psychoak - what you're describing is a mod, not an expansion. A user-created mod such as you describe would be legal only because the Stardock EULA allows it - and guess what, selling a mod is specifically prohibitted. Yes, you've indicated one more gray area where an EULA provides protection that is not expressedly given a company under copyright law. Thank you for bringing up a point in favor of the necessity of EULAs.
Ahah. Ahaha. I can't stop laughing... It's just so funny... What the hell do you think an expansion is? An expansion modifies the pre-existing game. That we give two identical things two different names because they come in different contextual environments does not change reality. If you can expand on a game without violating copyright, and the scenario I gave
DOES NOT VIOLATE COPYRIGHT, it's legal. It's your right to do so, the EULA, by banning such things,
VIOLATES YOUR RIGHTS. Yeah, I make real good arguments on the necessity of EULA's to violate our rights.
Glider was certainly NOT a pre-existing bot, it was designed to work on WoW only after WoW was released. In fact, it was originally called WOWGlider, but the name was changed to prevent trademark infringement.
"Pre-existing" is not restricted to "pre-existing the existence of the game itself" and means exactly what I said. The bots exist before Blizzard makes changes to their program to stop them from working.
The Warden security program, which Glider is specifically designed to defeat, is by its nature evolutionary. All security systems are. Bots were a known hazzard when WoW was created, and Blizzard took steps to prevent them. What you said here is that software makers can put whatever safeguards in their product they like, but can't update it to catch new threats? The virus makers must love you.
Viruses are illegal. Malware and other such things are explicitly excluded from the protections against anti-competitive behavior. Is it really that complicated?
If Blizzard wants to claim that, by circumventing their software and invading their servers in a way they don't allow, that Glider is illegal software, and Blizzard can get the argument to go somewhere, Blizzard can get the guy thrown in federal prison. As I've said, Blizzard has legal options. They don't include nailing the guy for copyright infringement that doesn't exist, and they do not hinge on the existence of an illegal contract forced on you post sale.
And as I've pointed out several times now, this is not similar to the MS/Netscape conflict. MS was targetting a competitor in favor of its own product. Blizzard does not sell bot programs. Glider is not a competitor to WoW, it is a parasite.
As you have yet to grasp, anti-competitive behavior does not require that you actually sell a directly competing product. If I sell apples, and you sell oranges, we compete. We are not competitors in the orange or apple market, we are competitors in the food market. Blizzard, believing another product was costing them money, acted to prevent it from functioning. They make the case for me. They believed and acted accordingly to stop it.
Yes, I used the wrong term. My apologies - although you are not entirely correct, either. The power of judicial review is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, nor is it limited only to the Supreme Court.
True, it is not limited to the Supreme Court. The scope of the courts at the time of writing is, unfortunately, limited entirely to the Supreme Court. No other courts are formed by it, the underlying infrastructure had to be built by congress within the constitutional bounds. So my statement is correct, it is the duty of the Supreme Court, despite other courts also being formed between then and now with the same duty, subject to the will of higher courts above them.
However, the power of judicial review is specifically enumerated, no one recognizes it because what is considered judicial review is unrecognizable. Modern judicial review was pulled out of someone's ass, Alexander Hamilton's to be exact. The Supreme court has appellate jurisdiction over the laws of the land. If Congress passes a law, and I appeal it, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and hears the case, then makes a ruling. If I appeal an action by state or federal government on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, again ruling on whether it is constitutional or not. There is no mention of interpretation or any such nonsense because there wasn't any need for interpretation. The constitution is written crystal clear, that some people choose not to read is a problem. There is no such thing as a gray area, all powers not explicitly given, do not exist. We now have things like imminent domain to give property to private businesses, not to mention firearms restrictions left and right despite the clearest wording ever given to a law in the history of mankind. See the problem with letting crazies say crazy shit because it accomplishes a short term goal? Your judge makes some of the crazier gun rulings look like damn good law.
To be seeking impeachment, you must have legal proof of criminal activities? You perhaps have a record of Blizzard paying the guy off, or maybe you saw the judge smoking crack on the bench? An opinion contrary to your personal views does not constitute criminal activities.
"Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Where exactly does it say you need legal proof of criminal activities? That was an easy one. You really should have read section one. It would have prevented at least two paragraphs of nonsense. If violating your oath of office is good behavior, we do indeed need to fear the judicial system.
And speaking of constitutionally uneducated, perhaps you'd like to read the definition of treason sometime? That actually is written into Article III, you know.
I must admit, my definition of making war on the United States does differ from a later judicial ruling that decided there was a requirement of an actual assembly of armed men first. I would however venture a guess that my definition is not any more interpretive than theirs. I consider the willful violation of their oath in order to subvert the law of the land to be an attack on it.
As the big cheese, I'd execute every last one of the hypocritical fucks, and this judge is at the top of the list. Yes, I realize we'd run out of judges, but as lawyers would replace them, and most would in turn be executed themselves, the long term effect would be a sizable dent in the population of lawyers. I can't see that being a bad thing.
Last, it's hung by the neck. As opposed to having the noose around some other body part, which would make for an altogether much slower execution, don't you think? Also, hanging is illegal nearly (if not entirely) everywhere in the US.
I'd love to argue the advantages in a slower execution, but sheeple don't usually believe in the death penalty to start with so it's probably even more of a lost cause than the current one. Anal picking apart of word usage could get messy though, shall we avoid that? I must however point out that a proper hanging is one of the least painful deaths possible. The position of the knot in relation to the spine is designed to knock the individual out just before snapping their neck, death is near instant and while unconscious. As long as the hangman does his job, the drop and rope strength are properly chosen for the weight of the individual using them, and it goes off without a hitch. It's more humane than firing squads, electrocution(my preference, but it's rather messy for the cleanup crew) and lethal injection. The horror stories are mostly bullshit, but there are, fortunately, people that actually get executed in this country almost universally deserve far worse, individuals on whom the knockout drug doesn't work. My uncle is nearly immune to Valium, as well as several local and general anesthetics, he's probably one of them.
There Jafo, I didn't call his arguments vapid.
