Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X Family Pack... Now Available
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Re: Simple, really
The 10 user vs unlimited is the number of concurrent users accessing the server. In Windows land this is called a client access license, and they have similar options. For a company, not only do they need to pay for windows licenses, but they must also pay for how many can access the server at one time. It ends up making the whole thing pretty fair.
The 10 user vs unlimited is the number of concurrent users accessing the server. In Windows land this is called a client access license, and they have similar options. For a company, not only do they need to pay for windows licenses, but they must also pay for how many can access the server at one time. It ends up making the whole thing pretty fair.
Re: Re: thank you
Both items are things that have alot of development money put into them prior to sale. Both are made by for-profit corporations. Cars and computers are both things that a household might have more than one of. Both are things that should be paid for. If you can't see the relation, then our disagreement is most likely too wide for too much further discussion.
I still think that the agreement that one makes when renting a car is similar to the agreement one makes when licensing software. Both are an agreement/contract with a company, made often by and individual without a lawyer being present. Violation from either could give reason for the company to bring action against the indvidual in a court of law. You are looking to far into the comparison, when you say, well you're buying one, and renting the other. No ****. Guess what, one is a car, and one is an ethereal right to use a specific arrangement of bits. I am not comparing the objects. I am not comparing the ownership types. I am comparing the agreements. This was a counter arguement against the enforcability of an EULA.
I am foolish with my money? Probably, you should see how many dvds I have. So what, is what I think. My money flow helps keep the economy going. That is what a recession really is, after all, people hoarding their money, afraid to spend it.
Well enough of that.
The price of doing business. Well, investors in Apple do not want them to run too many loss leaders. Apple is not a charity. It is not www.apple.ORG. Servers are expensive, even more expensive is the redundant power with a backup generator. Then multiple redundant network connections, probably gigabit ethernet to a major network service provider. Then the round the clock monitoring. .mac is an expensive service to run. I would rather pay a small fee to make sure the service stays around. Remember that they could have just dumped it altogether. Didn't Gateway have an ISP service, that went away, and I think that the members of that, who were paying for the service have more legal cred than someone who was getting a free service.
You are not too keen on analogies are you? w is to x as y is to z
Both items are things that have alot of development money put into them prior to sale. Both are made by for-profit corporations. Cars and computers are both things that a household might have more than one of. Both are things that should be paid for. If you can't see the relation, then our disagreement is most likely too wide for too much further discussion.
I still think that the agreement that one makes when renting a car is similar to the agreement one makes when licensing software. Both are an agreement/contract with a company, made often by and individual without a lawyer being present. Violation from either could give reason for the company to bring action against the indvidual in a court of law. You are looking to far into the comparison, when you say, well you're buying one, and renting the other. No ****. Guess what, one is a car, and one is an ethereal right to use a specific arrangement of bits. I am not comparing the objects. I am not comparing the ownership types. I am comparing the agreements. This was a counter arguement against the enforcability of an EULA.
Consumer protection is an interesting thing. If you really had problems with a piece of software, you could bring the publisher (individual person or company, like Ambrosia) to small claims court and sue them for your money back. I bet you that most shareware publishers would refund your money, rather than have you start bad mouthing them. I am personally very careful with shareware that I pay for. I have paid for quite a bit, in the same way I bought my MacRumors.com mug, because I like to support things that I use and enjoy. I want the software engineers to keep up with bug fixes and possible features. That is also why I preordered my 10.2. Do you know what is funny, I am already running 10.2 legally, since my company is a premier developer member. I am thinking of keeping the box sealed in the shrinkwrap just for fun. I could have cancelled my order, as I had not gotten in on the developer release until after I made the purchase, but I decided that I would feel better with the box.
I am foolish with my money? Probably, you should see how many dvds I have. So what, is what I think. My money flow helps keep the economy going. That is what a recession really is, after all, people hoarding their money, afraid to spend it.
Well enough of that.
this is so silly. maybe you are all better people than me but if i came home with 10.2 in a box and had a few Macs in my house you can bet i'd be installing it all over the place. conveinient how they wait for a few thousand single licences to sell before this magically appears. Steve Jobs can take the family pack and install it in his @ss.
I am fully on the anti-EULA team, no problem there!
First, let us clarify: I think we need to look at the origin of these ridiculous EULAs, even if it is rather obvious to most of us on this thread. The very reason the computer/software industry was able to shoehorn these alleged "contracts" into their products in the first place was and is due to the obscurantism surrounding the nature of the industry. Let's face it, neither the legal profession or the government had the slightest understanding of how computers and apps worked, or what they were even for. In short, anything computer-related was perceived as mysterious and intimidating gobbledygook, so all the more better to let the industry write its own rules, i.e. - let the experts get on with it.
Let us also note that at the time - roughly the entire 1980s and early 90s - computers were a negligible consumer market, a fringe industry at best (province of the geeks and obsessive hobbyists who likewise had specialized knowledge). The market and potential of the entire concept was a big unknown. (IBM, for example, unwittingly laid the foundation for Microsoft's world domination simply because they believed hardware, not software, was where the future lay.) The real money was in selling hardware and applications to business, and it is obvious that the consumer EULAs we still have today - as the model was cast back in the halcyon days when no one in the legal/civil realm knew a computer from a toaster - are badly adapted/reworded (if even that) revamps of business licences, which in themselves may be questionable to begin with.
It should also be noted that the time frame in which this all took place - the 1980's, mainly - is concurrent with Reagan/Bush administration policies on business deregulation and decided lack of corporate oversight.
That, at least, is a brief primer, however simplified, on how they got away with it all to begin with.
First, let us clarify: I think we need to look at the origin of these ridiculous EULAs, even if it is rather obvious to most of us on this thread. The very reason the computer/software industry was able to shoehorn these alleged "contracts" into their products in the first place was and is due to the obscurantism surrounding the nature of the industry. Let's face it, neither the legal profession or the government had the slightest understanding of how computers and apps worked, or what they were even for. In short, anything computer-related was perceived as mysterious and intimidating gobbledygook, so all the more better to let the industry write its own rules, i.e. - let the experts get on with it.
Let us also note that at the time - roughly the entire 1980s and early 90s - computers were a negligible consumer market, a fringe industry at best (province of the geeks and obsessive hobbyists who likewise had specialized knowledge). The market and potential of the entire concept was a big unknown. (IBM, for example, unwittingly laid the foundation for Microsoft's world domination simply because they believed hardware, not software, was where the future lay.) The real money was in selling hardware and applications to business, and it is obvious that the consumer EULAs we still have today - as the model was cast back in the halcyon days when no one in the legal/civil realm knew a computer from a toaster - are badly adapted/reworded (if even that) revamps of business licences, which in themselves may be questionable to begin with.
It should also be noted that the time frame in which this all took place - the 1980's, mainly - is concurrent with Reagan/Bush administration policies on business deregulation and decided lack of corporate oversight.
That, at least, is a brief primer, however simplified, on how they got away with it all to begin with.
Re: Re: thank you
resellers don't make a lot on the products but Apple's margin isn't huge...there is a larger margin on the PowerMacs but when it comes to portable products there is not a large one.
sort of blew that one on the cost becase I was just looking at the mfg cost of the product and not what goes into the creation of the product. where .mac is concerned there IS the cost of the servers, bandwidth, maintance and all the behind the scenes stuff and if it is a choice between paying for the service or not having it which would you prefer?
resellers don't make a lot on the products but Apple's margin isn't huge...there is a larger margin on the PowerMacs but when it comes to portable products there is not a large one.
sort of blew that one on the cost becase I was just looking at the mfg cost of the product and not what goes into the creation of the product. where .mac is concerned there IS the cost of the servers, bandwidth, maintance and all the behind the scenes stuff and if it is a choice between paying for the service or not having it which would you prefer?
I would rather have no corporate oversite than the gov't giving secrets to China like Slick Willie but this isn't the right forum for that is it
but seriously....if you look at the home market for software and a single license per CPU you have Mr. Bill Gates to thank for that when he told IBM and any mfg that was making an IBM clone that if they wanted to put his OS on ANY of the computers they produced they would have to put it on ALL of them so they wouldn't short Microsoft on their licensing fees. Now that was eventualy deemed unfair business practices and they can't do that any more but the precident had been set.Re: Simple, really
The 10user/unlimited user for OS X Server is not the same as putting OS X on as many computers you own. OS X Server can only be used on one computer just like OS X. The number of users represents the number of client machines accessing the server at one time. ie if you have:
1 server & 1 copy of OS X Server 10 users
you can have up to:
10 Macs & 10 copies of OS X connected to it
but if you have:
11+ Macs & 11+ copies of OS X connected to it
you need to get OS X Server unlimited users
The 10user/unlimited user for OS X Server is not the same as putting OS X on as many computers you own. OS X Server can only be used on one computer just like OS X. The number of users represents the number of client machines accessing the server at one time. ie if you have:
1 server & 1 copy of OS X Server 10 users
you can have up to:
10 Macs & 10 copies of OS X connected to it
but if you have:
11+ Macs & 11+ copies of OS X connected to it
you need to get OS X Server unlimited users
Re: Re: Re: thank you
My point with .net oops .mac is that when it was itools and free to all mac users I had a very effective argument to give to people why mac is better by simply saying look at this great product and you get to use it for free if you need more storage or features you can easily pay for those sepretly.
I have no problem with Apple charging for the service and they could have done so gradually.
19.99-29.99 etc.
but when you jump from 0-$100 overnight thats way off base.
Its as if they are trying to recoup all of itools losses overnight.
I mean Acura makes great cars. but they lose money on the nsx
what being handbuilt and all thier lucky to sell 1000 ayear
But it is exactly this loss leader that gets people in the dealership and they may leave with atl, cl, or mini me RSX.
thats why I said it was the cost of doing business
You sometimes lose money on something to make money on something else
My point with .net oops .mac is that when it was itools and free to all mac users I had a very effective argument to give to people why mac is better by simply saying look at this great product and you get to use it for free if you need more storage or features you can easily pay for those sepretly.
I have no problem with Apple charging for the service and they could have done so gradually.
19.99-29.99 etc.
but when you jump from 0-$100 overnight thats way off base.
Its as if they are trying to recoup all of itools losses overnight.
I mean Acura makes great cars. but they lose money on the nsx
what being handbuilt and all thier lucky to sell 1000 ayear
But it is exactly this loss leader that gets people in the dealership and they may leave with atl, cl, or mini me RSX.
thats why I said it was the cost of doing business
You sometimes lose money on something to make money on something else
Thanks for the "primer", Pepzhez. It's very useful to have the origins of this bandit-style "business" model set out so concisely. Like the US patenting regime, this is another area where regulations are being made for and interpreted by corporations and their lawyers to everyone else's great detriment. We are being fleeced. A different model is needed, re-establishing fair use and common sense as the criteria.
Re: Re: Simple, really
Yeah, just what I said like ten posts ago. Except that you can have 50 macs connect to a server running the 10 user license. The only thing is that only 10 clients will be able to access the server at any one time, further connection attempts will result in server busy messages.
50 clients is probably too many for the people to put up with, but I think that 20 people would be fine. Most server accesses are fairly infrequent. It is like using a hub, it is not ideal, but if you cant afford a switch, it will do.
Yeah, just what I said like ten posts ago. Except that you can have 50 macs connect to a server running the 10 user license. The only thing is that only 10 clients will be able to access the server at any one time, further connection attempts will result in server busy messages.
50 clients is probably too many for the people to put up with, but I think that 20 people would be fine. Most server accesses are fairly infrequent. It is like using a hub, it is not ideal, but if you cant afford a switch, it will do.
Originally posted by Gigglebyte
I would rather have no corporate oversite than the gov't giving secrets to China like Slick Willie but this isn't the right forum for that is it
You,re kidding right "no coporate oversite" the so called "secrets" given to China were freely available on the net, Clinton just duped them into to buying something that was freely availble elsewhere and made money for our country in the process.
I mean if you gonna blame an administration be fare and blame them all.
Nixon: "I did not do anything wrong"
Carter: We will not go (olympics)
Reagan "I do not recall "
Bush: who dosn't know what a price scanner is "read my lips" Bush and the pretty Secretary
Clinton :"It depends on what "IS" is. {Clinton is a lawyer should I say more} Clinton and the Intern
Bush #2: "Social Security is not a Federal Program"{bush was an alcholic and drunk driver need I say more.
"If you gonna trash one trash all."
They all get money from the big business guys and if they get elected its payback time.
They all have cheated on thier wives, only some have got caught.
They all lie when it suits them
But no oversite would mean Apple would have been long gone and microsoft would have reigned supreme.
Having just the Gov in control is bad, agreed.
Having just business in control is bad
either way the consumer is screwed
We need to have all 3 otherwise its a dictatorship cause they are already in it together.
consumers unite
It's not going to happen without one company taking the lead, and it's going to need a philosopher, not an accountant, in charge.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One More Time!!
Hello... McFly...
Analogy one.
The piece of paper whose words that you agree to when you rent a car is similar to the, used to be piece of paper, but often now, text during install, whose words you agree to when you install software.
This is also similar to the piece of paper, whose words you agree to when you open a bank account. They are all full of statements that you are agreeing to. They are not laws. They are contract terms. If you violate them, you may not be breaking the law, but if the software company decided to, or the rental car company, or the bank, who cares what, if you agree to something, and violate the agreement, you may face possible civil legal action by that company. It is in that court of law, that the individual terms that you have violated will be judged for or against their legality. I am sure that if you did buy one or zero copies of 10.2, and installed it on two machines, and apple did decide to take you to court (which they probably wouldn't, just for the costs to do so) They would say, he agreed to only install this software on one machine, and you would say, I didn't agree to that, and a trial would continue, and in the end, a jury of your peers would decide your fate.
I am sure if you were brought to trial, that there would be a bunch of lawyers offering to represent you for free. I don't know what the result is.
It is not a car that I am comparing in this analogy, it is a contract between you and a company.
Analogy two:
You have purchased one or zero copies of 10.2 media, and have installed it on two machines. Assuming that you did not buy the family license, but instead the single user license.
You know have two manifestations of apples intellectual property at your house. So, you have paid for one product designed and manufacturered by a group of people, but you will have stolen the second copy. Now if you go buy a car, or a blender, or a dvd, whatever, and then you "steal" another copy of the same item, you would have paid for one product, and stolen the second copy.
Now there are differences, but I say they don't matter. You don't need to go to a software store and steal a second box in order to be able to carry out the theft. You can do that with the first box that you have bought. But in the end, you will end up with a product stolen from a group of people, in each case.
I am curious, daveg5, how old are you? I can understand completely Skunk's disagreement with EULA's and questioning their legality. That is an arguement that is completely different from my arguement. I can not imagine you to be much older than 25, on the high end. I am just curious.
If you don't understand the analogy, well, then I will have to give up trying to explain them, and have to declare it hopeless.
Hello... McFly...
Analogy one.
The piece of paper whose words that you agree to when you rent a car is similar to the, used to be piece of paper, but often now, text during install, whose words you agree to when you install software.
This is also similar to the piece of paper, whose words you agree to when you open a bank account. They are all full of statements that you are agreeing to. They are not laws. They are contract terms. If you violate them, you may not be breaking the law, but if the software company decided to, or the rental car company, or the bank, who cares what, if you agree to something, and violate the agreement, you may face possible civil legal action by that company. It is in that court of law, that the individual terms that you have violated will be judged for or against their legality. I am sure that if you did buy one or zero copies of 10.2, and installed it on two machines, and apple did decide to take you to court (which they probably wouldn't, just for the costs to do so) They would say, he agreed to only install this software on one machine, and you would say, I didn't agree to that, and a trial would continue, and in the end, a jury of your peers would decide your fate.
I am sure if you were brought to trial, that there would be a bunch of lawyers offering to represent you for free. I don't know what the result is.
It is not a car that I am comparing in this analogy, it is a contract between you and a company.
Analogy two:
You have purchased one or zero copies of 10.2 media, and have installed it on two machines. Assuming that you did not buy the family license, but instead the single user license.
You know have two manifestations of apples intellectual property at your house. So, you have paid for one product designed and manufacturered by a group of people, but you will have stolen the second copy. Now if you go buy a car, or a blender, or a dvd, whatever, and then you "steal" another copy of the same item, you would have paid for one product, and stolen the second copy.
Now there are differences, but I say they don't matter. You don't need to go to a software store and steal a second box in order to be able to carry out the theft. You can do that with the first box that you have bought. But in the end, you will end up with a product stolen from a group of people, in each case.
I am curious, daveg5, how old are you? I can understand completely Skunk's disagreement with EULA's and questioning their legality. That is an arguement that is completely different from my arguement. I can not imagine you to be much older than 25, on the high end. I am just curious.
If you don't understand the analogy, well, then I will have to give up trying to explain them, and have to declare it hopeless.
peter:-
i wish we COULD compare computers to cars, but this analogy would make the computer industry quake in fear! you buy a mercedes, and it runs - it needs no os upgrade, and comes with a bunch of warranties. If something is found to be at seriously at fault later in the cars lifetime, the car is called back and fixed for free - you dont even need to be the person that originally bought the car new.
Can you imagine this happening with a computer? In your analogy of cars and computers (especially an apple - THE only reason we buy them is for the inherent, perceived, quality), you buy your merc, have a software glitch meaning it would start on tuesdays or refuses to go to the supermarket, and it would be up to *you* to purchase a fix. In years gone by this would be illegal, and yet its common practice in software....why? because we, the consumer, have become accustomed to it, and now spout the indsutry line...no wonder Apple are not asking us to think different any more - we can be fleeced too!!
An os is *intrinsically* different to an application - without an os, its just a box.
cant believe this thread is still going..
i wish we COULD compare computers to cars, but this analogy would make the computer industry quake in fear!
you buy a mercedes, and it runs - it needs no os upgrade, and comes with a bunch of warranties. If something is found to be at seriously at fault later in the cars lifetime, the car is called back and fixed for free - you dont even need to be the person that originally bought the car new.Can you imagine this happening with a computer? In your analogy of cars and computers (especially an apple - THE only reason we buy them is for the inherent, perceived, quality), you buy your merc, have a software glitch meaning it would start on tuesdays or refuses to go to the supermarket, and it would be up to *you* to purchase a fix. In years gone by this would be illegal, and yet its common practice in software....why? because we, the consumer, have become accustomed to it, and now spout the indsutry line...no wonder Apple are not asking us to think different any more - we can be fleeced too!!
An os is *intrinsically* different to an application - without an os, its just a box.
cant believe this thread is still going..
great point
Well said Pants:
I will exspand on that one:
If cars were computers {are had the Licensing sytem}
You would buy a car and only after buying it would you get to see the agreement. the warranty would be as is.
You would have to buy additional licensing for each passenger or a family pak
and upgrade that for the full price every year.
And if you "sneak an unauthorized person in you would be in violation of the EULA and those called a pirate or thief and the reason for lost sales and a bad economy.
I think the big 3 would love it.
no warranty
no safety features or recalls
no standards
and the auto indutry makes all the rule
Well said Pants:
I will exspand on that one:
If cars were computers {are had the Licensing sytem}
You would buy a car and only after buying it would you get to see the agreement. the warranty would be as is.
You would have to buy additional licensing for each passenger or a family pak
and upgrade that for the full price every year.
And if you "sneak an unauthorized person in you would be in violation of the EULA and those called a pirate or thief and the reason for lost sales and a bad economy.
I think the big 3 would love it.
no warranty
no safety features or recalls
no standards
and the auto indutry makes all the rule
Originally posted by Gigglebyte
I would rather have no corporate oversite than the gov't giving secrets to China like Slick Willie but this isn't the right forum for that is it
You,re kidding right "no coporate oversite" the so called "secrets" given to China were freely available on the net, Clinton just duped them into to buying something that was freely availble elsewhere and made money for our country in the process.
I mean if you gonna blame an administration be fare and blame them all.
Nixon: "I did not do anything wrong"
Carter: We will not go (olympics)
Reagan "I do not recall "
Bush: who dosn't know what a price scanner is "read my lips" Bush and the pretty Secretary
Clinton :"It depends on what "IS" is. {Clinton is a lawyer should I say more} Clinton and the Intern
Bush #2: "Social Security is not a Federal Program"{bush was an alcholic and drunk driver need I say more.
"If you gonna trash one trash all."
They all get money from the big business guys and if they get elected its payback time.
They all have cheated on thier wives, only some have got caught.
They all lie when it suits them
But no oversite would mean Apple would have been long gone and microsoft would have reigned supreme.
Having just the Gov in control is bad, agreed.
Having just business in control is bad
either way the consumer is screwed
We need to have all 3 otherwise its a dictatorship cause they are already in it together.
consumers unite
No, since 'stealing' requires the taking of something without right or permission. In this scenerio they have permission for a copy - the second is a 'copyright infringement', not a theft.
But Apple has itself gone to the darkside in recently - they've lied ('All low power MP3 players have a high pitched whine'), they've mislead ('1-3 days shipping' for items that don't ship for weeks), and they've strongarmed ('We aren't offering any sort of email only account for .mac even though the customer basis wants it, even though we encouraged people to use their @mac.com account as their primary account. No, .mac is a 'take it or leave it' bloatware package). So they've lost the right to demand a normative or 'moral' reason to comply with their license - you can't effectively ask people to adhere to a higher moral standard than you do yourself.
We are now in another paradigm - the "It's only illegal if you get caught" one. So their only effective solution will be adding a 'one copy one computer' licensing scheme or just live with the fact that many people are just as ethical as they are and get over it.
A better analogy
As much as we are debating the theory here, it's even worse in terms of practical enforcement.
There is really no way anyone can examine what software a home user has unless that person invites them into their home and shows them what's on the computer(s).
BTW, your bank account analogy doesn't work because you get to see the terms of the agreement before you sign on the dotted line.
A better analogy for your assertion would be you contracting for and submitting payment for a red T-bird at the local dealership and then the dealer delivering a black Camaro.
As much as we are debating the theory here, it's even worse in terms of practical enforcement.
There is really no way anyone can examine what software a home user has unless that person invites them into their home and shows them what's on the computer(s).
BTW, your bank account analogy doesn't work because you get to see the terms of the agreement before you sign on the dotted line.
A better analogy for your assertion would be you contracting for and submitting payment for a red T-bird at the local dealership and then the dealer delivering a black Camaro.
Whaat?
If you are connected to the Net, of course they can find out what's on your computer!! "They" might well have done so already...
And a better analogy would be ordering a red T-Bird and receiving a sealed package containing a red T-Bird with two wheels, a 1999 V8 and half the controls not wired up...
If you are connected to the Net, of course they can find out what's on your computer!! "They" might well have done so already...
And a better analogy would be ordering a red T-Bird and receiving a sealed package containing a red T-Bird with two wheels, a 1999 V8 and half the controls not wired up...
Re: A better analogy
off topic here but this happened to my parents...they had purchased a 1997 Dodge Ram V10 (paid cash) but the local dealer didn't have the truck so they made a trade with a dealer in Portland but when the drivers when to pick up the truck it had been sold to somebody else! Now mind you the truck was already paid for and my parents were not too happy about that one but you are right that it would be impractical to enforce any kind of licensing on a home basis and it really is a moot point..I am arguing this point more as a matter of ethics than anything.....DAVE
off topic here but this happened to my parents...they had purchased a 1997 Dodge Ram V10 (paid cash) but the local dealer didn't have the truck so they made a trade with a dealer in Portland but when the drivers when to pick up the truck it had been sold to somebody else! Now mind you the truck was already paid for and my parents were not too happy about that one but you are right that it would be impractical to enforce any kind of licensing on a home basis and it really is a moot point..I am arguing this point more as a matter of ethics than anything.....DAVE
Re: Re: A better analogy
If you want to argue ethics you are better sticking with copyright issues, as some of the "licensing" terms contained in EULAs are laughable.
For example, at least on the PC game side, it is common for EULAs to prohibit even making a backup copy of the game CD, even if you need the CD in the drive to play the game (I don't know about you, but I prefer to leave the original CD for a $50 game in the jewel case).
This is in direct conflict with copyright law, which allows you to make archival copies of software.
It also can in no way be construed to be an ethical violation, as you still have the original CD you bought on the shelf.
The reason we do this is in reality if the original CD is damaged there is no way you will be getting a replacement for less than the full retail price.
If you want to argue ethics you are better sticking with copyright issues, as some of the "licensing" terms contained in EULAs are laughable.
For example, at least on the PC game side, it is common for EULAs to prohibit even making a backup copy of the game CD, even if you need the CD in the drive to play the game (I don't know about you, but I prefer to leave the original CD for a $50 game in the jewel case).
This is in direct conflict with copyright law, which allows you to make archival copies of software.
It also can in no way be construed to be an ethical violation, as you still have the original CD you bought on the shelf.
The reason we do this is in reality if the original CD is damaged there is no way you will be getting a replacement for less than the full retail price.
Originally posted by Gigglebyte
but you are right that it would be impractical to enforce any kind of licensing on a home basis and it really is a moot point..I am arguing this point more as a matter of ethics than anything.....DAVE
Re: Re: Re: A better analogy
Do you know what I love about mac gaming vs pc, is that all the games work fine using a disk image of the cd. I play war3 all the time without the cd anywhere near my computer. I agree that it is a silly thing to say. They are just hoping that you will believe it.
Do you know what I love about mac gaming vs pc, is that all the games work fine using a disk image of the cd. I play war3 all the time without the cd anywhere near my computer. I agree that it is a silly thing to say. They are just hoping that you will believe it.