So move out of hypothetical in to the real world - What country do you live in? Let us check if in your country ignorance of the law is a valid legal defense (this is the second time I am asking this question).
What does it matter whether or not it's a valid legal defense here?
Geez. Go read the thread starting from post #248 on page 10.
epiclulz: "I wonder how many fucking times I've explained this already. Here it comes again: the store had no possible way of knowing about the game's DRM"
Jedmonds24: "Yes they would, if they legitimately do buisness they would have known. As a retailer is is thier job to know as much as they can about the product they are selling. It would be like a McDonalds not knowing that they used beef patties on thier hamburgers. Ignorance is NEVER an excuse. Get over it."
patkhoo: "Quite right. In the eyes of the law, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. For example, saying you didn't know that it was illegal to pirate a copy of Sins is not a valid defense in court."
epiclulz: "Going by your logic, ignorance wouldn't be a valid defense if the government, without telling a soul, decided that wearing a blue t-shirt on January 6 2009 is against the law."
patkhoo: "Yes. Go ask a lawyer. "Oh, I'm sorry officer, you can't give me a ticket because I didn't know that the speed limit on this road is 30..." This is pretty much standard in every country around the world."
epiclulz: "This is all very irrelevant. I used a purely hypothetical example to demonstrate that ignorance can be an excuse. You're also not taking into account that I wasn't even specifically referring to any particular government (I'm sure North Korea could enact secret suprise laws if it wanted to)."
patkhoo: "I'm pretty sure that ignorance of the law is not a defense in your country - and that is not hypothetical."
epiclulz: "I don't live in North Korea, and it was my example that was hypothetical."
patkhoo: "So move out of hypothetical in to the real world - What country do you live in? Let us check if in your country ignorance of the law is a valid legal defense (this is the second time I am asking this question)."
epiclulz: "What does it matter whether or not it's a valid legal defense here?"
Answer: It goes to show that in your country, where you bought your second hand copy of SOASE from a "small local" shop, ignorance of the law, EULA, DRM/non-DRM/etc is not a valid reason as to accuse Stardock/Ironclad of unfair practices in a court of law.
So, for the third time - What country do you live in?
A used copy of SoaSE does not have the same functionality as a new copy, and that's why a used copy is crippled.
Wrong. A used copy of Sins has exactly the same functionality as a new copy - provided that both (used and new) have a valid Impulse and ICO account. Why can't you understand that? It has been stated on this thread countless times. And if the used copy of Sins you bought is incomplete (ie. missing the Impulse account) - well, as they say - caveat emptor and you should lodge a protest with whomever you bought it from for the missing parts, not the manufacturer.
In the past, when I accused you of changing the topic, you objected greatly and replied in post #222 on page 9 and #238 on page 10. So now, I quote yourself back to you - you are just arbitrarily trying to limit the discussion. Stop trying to dictate the terms of the discussion.
He was trying to change the subject and I caught him. I don't see what that has to do with arbitrarily limiting the discussion or trying to dictate the terms of the discussion.
Come on, go and re-read post #222 and #238. So you can redefine your "original post", call the OP (at the top of this page) irrelevant and that's OK, but Zubaz was "changing the subject" and he is not allowed to do so? You are still trying to arbitrarily limit and dictate the terms of the discussion. Come on, clearly there is double standards here.
epiclulz: "Which is to say that they don't care about money, because in terms of profit it doesn't matter who buys their games."
Zubaz: "Just yours."
epiclulz: "I repeat, in terms of profit it does not matter who buys the game. It is also amusing how you're trying to make me the bad guy here, as if I had done something wrong by being conned by Stardock & co and then complaining about it here."
Zubaz: "Also, in terms of profit . . they made none from you."
epiclulz: "That's not what this is about. Don't try to change the subject."
patkhoo: "In the past, when I accused you of changing the topic, you objected greatly and replied in post #222 on page 9 and #238 on page 10. So now, I quote yourself back to you - you are just arbitrarily trying to limit the discussion. Stop trying to dictate the terms of the discussion."
epiclulz: "He was trying to change the subject and I caught him. I don't see what that has to do with arbitrarily limiting the discussion or trying to dictate the terms of the discussion."
Furthermore, in those posts, you posit that this issue (restricting the right to sell second hand copies of SOASE) is about StarDock's greed. Clearly, whether SD made a profit or not from a sale is directly related to whether or not SD is greedy. So your argument that this is not what it is about is clearly illogical.
Right now I think the only illogical thing here is this paragraph because I can't make any sense of it.
Geez, I think even if you had prior warning about Impulse or whatever, you probably wouldn't have made any sense of it either.
And on top of that, read the god-darn EULA
Why?
If you want to install and/or play the game, you must agree to the EULA. Otherwise, you will be in violation of contract law and quite possibly copyright law as well. I do agree that this is not always the same for every country, so (4th time asking this qn) What country are you in?
Look, in previous posts, I have suggested that yes, SD should perhaps add a note on the packaging about Impulse, so, in a way, I already agree with some of your positions. But the arguments you make really do not help the case at all.