4 ms·
There is the matter of enforcement, however. If something is completely unenforceable, such as in this case where the owner is using a pirate groups bypass, t
by anakaine 3y ago
There is the matter of enforcement, however. If something is completely unenforceable, such as in this case where the owner is using a pirate groups bypass, then it may as well be permissible. It's not expressly permissible, but the perceived breach is also not enforceable, so the argument becomes a moot point.
Also, the patches typically had no license terms attached to their usage, or if they did it came in the format of attribution. The implications here is debatable, but we again come back to enforcement to close out the otherwise circular argument.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoI'm pretty sure that the lack of license terms doesn't make it a free-for-all, instead it means that there is no possible licensed use at all. If you pick up a copy of Photoshop and can't find the license for it, you don't get to go down to the street corner and sell bootleg copies. That defense won't hold when you're in district court fighting to stay out of federal prison, anyway. And while it's true that this will never be enforced, if there are no principles here, then there can be no guilt from illegally copying these games.
- monocasa 3y agoPractically (since no prosecutor is going to take this up on their own), you'd need someone dumb enough to affirmatively say "that's my circumvention tool that's illegal under the DMCA" in order to show standing for a civil case. So even if there was a no commercial use license somehow, it feels kinda like jury nullification where it's not explicitly legal, but de facto legal because of structure of the rest of the judicial system.