Quick question @chaosvrgn - I may be remembering completely wrong, but wasn't there some pending litigation against Microsoft or some similar big tech company regarding "draconian" EULAs that would also determine whether or not "licenses" were covered under first sale doctrine?
Also, to show you all how ridiculous the idea that being gifted subs from IML is considered piracy is, consider the following:
If one were to crank up this nonsense idea to the extreme, the mere fact that Shannon retains the original copy of everything would mean that there's always at least one other person in possession of a given program. This alone could trigger the copy protection if one were to truly believe that being given a sub as a gift is piracy.
In other words, to follow the letter of the law do what chaosvrgn suggests if that is indeed the correct lawful procedure for such. To follow the spirit, the intended recipient (whether it's the original buyer or the recipient of a gift from that buyer) should be the only one in possession of a particular purchase (i.e. "has" the "only purchased copy") and that should be enough to satisfy the protections.
Stop running around like headless chickens with your "OMG MY BROTHER IN THE OTHER ROOM CAN TOTALLY HEAR MY SUB THAT I'M PLAYING ON THE STEREO IN MY ROOM WITH AWESOME SPEAKERS, WILL THAT TRIGGER COPY PROTECTION?!?!?!?" and similar nonsense like that. If I could put into words why that's nonsense I would do so, but for now seeing posts like this fill my head with confusion that people seem to lack certain seemingly common sense about a thing like this. (edit: note to self - expand on logistics of buying subs + people thinking that if they buy subs for someone else as a gift they expect them to work as advertised + possibility of better gift certificate system to lessen confusion regarding "who buys subs" vs "who uses subs")
Also, to show you all how ridiculous the idea that being gifted subs from IML is considered piracy is, consider the following:
If one were to crank up this nonsense idea to the extreme, the mere fact that Shannon retains the original copy of everything would mean that there's always at least one other person in possession of a given program. This alone could trigger the copy protection if one were to truly believe that being given a sub as a gift is piracy.
In other words, to follow the letter of the law do what chaosvrgn suggests if that is indeed the correct lawful procedure for such. To follow the spirit, the intended recipient (whether it's the original buyer or the recipient of a gift from that buyer) should be the only one in possession of a particular purchase (i.e. "has" the "only purchased copy") and that should be enough to satisfy the protections.
Stop running around like headless chickens with your "OMG MY BROTHER IN THE OTHER ROOM CAN TOTALLY HEAR MY SUB THAT I'M PLAYING ON THE STEREO IN MY ROOM WITH AWESOME SPEAKERS, WILL THAT TRIGGER COPY PROTECTION?!?!?!?" and similar nonsense like that. If I could put into words why that's nonsense I would do so, but for now seeing posts like this fill my head with confusion that people seem to lack certain seemingly common sense about a thing like this. (edit: note to self - expand on logistics of buying subs + people thinking that if they buy subs for someone else as a gift they expect them to work as advertised + possibility of better gift certificate system to lessen confusion regarding "who buys subs" vs "who uses subs")
A Better Alex (ISTJ): EPRHA → ASC → AM6 → …
A Sexy Alex (ESTJ-T): BIABWS+DAOS → DMSI → …
A Better Alex (ENFJ-T): AM6 → …
A Sexy Alex (ESTJ-T): BIABWS+DAOS → DMSI → …
A Better Alex (ENFJ-T): AM6 → …
