 GB) would hardly take a day. however the main thing i wanted to point out is that piracy was NEVER lower. it just existed in different forms. we knew a guy that would copy CDs from rental for free as long as you got a blank CD. Back then we didnt knew a name for it, but it was piracy nonetheless. game piracy existed ever since videogames existed. And games DID get updated. That is, at least PC games did, which even then put them above consoles already.
No, licenses is not "The way it has to be". no other industry gets away with it, and videogames is not some "special snowflake" that we should give a free pass.

 

[DoPo]

There is no "Argument" to loose. Cracking is modification of software you own. you are allowed to modify your own software (for example: mods).

Incorrect - cracking is illegal by definition. Modification of software is not necessarily cracking. Similarly killing a person is not necessarily murder.

EDIT:

No, licenses is not "The way it has to be". no other industry gets away with it, and videogames is not some "special snowflake" that we should give a free pass.

Forgot to address that. The software industry. It does it. Games are software.

 

[Strazdas]

There is no "Argument" to loose. Cracking is modification of software you own. you are allowed to modify your own software (for example: mods).

Incorrect - cracking is illegal by definition. Modification of software is not necessarily cracking. Similarly killing a person is not necessarily murder.

EDIT:

No, licenses is not "The way it has to be". no other industry gets away with it, and videogames is not some "special snowflake" that we should give a free pass.

Forgot to address that. The software industry. It does it. Games are software.

Modification is legal. cracking is a type of modification.
Killing a person isnt always illegal either.
and if you want to be feticiuos about definitions
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cracking
its not even talking about software. Thats because the process we call cracking is simply modding that does with DRM removal.

As you point out - games are software industry. i was talking about other industries. so im not sure what you were trying to say there. that industry games are in is an example of industry the games are in?

 

[DoPo]

There is no "Argument" to loose. Cracking is modification of software you own. you are allowed to modify your own software (for example: mods).

Incorrect - cracking is illegal by definition. Modification of software is not necessarily cracking. Similarly killing a person is not necessarily murder.

EDIT:

No, licenses is not "The way it has to be". no other industry gets away with it, and videogames is not some "special snowflake" that we should give a free pass.

Forgot to address that. The software industry. It does it. Games are software.

Modification is legal. cracking is a type of modification.

Cracking is a type of modification that is illegal.

Killing a person isnt always illegal either.

Exactly what I said? Why did you feel the need to say it again.

Modification has the same association to cracking as killing to murder.

and if you want to be feticiuos about definitions
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cracking
its not even talking about software.

Sure, when you pick a source that is apparently out of date. The lack of presence in a dictionary does not mean the word does not exist and is not being used to mean something specific - the Jargon File [http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/C/cracker.html] lists "cracker" as being nearly 30 years old.

Thats because the process we call cracking is simply modding that does with DRM removal.

Cracking (in software context) means malicious exploitation of software. One can crack a password, crack protection, crack security. A "cracker" is a malicious user who (usually) breaks into systems. By using the word "crack" you immediately imply illegality.

Why is it you are you so set on using the wrong vocabulary?

As you point out - games are software industry. i was talking about other industries. so im not sure what you were trying to say there. that industry games are in is an example of industry the games are in?

I'm trying to say that that's how the software industry works. You seemed to be saying that games are different thing than the rest of the software. Software is always licensed - it has to do with it not being the same as other industries. The nearest you can get to "getting your own" product is probably the MIT license. If you don't have a license, you get into a situation that is entirely different from a chair or a car.

What's your argument about software needing to ditch licenses, then? "Because everybody else does it"?

 

[Nimzabaat]

Modification is legal. cracking is a type of modification.
Killing a person isnt always illegal either.
and if you want to be feticiuos about definitions
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cracking
its not even talking about software. Thats because the process we call cracking is simply modding that does with DRM removal.

Ah so acquiring things is legal. Theft is a type of acquisition so, by your logic, it must be legal as well?
Cracking is the term for illegally modifying software, most often to remove DRM. I'm not sure how to make that clearer for you and please stop endorsing it in your posts. Endorsing illegal activity is against the rules of conduct in this forum.

To get back on topic though, EULA's shouldn't matter to law abiding people, so why worry about them? The only effect that EULA's have ever had on my life is the exasperation that I feel when people who should know better panic over a little bit of legalese that will never impact their lives.

 

[Strazdas]

Cracking is a type of modification that is illegal.

Making your own definitions now arent you.

Exactly what I said? Why did you feel the need to say it again.

Modification has the same association to cracking as killing to murder.

because you seem to have involuntary defeated your own post. If you equalize cracking to killing a person then saying not all killing is illegal would also mean not all cracking is illegal.

Sure, when you pick a source that is apparently out of date. The lack of presence in a dictionary does not mean the word does not exist and is not being used to mean something specific - the Jargon File lists "cracker" as being nearly 30 years old.

I tried googling the term and it seems that all reputable dictionaries got no idea what cracking is when it comes to computers. most point towards chemistry reaction.
Also official dictionaries > some blog-level jargon dictionary. hence why i used official dictionaries.

Cracking (in software context) means malicious exploitation of software.

Changing your own made up definition in the same post.
Ok, we will go by your "jargon file" definition. It states: One who breaks security on a system.
Breaking security on a system =/= malicious exploitation of software.

Why is it you are you so set on using the wrong vocabulary?

Why is it that you are set on making your own vocabulary when existing one does not fit your argument?

I'm trying to say that that's how the software industry works. You seemed to be saying that games are different thing than the rest of the software. Software is always licensed - it has to do with it not being the same as other industries. The nearest you can get to "getting your own" product is probably the MIT license. If you don't have a license, you get into a situation that is entirely different from a chair or a car.

What's your argument about software needing to ditch licenses, then? "Because everybody else does it"?

I talk about games because this is a gaming site, however this does apply to all software industry. But this being a gaming site we focus on games.
My argument about software needing to ditch licenses is because software is a product. We buy products. we own products. we dont license products. If you want to license products you call it renting.

The reason i pointed out that no other industry does this in part you quoted me was in direct repsonse to people claiming that it "wouldnt survive such system", while ignoring that every other industry does survive by using correct product ownership.

Ah so acquiring things is legal. Theft is a type of acquisition so, by your logic, it must be legal as well?
Cracking is the term for illegally modifying software, most often to remove DRM. I'm not sure how to make that clearer for you and please stop endorsing it in your posts. Endorsing illegal activity is against the rules of conduct in this forum.

To get back on topic though, EULA's shouldn't matter to law abiding people, so why worry about them? The only effect that EULA's have ever had on my life is the exasperation that I feel when people who should know better panic over a little bit of legalese that will never impact their lives.

Nice twist of words, but no. Theft is not a type of acquisition. Theft is involuntary transfer of items. Trade is an acquisition, and that is legal.

As far as terms go, please read my posts above and my responses to DoPo.

Yes, EULAs should matter to law abiding people. FOr example the original draft for Origin EULA that allowed the to scan your computer and send any of the files to EA. this EULA essentially made Origin a legal spyware virus. Just because you do not care about your data or your costumer rights does not mean that people "Should know better".

Edit: couple typos and capcha said "want more?". I find it ironic.

 

[DoPo]

Cracking is a type of modification that is illegal.

Making your own definitions now arent you.

Exactly what I said? Why did you feel the need to say it again.

Modification has the same association to cracking as killing to murder.

because you seem to have involuntary defeated your own post. If you equalize cracking to killing a person then saying not all killing is illegal would also mean not all cracking is illegal.

Oh come on! You cannot really be saying that, can you? Did you not read or did you purposefully ignore what I wrote? Not all killing is illegal. But murder is a type of killing. Murder is illegal. Not all modification of software is illegal. But cracking is a type of software modification. Cracking is illegal. THEREFORE[footnote]I would also make the letters burning, but alas, it's out of scope for HTML. I'll have to submit an RFC. Still, not that it'd help as you seem damn determined to keep ignoring stuff[/footnote], modification has the same association to cracking as killing to murder. The same thing I have said a couple of times already. How did you decide to 1. switch them around and 2. make stuff up is beyond me.

Also official dictionaries > some blog-level jargon dictionary. hence why i used official dictionaries.

And if they are wrong? For one, it doesn't have your definition, either.

The fact is that cracking is widely used as I described. Been so for a while now.

However, let's see - if you so love your dictionaries, you should have seen this [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cracker] (see 7 and the second example usage) and this [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crack] (see 4.c), and, oh, look at this [http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/cracker] (see 2. especially the examples) and while this [http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/crack] isn't mentioning software or computers specifically, I hope you can see how 5. is the root of the more modernised version. Found them after a quick look I don't know what you tried.

Why is it you are you so set on using the wrong vocabulary?

Why is it that you are set on making your own vocabulary when existing one does not fit your argument?

After checking the links above, you can also go through these steps

1. Click this [https://www.schneier.com/].
2. Type in "crack" or "cracking" in the search field.
3. Examine how the words are used in the context they are used.
4. Come back here and claim Bruce Schneier doesn't know what he's talking about but you apparently know better.
5. Don't forget to AGAIN misrepresent the "killing" thing above. You know you want to.

My argument about software needing to ditch licenses is because software is a product. We buy products. we own products. we dont license products. If you want to license products you call it renting.

Is it? So what about the browser you're using? If you're not on IE, then you have not paid anything for the product. How can you claim you own it? heck, if you are on IE, then you're definitely using Windows - do you also own Windows? What about if I wrote code and submitted it to Mozilla/Google/whatever - would they then own my code? What if I just submit it on, say, GitHub, and two parties decide to use it - do they both own it? What happens if you buy a product, then spray paint it, and sell (potentially) infinite copies of it with the creator getting no profit? What if you don't spray paint it, but incorporate it in another product? And again sell (potentially) infinite copies? What if it's more than one product in there? What if it gets forked - do you own BOTH versions? Why/why not?

There are many, many questions raised by treating software as product...because software does not behave like a product. Can you explain to me why it should be treated as such, except because you said so? Because your argument literally was "we buy it, therefore - a product". You might want to dig a little deeper into that - what, in the act of buying, makes something a product? Which in turn also raises another question, why is it you insist we "buy" it, when...ok, that's going round in circles - but EULAs. Every piece of software I've seen has one - yet you say we buy the entire thing, when all of them tell you they are being licensed.

 

[Nimzabaat]

The reason i pointed out that no other industry does this in part you quoted me was in direct repsonse to people claiming that it "wouldn't survive such system", while ignoring that every other industry does survive by using correct product ownership.

Actually the last time I researched EULA's I found one from the 1800s, before there was software. A good example now is that bars have to be licensed to serve Guiness. If your bartender doesn't pass a pour test you can't serve it in your establishment.

Nice twist of words, but no. Theft is not a type of acquisition. Theft is involuntary transfer of items. Trade is an acquisition, and that is legal.

So now you're saying that when you steal something you haven't acquired it? So a basic grasp of reality is the issue? I'm not really sure how to deal with that.

For the last time;
Trade is legal, theft is illegal.
Modification can be legal, cracking is illegal.

As far as terms go, please read my posts above and my responses to DoPo.

Yeah DoPo has the right of it, and seems to have a lot more patience than I do. I think I'll just let him try to get through to you from now on.

 

[Strazdas]

Cracking is illegal.

This assumtion is necessary to make your post be true. I disagreed with this assumption, hence the whole argument. Therefore, i disagree with your conclusion as well.

And if they are wrong? For one, it doesn't have your definition, either.

The fact is that cracking is widely used as I described. Been so for a while now.

However, let's see - if you so love your dictionaries, you should have seen this (see 7 and the second example usage) and this (see 4.c), and, oh, look at this (see 2. especially the examples) and while this isn't mentioning software or computers specifically, I hope you can see how 5. is the root of the more modernized version. Found them after a quick look I don't know what you tried.

Only the last one even mentions legality. Cracking a safe is not always illegal. Nor is breaking into somones houses. In fact there are organizations dedicated to breaking into houses when people loose their keys. Circumventing securities is not always illegal.

5. Don't forget to AGAIN misrepresent the "killing" thing above. You know you want to.

Thank you for reminding me. i will be sure to do that!

Is it? So what about the browser you're using? If you're not on IE, then you have not paid anything for the product. How can you claim you own it? heck, if you are on IE, then you're definitely using Windows - do you also own Windows?

Yes, i own my copy of windows. I can modify it in any way i want as long as that does not result in breaking laws (such as making my computer send virus attacks). Yes, i own my firefox client as well. Granted, i didnt pay for it because it is a free product. These exist.

What about if I wrote code and submitted it to Mozilla/Google/whatever - would they then own my code? What if I just submit it on, say, GitHub, and two parties decide to use it - do they both own it? What happens if you buy a product, then spray paint it, and sell (potentially) infinite copies of it with the creator getting no profit?

Yes, they own that copy of the code provided they acquired it legally (do you sign some sort of copyright when submitting to github? i never tried). If i buy a product and want to sell it, painted or not, i can do that. Creator got a product when he sold me the copy. I cannot duplicate the product legally, this is why there would not be infinite compies but only one. I am uder lawful obligation to delete my copy when i sell it. Whether i do that is a matter of legallity and not consumer rights.

There are many, many questions raised by treating software as product...because software does not behave like a product.

Yes there is. And they should be discussed openly. However to do that we should first agree that software is to be treated as product, as defined in law, because many people seems to not be getting even there yet.

Can you explain to me why it should be treated as such, except because you said so?

Software is a product legally (at least in EU where i live). Software is also a product in a sense that you produce it and then sell it to a user. Software is also a product in a sense that the user after buying it has the right to use it in any way (thats legal) that he pleases. There is also the fact that if software was not a product that would be a first one, and while nothing wrong with being the first one, this is already creating problems from economical perspective.

Because your argument literally was "we buy it, therefore - a product". You might want to dig a little deeper into that - what, in the act of buying, makes something a product?

No. The argumen is we buy it, therefore we own it. If we own it, its a product that can be sold to us.

Which in turn also raises another question, why is it you insist we "buy" it, when...ok, that's going round in circles - but EULAs

because we do the process called "buying" that is defined legally. This grants us consumer rights to the product and makes companies adhere to trade laws. These two things already cover the needed things in such case and EULAs are unnecessary nor can they state anything contrary to laws.

Actually the last time I researched EULA's I found one from the 1800s, before there was software. A good example now is that bars have to be licensed to serve Guiness. If your bartender doesn't pass a pour test you can't serve it in your establishment.

We were talking about how allowing consumer rights in software would make the industry collapse. This has nothing to do with chosen retailers. Not that such monopolies as you decribe should exist to begin with.

cracking is illegal.

Cracking can be both legal and illegal depending on situation.

 

[Nimzabaat]

cracking is illegal.

Cracking can be both legal and illegal depending on situation.

No it cannot. Period. By saying that you are condoning an illegal activity.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/law-cracks-down-on-digital-piracy-in-canada/article596121/

http://www.ehow.com/info_8709250_penalties-owning-pirated-software.html

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9235441/Man_pleads_guilty_to_selling_100M_worth_of_pirated_software

You may notice the term "cracking" used in these articles.

Now correct me if i'm wrong, but it's possible that you live in a country that doesn't take these laws very seriously. I know that in China and Russia for example, you can buy illegally copied DVDs and software from street vendors openly and cheaply (not an endorsement, but that's how it is). The laws still exist, but the authorities choose not to enforce them. That could be where your misconceptions are stemming from.

 

[DoPo]

Cracking is illegal.

This assumtion is necessary to make your post be true. I disagreed with this assumption, hence the whole argument. Therefore, i disagree with your conclusion as well.

Yet you FAILED to provide evidence of my "assumption" being wrong, you FAILED to show evidence of your "assumption" being correct, you FAILED to dismiss my support from BRUCE FUCKING SCHNEIER USING THE WORD AS I DESCRIBED[footnote]if you FAIL to do so again, I would point out YOU FAILED TO SEE THE ALL CAPS[/footnote] and you FAILED on multiple occasions to even understand what I am talking about. Are you even qualified to talk about the subject

Only the last one even mentions legality.

And you FAILED your reading comprehension.

crack·er
noun \ˈkra-kər\
[...]

7 : hacker 4

[which is]
hack·er
noun \ˈha-kər\

[...]

4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

[emphasis mine]

crack·er /ˈkrækɚ/ noun
[...]

2 : a person who can crack something (such as a safe or a secret code)
▪ a safe cracker [=a criminal who can opens a safe illegally]

[emphasis mine]

Cracking a safe is not always illegal. Nor is breaking into somones houses. In fact there are organizations dedicated to breaking into houses when people loose their keys. Circumventing securities is not always illegal.

all murder is killing but not all killing is murder - all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs.

Sorry, I didn't want to confuse you.

What about if I wrote code and submitted it to Mozilla/Google/whatever - would they then own my code? What if I just submit it on, say, GitHub, and two parties decide to use it - do they both own it? What happens if you buy a product, then spray paint it, and sell (potentially) infinite copies of it with the creator getting no profit?

Yes, they own that copy of the code provided they acquired it legally (do you sign some sort of copyright when submitting to github? i never tried).

You have public and private repos. You get a larger amount of the latter, while you need to pay (or have a school account) to get a private one. Public repos are implicitly open source. So yes, in a sense you sign something. A LICENSE AGREEMENT.

If i buy a product and want to sell it, painted or not, i can do that. Creator got a product when he sold me the copy. I cannot duplicate the product legally, this is why there would not be infinite compies but only one.

Hey, can you guess where about *cough*licenseagreement*cough* that is defined? If you install Windows on a system and it fails in some reason, because it's not meant for that system, is Microsoft to blame? If it fails because you modified it, are they to blame again?

And why would you not be able to duplicate the product? You can duplicate Firefox - what makes Windows a different product than Firefox? Or, if not, why are you NOT able to duplicate Firefox? Do you get infinite copies from Mozilla or infinite redownloads of YOUR copy? Is not forking code duplication by definition? How can you fork code, then?

Shall I go on? What about Java, then - if what you're saying is true, then when I get Java, I own my copy of the library, the JVM, the compiler, etc. So in that case, if I extend a Java class, do I own the code, or does Oracle own it? If I decide to distribute my application, does that count as "duplicating" the product I got from Oracle? If I deploy an application over a network of interoperating nodes (e.g., Jini), would that count as "duplicating" a product or not?

Oh, but don't worry - it's not only Java - I just picked that up as a really good example of what you would call a "product". Really, these questions (and way, way more) can be applied to pretty much all programming languages. If I get the Boost C/C++ library, who owns the code produced with it? Me or the Boost team? Do I duplicate it by distributing an application that uses it? JavaScript is rather funny, too - the product, which would be in a form of JS code, is duplicated by definition. Let's add jQuery to the mix. And jQuery plugins, too. If I make an AJAX call using jQuery...erm, what happens? What if I make an AJAX call that gets some code from a PHP application and then does eval() on it (for fun and profit, my code is the AJAX call, the PHP application is written by somebody else, and the code it's sending me is from yet another person)? Would you please untangle the ownership and consumer rights here?

You didn't really think this through, right?

However to do that we should first agree that software is to be treated as product

Why?

as defined in law

Where is software defined as product? Quotes, please.

Software is also a product in a sense that you produce it and then sell it to a user.

So-o-o, you're going in a circles now - I asked why is software a product just because you buy it and you come up with this - because you sell it? Seriously?

Software is also a product in a sense that the user after buying it has the right to use it in any way (thats legal) that he pleases.

Give me a break - "Software is a product because I say it's a product". Come up with something new, plox.

There is also the fact that if software was not a product that would be a first one, and while nothing wrong with being the first one, this is already creating problems from economical perspective.

Oh...

What's your argument about software needing to ditch licenses, then? "Because everybody else does it"?

Right - so it really is because everybody else does it. ARE YOU FUCKING JOKING?

Let's recap, software is a product because it's a product because you say so because that's how everybody else does it.

Because your argument literally was "we buy it, therefore - a product". You might want to dig a little deeper into that - what, in the act of buying, makes something a product?

No. The argumen is we buy it, therefore we own it. If we own it, its a product that can be sold to us.

because we do the process called "buying" that is defined legally. This grants us consumer rights to the product and makes companies adhere to trade laws. These two things already cover the needed things in such case and EULAs are unnecessary nor can they state anything contrary to laws.[/quote]

You have yet to prove one buys software WHEN EACH PIECE OF SOFTWARE INCLUDES A LICENSE AGREEMENT. I CANNOT MAKE THIS CLEARER THAN WRITING IN ALL CAPS. ACTUALLY, YOU SEEM TO BE IGNORING EVERYTHING I EXPLAIN CONSISTENTLY UNTIL I INCLUDE CAPS THERE. CASE IN POINT HOW "KILLING IS EQUIVALENT TO CRACKING" WHICH I HAD TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THREE TIMES. WELL, AT THIS POINT YOU EITHER FINALLY UNDERSTOOD THE INCREDIBLY SIMPLE METHOD OF CONVEYING AN IDEA I USED OR YOU DIDN'T AND DECIDE TO DROP IT BECAUSE YOU FELT OVERWHELMED. AT ANY RATE I INCLUDE MORE CAPS THIS POST INCLUDES MORE CAPS SO HOPEFULLY SOMETHING HAPPENS TO BREAK YOU OUT OF YOUR LOOP OF REPEATING YOUR WORDS AD INFINITUM.

And I'll use the chance to nick a phrase
"This assumtion is necessary to make your post be true. I disagreed with this assumption, hence the whole argument. Therefore, i disagree with your conclusion as well."
It's equally applicable.

cracking is illegal.

Cracking can be both legal and illegal depending on situation.

Provide evidence. Seriously, considering you started with this, you are supposed to be the one to prove it. So far you have just been dismissing everything based on incomplete and wrong line of thought. Or just dismissed it without bothering to address it. Case in point - BRUCE SCHNEIER. You didn't even do what I asked and complained about how he doesn't know what he's talking about. I would have so loved to mock you over that.