FO3: A simple disk check...right?
mace
http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=892715
"If you're experiencing issues with SecuRom while playing Fallout 3,
please take the following steps"
John Lewis
wrote:
>Lying bastards,
Nope. Bethsoft always stated that they would have a simple disc-based
copy-protection, a la Oblivion. And they have delivered. No on-line
authentication required, no Steam-type umbilical, unless you are
stupid enough to purchase the game via Steam. Gamecopyworld should
have a crack shortly......
> just pirate away people!
Ah, yes, the habitual pirate's excuse..........
>
>http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=892715
>
>"If you're experiencing issues with SecuRom while playing Fallout 3,
>please take the following steps"
Read the text. It is primarily for those who happen to run Daemon
Tools and sundry other "grey" utilities. The copy-protection mechanism
is identical to that on Oblivion. However, the version of SecureROM
used on FO3 might be a little more picky as to which background
programs/processes it black-lists.
Here is the full text from the above URL.:-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you're experiencing issues with SecuRom while playing Fallout 3,
please take the following steps:
If you're having issues installing the game, run Setup.exe directly
from the disc. That should resolve any SecuRom issues.
After you've successfully installed the game, if you continue to
experience issues, take the following steps:
First, rename your original launcher.
Next, Visit SecuROM's site and download an updated Fallout 3 Launcher:
http://www.securom.com/message.asp?m=emu&c=2500
Do Clean Boot to stop the Daemon Tools Programs and Services from
running. Note, it is not enough to stop the Programs only, you have to
stop the Services, if any also
Click Here to Clean Up
Note, the above works for Vista and XP
Make sure you have the Drag to Disk feature of Roxio killed, although
the Clean Boot will do that.
Do not download the patch from SecuRom if you're not experiencing
issues !! "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"More information re: SecuRom.
For Fallout 3's copy protection on PC, we use the same security model
as we did for Oblivion - a simple disc check. We only use SecuRom's
disc check functionality for copy protection. We do NOT limit the
number of installs. We do NOT use online authentication or any other
SecuROM functionality except for a disc check when you install the
game and when you launch the game. We do not install any other
programs and we don't have anything that runs in the background while
you're playing the game.
If you experience issues installing the game, try running setup.exe
directly off the disc. That will resolve most compatibility issues."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No problem for me with FO3 install (winXP). I do not run any suspect
utilities. I do run Nero and other legitimate high-performance
disc-burning software.
BTW, before taking the above more drastic steps, first try running
msconfig (WinXP) and shutting off all startup programs before
attempting a FO3 install. And also shut off any virus-killers. That
may help. Anybody who uses their computer for running
high-performance action games should shut down all startup programs
anyway when running these titles.
John Lewis
Craig
wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:06:01 -0700 (PDT), mace <mm...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Lying bastards,
>
>Nope. Bethsoft always stated that they would have a simple disc-based
>copy-protection, a la Oblivion. And they have delivered. No on-line
>authentication required, no Steam-type umbilical, unless you are
>stupid enough to purchase the game via Steam. Gamecopyworld should
>have a crack shortly......
>
<snip>
No crack needed... all you need to do is change your shortcut from
pointing to the launcher to pointing directly to Fallout3.exe - no cd
check, no disk needed in drive. Until they patch it, I guess. :-)
-craig
TheSmokingGnu
> In what ways is a _drive mounting utility_ now "illegal" or "quasi-legal" (and
> therefore "grey"), John?
The problem is not so much Daemon Tools itself, but the copy protection
emulation that is now included through the SPTD driver. Daemon Tools can
emulate the "authentic" signals that copy-protections look for, even if
the image mounted is not a 1:1 copy.
> And what business is it of Bethesda's, or any other
> GAME company, that their customer is running one?
It's SecuROM's business, not Bethesda. Simply, SecuROM knows the SPTD
driver is installed, and it can thus deduce that the signals it is
receiving may, in fact, be illegitimate. It is akin to bringing home a
really hot date, but forgetting to put away your skimask, key-punch,
slimjim and screwdriver. Sure, you may actually own the car you're
driving now, but how is she going to know that without going outside,
looking up the VIN and calling it into the police? Would she stick
around on the offhand chance that you /won't/ be picked up by law
enforcement tonight for car theft?
So, SecuROM checks to make sure the disc is authentic /and/ that there
is no possibility that the signal could be fake. If either of those two
things are not true, then it can refuse to run the game (not that I've
ever had any problems using Daemon Tools' sister program, Alcohol 120%).
> But you can't backup *any* SecuROM disc, like (apparently) Fallout 3, with
> standard burner software and play off it without a truly "grey" No-DVD hack.
While you're correct that FO3 uses a somewhat more sophisticated media
check, the software to make perfect 1:1 SecuROM copies is readily and
freely (well, some of it is trialware, but the point stands) available
on the 'net.
> But SecuROM shouldn't give a good, God-damn what you have running on your
> computer, so long as it is the compatible operating system!
>
> By law, software products are *licensed*. DRM is supposed to be about
> preventing "unlicensed use." DRM should check that you *have a valid license*.
That's what it's doing; it got a "this is a valid license" signal; now
it's checking that the people (drivers) who /gave/ it that signal can be
trusted. Unless there's an indisputable and indefatigable link between
the physical media and the SecuROM driver, of what use is the "valid
license" signal? It's like trusting those nice gentlemen with the
shotguns and the "your money or your life" note to lock up after they've
finished.
TheSmokingGnu
PS: As I understand it, this isn't the big, bad,
install-a-rootkit-and-blacklist-everything-but-physical-drives SecuROM
7, but the old fuddy-duddy 4.7 from way back in the day. The entire DRM
schema here really does boil down to just a fairly simple media check.
Greg Johnson
<anonymity...@1111011010011.com> wrote:
>Zaghadka wrote:
>> In what ways is a _drive mounting utility_ now "illegal" or "quasi-legal" (and
>> therefore "grey"), John?
>
>The problem is not so much Daemon Tools itself, but the copy protection
>emulation that is now included through the SPTD driver. Daemon Tools can
>emulate the "authentic" signals that copy-protections look for, even if
>the image mounted is not a 1:1 copy.
>
>> And what business is it of Bethesda's, or any other
>> GAME company, that their customer is running one?
>
>It's SecuROM's business, not Bethesda. Simply, SecuROM knows the SPTD
>driver is installed, and it can thus deduce that the signals it is
>receiving may, in fact, be illegitimate. It is akin to bringing home a
>really hot date, but forgetting to put away your skimask, key-punch,
>slimjim and screwdriver. Sure, you may actually own the car you're
>driving now, but how is she going to know that without going outside,
>looking up the VIN and calling it into the police? Would she stick
>around on the offhand chance that you /won't/ be picked up by law
>enforcement tonight for car theft?
>
>So, SecuROM checks to make sure the disc is authentic /and/ that there
>is no possibility that the signal could be fake. If either of those two
>things are not true, then it can refuse to run the game (not that I've
>ever had any problems using Daemon Tools' sister program, Alcohol 120%).
The main problem with this argument is that the only program I've ever
had incompatibility problems with SecuROM is Process Explorer. Since
this is a free utility distributed by Microsoft themselves, and it
certainly can't be used for any illegal purpose, there is absolutely
no excuse whatsoever for SecuROM to refuse to run merely because
Process Explorer is running.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:25:01 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, John Lewis
>wrote:
>
>>Read the text. It is primarily for those who happen to run Daemon
>>Tools and sundry other "grey" utilities.
>
>Interesting...
<snip>
Hear, hear Zag! Great fucking post (& I'm not just saying that because I'm a
copyright revolutionary >;-).
>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
>temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ...Ben Franklin
And there it is in plain black & white from over 200 years ago people.
--
Nostromo
Mark Morrison
wrote:
>Lying bastards, just pirate away people!
There's nothing there that says it's NOT a simple disk check. It's a
compatiblility issue, with a workaround.
For the recored, I have Daemon Tools, and it's fine - infact my VD
arrived yesterday, but I'm still using the downloaded version to play
the game, so and I use Daemon Tools to mount the image.
And how the fuck do you justify pirating a game because you doon't
like the protection scheme ? You don't have a mora right to play
Fallout 3, so if you don't like the copy protection they chose, then
you just don't play it.
Would you steal a car if the manufacturer had a new security system on
their latest model that you didn't like ?
Michael Cecil
>Would you steal a car if the manufacturer had a new security system on
>their latest model that you didn't like ?
I might use my matter replicator to copy the car sans the security system
and drive it around. Too bad you humans don't have access to that
technology yet...
--
Michael Cecil
Turos the Champion, Krond the Guard and Malmo the Burglar
of the Guardians of Anduin on Elendilmir of LotRO
Mark Morrison
wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 10:36:38 +0000, Mark Morrison <bl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Would you steal a car if the manufacturer had a new security system on
>>their latest model that you didn't like ?
>
>I might use my matter replicator to copy the car sans the security system
>and drive it around. Too bad you humans don't have access to that
>technology yet...
So how many supermodels have you copied with it ?
John Lewis
>Thus spake Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>, Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:38:02 GMT,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:25:01 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, John Lewis
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Read the text. It is primarily for those who happen to run Daemon
>>>Tools and sundry other "grey" utilities.
>>
>>Interesting...
><snip>
>
>Hear, hear Zag! Great fucking post (& I'm not just saying that because I'm a
>copyright revolutionary >;-).
>
Well, well. Thanks. I have added "copyright revolutionary" to my
growing list of alternate names for "pirate"
John Lewis
mace
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:51:28 +1100, Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
> >Anno Domini:
>
> >>On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:25:01 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, John Lewis
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>Read the text. It is primarily for those who happen to run Daemon
> >>>Tools and sundry other "grey" utilities.
>
> >>Interesting...
> ><snip>
>
> >Hear, hear Zag! Great fucking post (& I'm not just saying that because I'm a
> >copyright revolutionary >;-).
>
> Well, well. Thanks. I have added "copyright revolutionary" to my
> growing list of alternate names for "pirate"
Beware, the boy scout is after your arse now...
CoinSpin
Tried that with mine, they just turned out to be mindless simple
creatures without a thought in their pretty little heads to help them
strike up a conversa........
Zoiks! I think I need to look at that again, they may have been
absolutely perfect!!!
CoinSpin
TheSmokingGnu
> Ah... is that what the tray icon is for?
SPTD is mostly a way to abstractify the virtual drives, so that it's a
lot harder to tell that they /are/ virtual drives, and so that Daemon
Tools can do what it likes to on the 'other' side of the interface.
> which makes for quite a nice, context menu-driven free solution to my
> 6-year-old troubles. ;^)
I find that a healthy dose of duct tape and Play-Doh...
Oh, *THOSE* kind of 6-year-old troubles...
> SPTD can do this for *current* SecuROM? I've heard, now that you bring it up,
> that it can defeat some truly ancient prevention schemes (Safedisc 1 and
> whatnot), but not that it can do anything for modern ones.
I think v.7 is sufficiently 'intelligent' that DT can't do it, but I'm
certain I've used the emulation on 4.x and previous games before.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
> For that, I've seen "fake images" on Gamecopyworld, short images that can
> apparently tell the game it has a disk, but those images are the illegal
> component, not D-Tools. I don't understand why these sites don't get a
> cease-and-desist.
Because they are too awesome? Or, maybe because their DNS registration
is for Curaco, Netherlands?
Many copy-protections (SafeDisc, SecuROM) are little more than
encrypted, 'damaged' files on the first part of the disc; more than
that, many of them are /identical/ for every disc of a particular game.
Those little images are just a 1:1 copy with the extraneous data (like
the installer and game files) stripped to save disc space (it's only
going to check the first 11MB anyway; why save the rest of it?).
I guess you could consider them "grey", but again the tools to make them
are readily available to the home consumer (those capable of using
Google without stabbing out an eye or two, at any rate).
> That's absurd. ... it's
> ridiculous for a $60 game, especially in light of the fact that SecuROM doesn't
> work, and there is no SecuROM game out there that any *moron* can't torrent
> easily.
Exactly, and to wit, *this* moron had a working copy torrented day-of,
and sans the copy protection.
There has, to date, only been one copy protection that really, honestly,
works to keep pirates out of the system, and that's the latest version
of StarForce (when used in conjunction with their application function
encryption). But nobody will touch it with a googolplex-foot pole for
fear of the rabid hordes of ill-informed gamers and blackhole-esque
anti-PR it would generate.
> It's like putting titanium locks on lunchboxes. Titanium locks that can be
> picked with a bobby pin, for that matter, like in Fallout 3.
Obviously, you have never had one of my sandwiches. :P
> Of course, they're in the business of trying to stamp out cloud PTP transfers
> now, too
> It'd be bettter if these folks embraced the future, rather than trying to
> maintain the business models of the past.
> It's electronic tail chasing, and it demonstrably adds to the cost and impairs
> the function of the games.
>
Which is precisely what baffles the mind. Certainly, game companies are
in the business of making maximum product for minimum input, and they
must also be clearly aware of how ridiculously easy it is to eliminate
or transform the available copy protection schemes, and yet they still
see fit to spend millions of dollars on restrictive contracts and dozens
if not hundreds of man-hours on integrating them into their code (to say
nothing of the man-hours spent on copy-protection issues with tech
support) for what gain?
For what gain? They successfully stopped a grandmother somewhere from
giving a copy to each of her grandchildren? There are a few 12-year-olds
that cannot play? Even copy-protection schemes have increasingly
acknowledged that they stop only so-called 'casual' piracy, but it is
now so utterly simple to defeat them with very common tools that it is
an exercise in folly.
One of the problem these schemes face is the pirate groups themselves;
these are the kind of people that don't like to be told 'no'. They
compete with each other to get to the game first and strip the copy
protection. They relish the challenge of defeating the code itself, not
so much the act of piracy. They won't bother with something simple,
because it's not worth their time or effort.
What is really necessary is a copy protection that straddles the line,
that is just effective enough to keep Johnny and Suzie Q. from making
copies for friends, but just simple enough to refrain from the
attentions of the pirate groups (and thus, a widespread distribution of
the defeated code), and that doesn't try to bork your machine or get in
the way. An Oblivion-esque media check is just a little too easy,
however I hear CD-keys have worked to that end for many years for
multiplayer games...
> Well then what's the fucking point?! (pardon my French) ;^)
Oh, well 4.7 is child's play. Trying to circumvent the latest versions
often involves some very interesting computer calisthenics (ie, install
game, copy over crack that removes encryption, mount special image to
virtual drive, /disconnect physical drives from computer/, use stop
application to keep SecuROM driver from disabling virtual drive at
runtime; at this point, SecuROM will 'give up', read the virtual image
as the only possibility for legitimate media and run the game). That is,
until a complete crack comes out. ;)
> Okay, but that mechanism is fundamentally flawed and easily circumvented.
> Companies like Macrovision and Sony are preying on fears and selling snake oil
> as a cure.
Well, to be fair the fears are not unfounded: piracy is a real,
recognizable threat. What is most unfortunate however, is that the
response still seems to be "restrict, contain, mollify, mitigate"
instead of understanding the causes, developing a sense of brand loyalty
that brings consumers back, using schemes that /actually/ work to reduce
piracy, and above all else developing games that people want to *buy*,
not just to play.
Give the consumer the power. Stop piracy where it is fast, easy and
seamless to do so. Use psychology to defeat it everywhere else. Rinse,
repeat.
TheSmokingGnu
Dimensional Traveler
He can't be a boy scout then, they won't allow gays to join.
--
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08
Nostromo
2008 10:48:28 -0700, Anno Domini:
>Give the consumer the power. Stop piracy where it is fast, easy and
>seamless to do so. Use psychology to defeat it everywhere else. Rinse,
>repeat.
Great discourse guys. Nail, head, 50000 lbs/sq inch hydraulic hammer.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
12:58:55 -0700, Anno Domini:
>>>> Hear, hear Zag! Great fucking post (& I'm not just saying that
>>>> because I'm a copyright revolutionary >;-).
>>>
>>> Well, well. Thanks. I have added "copyright revolutionary" to my
>>> growing list of alternate names for "pirate"
>>
>> Beware, the boy scout is after your arse now...
>
>He can't be a boy scout then, they won't allow gays to join.
So, Father Clewlis then. Funny thing is, he must only read his own posts -
I've been using that one for years now lol!
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:16:04 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Mark Morrison
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:13:58 -0500, Michael Cecil <mac...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 10:36:38 +0000, Mark Morrison <bl...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Would you steal a car if the manufacturer had a new security system on
>>>>their latest model that you didn't like ?
>>>
>>>I might use my matter replicator to copy the car sans the security system
>>>and drive it around. Too bad you humans don't have access to that
>>>technology yet...
>>
>>So how many supermodels have you copied with it ?
>
>Skin jobs don't hump like the real thing. <EG>
LOL - with a slurpermodel, it's just tense, dead weight. If the matter copy
doesn't come out alive, at least it would be more relaxed. <VEG>
--
Nostromo
Andrew Rybenkov
> GCW claims that Bethesda is using StarForce on Russian copies
> of "Fallout 3,"
It is not decision of Bethesda, but rather local publishers' one.
They almost all use this crap/growth-ware.
I really do not like sounds my DVD-drive produces during Starforce's checks
(as if it is forced to do something very extreme),
so DaemonTools, no-cd cracks, etc is my way.
(BTW only The Witcher EE does it more or less right: one check in a few days.
Maybe it's specific to local edition).
--
Andrew Rybenkov
Lara Croft had died in The Last Revelation - say NO to impostors
CoinSpin
>
Yah, rethinking the whole thing... They can't even make a decent
sandwich during the "downtime" so it may be time to go back to the
drawing board...
Now, if I can just figure out the formula to create a compliant
supermodel, and have her turn into a pizza at midnight.......
TheSmokingGnu
> 40-year-old virgins always win because the DRM programmers have to contribute
> resources to other, more *ahem* pressing interests that the other side simply
> ignores or does not have.
Titties uber alles? :D
> Have you read _Cryptonomicon_? ;^)
No I haven't, but a trip to the local Repository of Human Knowledge is
overdue...
> Providing a truncated disc image whose only purpose is to falsify a license
> check? In my book, that's not "grey," that's clearly "black hat" behavior.
> Period.
Whoa whoa whoa there, who said anything about falsifying? I use short
images for most of my legit older games so that I don't have to use a
crack; what does the DRM care if the signal comes from a virtual drive
as from the physical CD? Like your daughter, it saves me the time
changing discs out of the drive and the wear-n'-tear thereof (without
losing all that HDD space to superfluous data).
Like a VCR (or DVR, damn you kids and your new-fangled technology),
short images have both their legitimate and illegitimate uses.
> Incidentally, sometimes "Mallory" and "Alice" are split personalities
> manifesting within the same woman. That's when it gets interesting.
(That would make her... Malice? <G>)
Contrariwise, sometimes Alice does the deed herself; the best example I
can think of is Egosoft and their X series of space games; they've
always included no-cd executables in their 'final' patches, when the
game has essentially run the retail cycle (Blizzard did it too for
Starcraft a while back, I'm sure there are others).
> There is no "acceptable collateral damage" in this business. A copy control
> program should NEVER even dream about potentially damaging hardware.
It's the risk with /any/ type of software, but even moreso in the dark
and foreboding areas of computing that DRM is forced to inhabit by
rather poor OS design. Only drivers are afforded the requisite levels of
memory security and runtime access to devices to be 'secure' enough (and
clearly, even that isn't truly secure), but that access also means
exposing the potential flaws or weaknesses of those devices, that
regular use may have never seen.
> Strangely enough, GCW claims that Bethesda is using StarForce on Russian copies
> of "Fallout 3," just to get somewhere near the topic again.
Would not surprise me, StarForce is often the defacto protection for
distribution to northern Asia Major where piracy sometimes exceeds 90%.
It does the job (but it doesn't matter much to the pirates; why use the
Russian version when you can pull a North American version using SecuROM
off the internet in a matter of hours and have a hundred copies burned
by next morning?).
> That's the original Safedisc. It did the job. I purchased CloneCD to backup my
> copy of Dungeon Keeper II. In my book, anything that requires a person to
> purchase specialized copy making software, like CloneCD, is sufficient to halt
> the "What's a DRM?" demographic.
Even simpler, return to the days of yore, whereupon the game asked for
the word at a specific page/line/number reference to start a new game?
Pirates will gleefully distribute the disc image, but how many times
have you seen them include the entire contents of the manual (even if
they had the facilities for OCR / scanning and made it into a PDF, how
many times has it been done?). No, their interest is the code, the
executable, but any looking for a free meal are sodded without the
(nicely bound, full 4-color printed acid paper) manual. :)
> All heavier DRM does, to my mind, is create a Prohibition-like "speakeasy"
> atmosphere where your counterculture is legitimized as a bunch of "goodfellas."
>
> And that's VERY Bad News (TM) for our culture.
And here I think it's Very Good News™ for our culture.
Some will always pirate for their own profit. Some will pirate because
it is the only reasonable access they have. And some pirate on
principle. But it is their combined effect that should spell out loud
and clear that /DRM does not work/, and that it only serves to
inconvenience legitimate consumers. DRM is not effective at stopping
/any/ type of piracy, period. Thus, DRM should be gotten rid of,
post-haste; the sooner that *everyone* is freed from the yoke, the better.
Then, companies gear their products towards encouraging and enticing
consumers to purchase them; we want them, /we are made to want them/,
because they are interesting, high-quality wares from trusted and
exalted names.
Then, companies actively work to get their stuff into the hands of as
many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Multiple distribution
channels and simultaneous worldwide releases become the norm; one price
for everyone, everywhere.
I see piracy as a mediating force between the producers and the
consumers. The consumers want things done differently, and the producers
must adapt themselves and their business practices to meet that demand
or else face destruction. It's now patently obvious that trying to
restrict and contain the 'problem' doesn't work; even viewing it as a
problem is silly. Consumers will get their hands on what they want one
way or another; ensure that it is with eagerly opened wallets, direct to
your coffers.
> (There are stories that Starforce's makers may actually have done this with Gal
> Civ 2.
Aside: I think they ended up a little more than rumors. Regardless, I
have never taken a single Stardock game; in fact, I downloaded a copy of
Sins of a Solar Empire, played the tutorial, remarked to myself in some
colorful language and immediately proceeded to find out how to procure
said game. That was my 'demo', but even that tiny taste was sufficient.
So, lessons learned: more demos!
MOAR!
> What will his mother think of him!?)
"Son, you didn't break 100K sales this quarter. Your father and I are
disowning you."
> |"*Our* company will demonstrate that its not your fault, in 50 page glossy
> |color dossiers and with hookers and blow. We will provide you with a product
> |that does not work, not EVER, and heartily say 'Atta boy! Go get them tharr
> |pirates!' This will allow you to cover your ass with your stockholders."
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it was black and white, 20lb.
double bond just folded over, some old crotchety lunchlady taking a
cigarette in the corner, and a whole lotta baking powder.
> The repeated actions of "smart" CEO's in response to this pitch proves to me
> that the MBA programs cannot teach business to save their lives
I hear numbers bandied about, that MBA programs are now teaching
students to operate on a 5-year-plan; get hired, wring as much profit
and bonus out of the company (using whatever methods necessary) as
possible, resign after the fifth year on your
bonus/pension/benefits/stock price, get hired somewhere else, rinse,
repeat. Try not to get caught by the gravity well as the company implodes.
> as this is a
> basic protection racket that your average shop keeper in the Bronx knows how to
> deal with.
>
> (*shrug*) Oh well. I'm sure you know *all* about this stuff. <G>
Eh, fuggedaboutit. :)
TheSmokingGnu
TheSmokingGnu
> It is a mediating force. What's bad is the breakdown of social separation
> between TRUE reprobates and the common, law-abiding person. It puts everyone
> down in the mud fast, which means that there's no longer anyone who can be an
> authority for "good" as everyone is demonstrably dirty.
I don't think there is such a thing as a law-abiding citizen. Certainly,
a majority of society follows some basic mores, and we tend to go along
with the big crimes, but I'm sure everyone has, for example, slid
through a stop sign rather than stopping completely, or sped when we
were late (and if you live in southern California, speeding is a matter
of course (and survival!)). These things are no less a crime, as the
judiciary defines it; speed on the wrong section of road, and you too
can wrap your brand-new Ferrari Enzo around a lamppost, or kill someone,
et cetera.
Furthermore, nothing like an authority for 'good' exists: society is
amoral, and how we choose to constrain ourselves is the definition of
'good' and 'evil' (or 'legal' and 'illegal', if you like). Authority
rests with a designated party, not because they are inherently one or
the other, or that they themselves are incorruptible, but because that's
just who society chooses.
So in short, crime is relative to societal perspective.
> But you never, ever want to blur the distinction between the two. That is
> called "corruption," which leads to "rot," which leads to "decline and fall."
>
> The culture assimilates the counterculture, and the reprobates get jealous and
> complain "They took our jobs!" Some past criminals become the pillars of the
> brave new society. That is the way it works if you want to *remain* a society.
If the counterculture necessarily arises out of the culture, and
inherits the majority of attributes from it, I don't know if they can
ever be called truly 'distinct'. Just as powerful, if you should ever
step beyond the status quo into the counter, then there is no going
back; you are irrevocably attached and associated. So, they are wholly
distinct in that regard, but from a moral or societal or physical
perspective, they are nearly indiscernible.
In the assimilation then, the two cultures are destroyed in order to
create some hybrid, but society itself isn't degraded by this act; it is
improved, else the counter would have withered and died without the
popular support. The act of assimilation, necessary to the continuation
of society, legitimizes the movement's actions as 'just' (or, as before,
as 'just' as society deems it to be so). In the end, all that is lost is
the reticence to change.
> There's a great scene in Henry the Fifth where Hal has to hang his old buddies
> from the inn (in IVth parts one and two) for theft, as he is now King, and the
> King has no choice but to uphold the laws. He has to forget Falstaff, too. He
> has less freedom because of his role of great power.
>
> That's the kind of effect I'm talking about.
It's also possible to see Hal's transformation as quasi-Machiavellism
(say THAT three times fast); he makes his villainous "friends" when it
suits his mood, and when he has attained his power, he just as quickly
discards them to further cement his legitimacy. He isn't abjured by his
station so much as obsessed with it (as much he takes it without
actually verifying his father's death).
So I suppose the question becomes: is it paying some abject lip service
while we skim the benefits off the top (ready to drop the banner the
moment we are enhanced by it), or is it trying to revolutionize the
thinking of people and business alike through passive proof of action?
> (On a personal note, whenever I play an Ultima game, I name the Avatar
> "Falstaff.") ;^)
Oh dear... :D
TheSmokingGnu
Leo
<anonymity...@1111011010011.com> blabbed:
> Certainly,
>a majority of society follows some basic mores, and we tend to go along
>with the big crimes, but I'm sure everyone has, for example, slid
>through a stop sign rather than stopping completely, or sped when we
>were late (and if you live in southern California, speeding is a matter
>of course (and survival!)). These things are no less a crime, as the
>judiciary defines it
Actually, these things *are* less of a crime, not a crime at
all in fact. For the most part, they are merely civil infractions.
Of course, such things could be an element in a crime (hit and run,
vehicular manslaughter, reckless driving, etc..). Applies to
copyright law as well, criminal copyright infringement versus civil.
One can land ya jail time, while the other cannot.
Anyways, one can be a lawbreaker w/out being a criminal. Not
all laws proscribing behavior are criminal laws. And of course, there
are degrees of criminality as well. Misdemeanor versus felony versus
capital offense. So even amongst crimes, some crimes *are* less of a
crime than others.
Not that any of this detracts from your point that there
aren't many saintly angels amongst us, or that what is 'good' is often
arbitrarily defined by the government/culture/society/cookie_monster,
but what can I say, I'm pedantic. Nor does it necessarily effect your
other points. So why did I post it if it has no real bearing on the
topic being discussed? I have no idea.
Leo
TheSmokingGnu
> Abide means "to tolerate," not "to obey." A "law-abiding citizen" is someone
> who assents to the rule of law, and accepts its consequences, if the law
> determines he should suffer them.
>
> It's not some fictional saint who turns themselves into the police after
> speeding by accident. A law-abiding citizen is just someone who cheerlessly
> pays the fine if they are caught.
>
Abide also means "to adhere" and "to maintain"; what of people who do
not accept the rule of law, but DO accept the consequences thereof? Are
they abiding or are they reprobationary?
By such definition, anyone that can claim "the law has power over me"
and "I will accept the consequences" is law-abiding, in spite of
whatever heinous crime they commit; further, they continue to be
"abiding" even until law enforcement catches up to them. That plays a
dangerous game on a slippery slope, far beyond the ideas of "innocent
until proven guilty" into something much worse.
The law-abiding citizen adheres to the tenets of the law (and precisely
/avoids/ the consequences in doing so); generally, people do so with the
'major' tenets (stealing, murder, fraud, etc.), but a truly law-abiding
citizen does not exist, because we all consider more minor infractions
as 'flexible'. That's all.
> *Modern* society is amoral, but only because it is based in ethics, and
> conditional interpretation of the law. Old Testament society, where you did
> something wrong and you were stoned for it, was not amoral.
You're confusing morals and ethics. A moral is the basic tenet of
philosophical thought ("I don't kill people"), and ethics are a system
of moral philosophy ("I don't kill people because I don't want to be
killed myself"). Ethics are built of morals, they're not separate entities.
All society is amoral because society is defined by the people within
it; thus, the rule of law comes about as a means to define a common
ethic, borne only of that society.
> No authority for "good?" The "common good?" We absolutely have authorities who
> strive to preserve the common good.
>
> People who attempt to "establish *Justice*, insure domestic *Tranquility*,
> provide for the common defense, promote the general *Welfare* and secure the
> *Blessings of Liberty* to ourselves and our *Posterity*."
>
> Every *Capitalized* word and phrase is a synonym for "Good."
> Do you seriously think no "authority" is attempting to promote and secure those
> ideals? :^(
But what is "the common good"? Justice? Tranquility? Welfare? Liberty?
Posterity?
Society defines these things for itself, and then strives to achieve
them. My point was that there isn't a universal sense of 'good' or
'evil', but what we make them ourselves. Our agencies promote these
ideas by those definitions alone, not through some greater sense of
morality.
> We've tried anarchy.
What!? When? I never get invited to the cool parties.... :(
> That's untrue in the U.S. For most infractions, you can pay your "debt to
> society" and be welcomed back. Fines, incarceration, and forced labor and/or
> education serve as payment.
>
> In *some* societies, you are branded for life, and there is no going back. Not
> ours. You can still do quite a lot and be accepted back.
Felons lose their voting rights, permanently marking them as outsiders
to nominal society.
Convicted sex offenders must register themselves with the state, inform
everyone they live next to of their status, they must live only in
certain places (and only if they aren't harassed out of the neighborhood
first), AND they have to inform any potential job of their status. They
are marked FOR LIFE.
Military personnel receiving a dishonorable discharge are in a similar boat.
For further example: Martin Luther King, Jr. is ALWAYS going to be
associated with the civil rights movement (not least because he's dead,
but because he is labeled and categorized by it). Anything he could have
done in his later years would never have broken that link.
Similarly, Mark Hamill will never /not/ be Luke Skywalker, no matter how
many voiceover jobs he takes.
> The local whorehouse or adult bookstore is physically discernable, and you
> can't do business in plain sight, not even in a bar. Even when its legal, you
> know it's taboo.
>
> Anything you couldn't tell or show your mother without feeling ashamed usually
> falls into the realm of taboo, and therefore counterculture.
But those are the physical effects of the counter, not the culture
itself. The culture is indiscernible, but the expression need not be.
See: tattoos, piercings, crazy hair styles, manner of dress, demeanor,
vocabulary and vernacular, professions, etc. etc. etc.
If I said "imagine a punk rocker", you have some built-up idea of what
I'm talking about. But strip away the accoutrements, put the same man in
a nice 3-piece suit with no piercings, trimmed hair, et cetera, and
suddenly the effects of his belief in a counterculture have vanished;
not his ideals, not his association (Johnny Rotten in a suit is still
Johnny Rotten), but the outward appearance alone.
> Anyone claiming it's "indiscernable" probably has dispensed with ethics because
> they are too lazy or incompetant to develop ethics in the first place, or have
> withdrawn from society to insulate themselves from shame.
>
> Otherwise, we all have to contend with what others think of us.
Some of us just don't degrade ourselves for the whims of others. It's a
self-esteem thing. :P
> No, I maintain that he has *no* choice. Motive doesn't matter. Such roles of
> power have *requirements* that must be met, or it will be a "black matter for
> the King..."
>
> Machiavelli's "The Prince" is a manual of some of those requirements.
> Machiavelli plainly explains what "appearances" (and they are merely
> appearances) the Prince must maintain to secure the assent of the people.
>
> Thus, accepting any role of authority means accepting shackles. There are
> requirements and duties.
>
> Back to Shakespeare. If Henry V *doesn't* hang them, he is a failure as a King,
> not as a man. The *relevant* hypocrisy would be treating his old friends
> differently than others when he is the physical embodiment of the law, which is
> not allowed to distinguish between friend and stranger.
>
> He *is* the law, and must behave as the law. It is a tragic moment.
On the contrary, and you bring up this important point, that as the
King, Henry need only create the *appearance* of compliance with his
regal duties. It is not actually necessary to hang his compatriots
(perhaps have them arrested and sequestered, exiled or other sundry
possibilities) but in destroying them he has the power to destroy the
one vital link that ties him to that counterculture. In breaking that
bond, Henry is again the most pristine and innocent patriarch, devoid of
such corruption.
It is a chance for Henry to seize all the power that is now his, and
assert himself (and only himself). It /is/ tragic, but only by Henry's
loss of humanity in lust for authority.
> I think you probably fail to empathize with people who are in positions of
> authority, or wish to deny that such persons should exist at all. Do you think
> authority is always wrong?
If I empathized with them, it wouldn't be a thankless job, now would it?
>.>
And ideally speaking, such people shouldn't have to exist. Everyone
would follow the law or else follow it until legal redress is made to
amend it. But that doesn't happen in the real world; they exist as a
necessity of human nature.
My point was more local though, as in "you and I"; are we skimming the
benefits of the battle between DRM and piracy off the top, ready to
dismiss and denounce our 'revolutionaries' when the political or legal
climate is no longer favorable? Are we recognizing the achievements of
said battle in changing thoughts on the matter, while lamenting the
possible detriment to society?
Are we pursuing this avenue because it suits our demand for power and
authority over a situation of which we have none (like Henry)? Do we
embrace the change the counterculture brings, or else use it while it
lasts, or else dismiss it and withdraw our support, damning it to moral
oblivion?
TheSmokingGnu