🚀 go-pugleaf

After giggling like a school girl, on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:41:50 GMT,
john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) wrote:

>"As many of you know, games released on GOG never come with any kind
>of DRM protection"

And Steam games don't either, unless the game vendor specifically adds
DRM (or the less fortunate case that the buyer is too stupid to know
the difference between authentication and DRM).

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:41:50 +0400, John Lewis <john...@frontier.com> wrote:

> BTW, you can indeed now preorder the game on GOG.... DRM-free, of
> course....
>

for your further amusement all those Russian comments on the page are basically:
"Fuck Gog, get the game to Steam". No kidding.


-- 
Andrew Rybenkov

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:01:18 +0400, "Andrew Rybenkov"
<aryb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:41:50 +0400, John Lewis <john...@frontier.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW, you can indeed now preorder the game on GOG.... DRM-free, of
>> course....
>>
>
>for your further amusement all those Russian comments on the page are basically:
>"Fuck Gog, get the game to Steam". No kidding.

I keep seeing these videos of Russians increasingly mounting dash cams
because they can't trust the corrupt police or even fellow citizens to
not jump out in front of their car in search for an insurance claim.  

Can you blame them for not trusting GOG after they pulled that "going
out of business" stunt, just to demonstrate to their customers what a
great sense of humor they have? 

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:24:58 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:01:18 +0400, "Andrew Rybenkov"
><aryb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:41:50 +0400, John Lewis <john...@frontier.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, you can indeed now preorder the game on GOG.... DRM-free, of
>>> course....
>>>
>>
>>for your further amusement all those Russian comments on the page are basically:
>>"Fuck Gog, get the game to Steam". No kidding.
>
>I keep seeing these videos of Russians increasingly mounting dash cams
>because they can't trust the corrupt police or even fellow citizens to
>not jump out in front of their car in search for an insurance claim.  
>
>Can you blame them for not trusting GOG after they pulled that "going
>out of business" stunt, just to demonstrate to their customers what a
>great sense of humor they have? 
>
Hey, Rin Tintin...

Can't you do any better than pull up of that 3-year-old misbegotten
marketing stunt again...

John Lewis

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:45:59 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:

>Can't you do any better than pull up of that 3-year-old misbegotten
>marketing stunt again...

I'll take a misbegotten marketing stunt at the rate of once every
three years in exchange for your misbegotten anti-Steam rants at the
rate of once every couple of weeks, if I'm given the choice.

How are the meds going?  Doesn't seem like you're getting your moneys
worth.  Not combining them with paint huffing against doctors orders
again are ya?

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:11:51 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:47:12 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Rin
>Stowleigh wrote: 
>
>>After giggling like a school girl, on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:41:50 GMT,
>>john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) wrote:
>>
>>>"As many of you know, games released on GOG never come with any kind
>>>of DRM protection"
>>
>>And Steam games don't either, unless the game vendor specifically adds
>>DRM (or the less fortunate case that the buyer is too stupid to know
>>the difference between authentication and DRM).
>
>Only one man has that level of intelligence...
>

... or chronic delusion ???

That man is much closer to this newsgroup than Amazon, who quite
happily and honestly inform their customers of the DRM present in all
their download and boxed games. Look for "DRM: Steam" or "Steam-DRM"
in the case of those games requiring Steam. Or you might very (not
happily) see Steam-DRM followed by "U-Play" or Games for Windows" in
the Amazon product description of those releases with the "Steam +
Other" double-dose of DRM affecting many of the current high-profile
Steam releases.

John Lewis


>-- 
>Zag
>
>No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
>spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:58:12 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:11:51 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:47:12 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Rin
>>Stowleigh wrote: 
>>
>>>After giggling like a school girl, on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:41:50 GMT,
>>>john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) wrote:
>>>
>>>>"As many of you know, games released on GOG never come with any kind
>>>>of DRM protection"
>>>
>>>And Steam games don't either, unless the game vendor specifically adds
>>>DRM (or the less fortunate case that the buyer is too stupid to know
>>>the difference between authentication and DRM).
>>
>>Only one man has that level of intelligence...
>>
>
>... or chronic delusion ???
>
>That man is much closer to this newsgroup than Amazon, who quite
>happily and honestly inform their customers of the DRM present in all
>their download and boxed games. Look for "DRM: Steam" or "Steam-DRM"
>in the case of those games requiring Steam. Or you might very (not
>happily) see Steam-DRM followed by "U-Play" or Games for Windows" in
>the Amazon product description of those releases with the "Steam +
>Other" double-dose of DRM affecting many of the current high-profile
>Steam releases.
>
>John Lewis


Sticking your hands down the pants of one of my many kill-filees for a
tug-a-boo I see.  Well just remember the floaters that got flushed
received what they did for a reason.  Now they are forever sentenced
to follow me from thread to thread, making what I write their new
religion as they dutifully follow me, yet I only occasionally have to
smell the likes of them when someone quotes them, and even then I
rarely read their drivel.

Are you really surprised that a competitor of Steam would potentially
label products available through both services in a way that benefits
them more than Steam?  Amazon benefits by putting a negative spin on
Steam by calling the authentication portion DRM.  I knew you were
well-medicated but I really thought you were smart enough to recognize
that much.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:01:18 +0400, "Andrew Rybenkov"
<aryb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:41:50 +0400, John Lewis <john...@frontier.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW, you can indeed now preorder the game on GOG.... DRM-free, of
>> course....
>>
>
>for your further amusement all those Russian comments on the page are basically:
>"Fuck Gog, get the game to Steam". No kidding.
>
>

Really ? Can you point me to "all those Russian comments ......" on
the Steam comment pages on  "Eador: Masters..." for March 2013?  Maybe
they are buried in the older history pages.... 

The Russian-language comments on the March pages seemed only to be
very concerned about the potential presence of Starforce in any
distribution,  GOG will not allow any DRM, but wouldn't it be comical
if the Steam distribution also included the "download" version of
Starforce 'authentication'..... besides Steam-DRM, of course.

John Lewis

>-- 
>Andrew Rybenkov

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:11:10 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:58:12 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:11:51 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:47:12 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Rin
>>>Stowleigh wrote: 
>>>
>>>>After giggling like a school girl, on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:41:50 GMT,
>>>>john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"As many of you know, games released on GOG never come with any kind
>>>>>of DRM protection"
>>>>
>>>>And Steam games don't either, unless the game vendor specifically adds
>>>>DRM (or the less fortunate case that the buyer is too stupid to know
>>>>the difference between authentication and DRM).
>>>
>>>Only one man has that level of intelligence...
>>>
>>
>>... or chronic delusion ???
>>
>>That man is much closer to this newsgroup than Amazon, who quite
>>happily and honestly inform their customers of the DRM present in all
>>their download and boxed games. Look for "DRM: Steam" or "Steam-DRM"
>>in the case of those games requiring Steam. Or you might very (not
>>happily) see Steam-DRM followed by "U-Play" or Games for Windows" in
>>the Amazon product description of those releases with the "Steam +
>>Other" double-dose of DRM affecting many of the current high-profile
>>Steam releases.
>>
>>John Lewis
>
>
>Sticking your hands down the pants of one of my many kill-filees for a
>tug-a-boo I see.  Well just remember the floaters that got flushed
>received what they did for a reason.  Now they are forever sentenced
>to follow me from thread to thread, making what I write their new
>religion as they dutifully follow me, yet I only occasionally have to
>smell the likes of them when someone quotes them, and even then I
>rarely read their drivel.
>
>Are you really surprised that a competitor of Steam would potentially
>label products available through both services in a way that benefits
>them more than Steam?  Amazon benefits by putting a negative spin on
>Steam by calling the authentication portion DRM.  I knew you were
>well-medicated but I really thought you were smart enough to recognize
>that much.

Now you really don't make logical sense.....

Amazon is a retailer in the business of making money on their PC games
distribution. They sell Steam-DRM games from third-party publishers,
just like Valve. They offer both boxed and download services and
document the DRM "as it is"..completely....   Many of their download
games currently have Steam-DRM (with or without another DRM layer).
Any Amazon downloads that have Steam-DRM present do not have a
non-Steam Amazon download-alternative... at least I have not seen one.
So exactly how does the mention of  Steam-DRM benefit an Amazon
download sale over Valve,  if there is no alternative??

The boxed games, OTOH, generally offer just ONE type of DRM, either
that provided by Steam (e.g Skyrim) OR that provided by the retail
distributor (e.g: Uplay, Far Cry 3), no DRM-layering   Amazon  sells
all. Of course, if one buys the retail version without Steam-DRM, one
then might have to download patches from the distributor site (or a
third-party) instead of the 'convenience' of Valve's autopatching -
not so convenient if/when it is involuntarily imposed over a
low-bandwidth Internet connection....

Amazon is quite flexible with their pricing and deals. It makes sense
to buy a Steam-DRM game from Amazon if/when the deal is competitive
with other retailers such as Valve.  About half of my Steam collection
has come from sellers other than Valve, because at the time, "the
price was right", not at all because of any "hatred for Valve".

John Lewis

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:49:45 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:45:59 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>wrote:
>
>>Can't you do any better than pull up of that 3-year-old misbegotten
>>marketing stunt again...
>
>I'll take a misbegotten marketing stunt at the rate of once every
>three years in exchange for your misbegotten anti-Steam rants at the
>rate of once every couple of weeks, if I'm given the choice.
>
>How are the meds going?  Doesn't seem like you're getting your moneys
>worth.  Not combining them with paint huffing against doctors orders
>again are ya?


Run out of logical arguments again ? Back to the personal insults ?
How sad.  

Methinks you should killfile me. Then my replies to your postings
would not cause you to waste any more of your valuable time in
creating responses

 I guarantee that my kill-filed replies will not stoop to belittling
insults. However, I might have a little fun with your "screen-name" on
these newsgroups.

John Lewis

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:19:52 +0400, John Lewis <john...@frontier.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:01:18 +0400, "Andrew Rybenkov"
> <aryb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:41:50 +0400, John Lewis <john...@frontier.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, you can indeed now preorder the game on GOG.... DRM-free, of
>>> course....
>>>
>>
>> for your further amusement all those Russian comments on the page are basically:
>> "Fuck Gog, get the game to Steam". No kidding.
>>
>>
>
> Really ? Can you point me to "all those Russian comments ......" on
> the Steam comment pages on  "Eador: Masters..." for March 2013?  Maybe
> they are buried in the older history pages....
>
> The Russian-language comments on the March pages seemed only to be
> very concerned about the potential presence of Starforce in any
> distribution,  GOG will not allow any DRM, but wouldn't it be comical
> if the Steam distribution also included the "download" version of
> Starforce 'authentication'..... besides Steam-DRM, of course.
>


★Idol☆  6 hours ago
  вот-вот!!!

FEST  6 hours ago
  нахуй гог, давайте в стим.

Crank  3 hours ago
  Это хорошо, добивайтесь выхода игры и в Steam!

★Idol☆  2 hours ago
  Лучше бы написали когда будет доступен предзаказ в Steam!??? я бы предзаказал!

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/updates/93959913/1363961881

-- 
Andrew Rybenkov

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:10:57 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:49:45 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:45:59 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Can't you do any better than pull up of that 3-year-old misbegotten
>>>marketing stunt again...
>>
>>I'll take a misbegotten marketing stunt at the rate of once every
>>three years in exchange for your misbegotten anti-Steam rants at the
>>rate of once every couple of weeks, if I'm given the choice.
>>
>>How are the meds going?  Doesn't seem like you're getting your moneys
>>worth.  Not combining them with paint huffing against doctors orders
>>again are ya?
>
>
>Run out of logical arguments again ? Back to the personal insults ?
>How sad.  
>
>Methinks you should killfile me. Then my replies to your postings
>would not cause you to waste any more of your valuable time in
>creating responses
>
> I guarantee that my kill-filed replies will not stoop to belittling
>insults. However, I might have a little fun with your "screen-name" on
>these newsgroups.

Is that an official request?  If so, then noted, and I will keep it
under consideration.

The folks who have been killfiled got where they are because of
*intentional* douchebaggery.  I truly believe yours is unintentional,
and prescription meds and other issues beyond your control are
responsible for a considerable amount of it.  As I've said before, you
do have some redeeming things to say when in the rare state of not
ranting against Valve, so to be honest you haven't even been in the
aiming reticle for a  killfiling.  I actually try to refrain from
killfiling people wherever possible, because it can muck up the
threads when folks reply to the killfilees.

As I've said in the past though, I do accept requests for killfiling
and take each one into careful consideration, so if that's what you
really want, then your  request has been noted for future review.
However if your request is an evasive action to avoid ongoing
ball-busting by yours truly, I'm afraid it will be ineffective.  A
unilateral killfile job means I will still be able to bust your balls,
yet won't have to read your feeble attempts to do same.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 01:14:07 +0400, "Andrew Rybenkov"
<aryb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>T24gU2F0LCAyMyBNYXIgMjAxMyAwMDoxOTo1MiArMDQwMCwgSm9obiBMZXdpcyA8
>am9obi5kc2xAZnJvbnRpZXIuY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBPbiBGcmksIDIyIE1h
>ciAyMDEzIDIzOjAxOjE4ICswNDAwLCAiQW5kcmV3IFJ5YmVua292Ig0KPiA8YXJ5
>YmVua292QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+DQo+PiBPbiBGcmksIDIyIE1hciAy
>MDEzIDIyOjQxOjUwICswNDAwLCBKb2huIExld2lzIDxqb2huLmRzbEBmcm9udGll
>ci5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4NCj4+PiBCVFcsIHlvdSBjYW4gaW5kZWVkIG5vdyBw
>cmVvcmRlciB0aGUgZ2FtZSBvbiBHT0cuLi4uIERSTS1mcmVlLCBvZg0KPj4+IGNv
....................... etc...

I'm sure this chunk of gibberish (that I have truncated) has some
code-related meaning, but since I am using a text-only newsreader and
am not inclined to dig further, maye you could elucidate?

John Lewis

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:50:28 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:10:57 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:49:45 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:45:59 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Can't you do any better than pull up of that 3-year-old misbegotten
>>>>marketing stunt again...
>>>
>>>I'll take a misbegotten marketing stunt at the rate of once every
>>>three years in exchange for your misbegotten anti-Steam rants at the
>>>rate of once every couple of weeks, if I'm given the choice.
>>>
>>>How are the meds going?  Doesn't seem like you're getting your moneys
>>>worth.  Not combining them with paint huffing against doctors orders
>>>again are ya?
>>
>>
>>Run out of logical arguments again ? Back to the personal insults ?
>>How sad.  
>>
>>Methinks you should killfile me. Then my replies to your postings
>>would not cause you to waste any more of your valuable time in
>>creating responses
>>
>> I guarantee that my kill-filed replies will not stoop to belittling
>>insults. However, I might have a little fun with your "screen-name" on
>>these newsgroups.
>
>Is that an official request?  If so, then noted, and I will keep it
>under consideration.
>
>The folks who have been killfiled got where they are because of
>*intentional* douchebaggery.  I truly believe yours is unintentional,
>and prescription meds and other issues beyond your control are
>responsible for a considerable amount of it.  As I've said before, you
>do have some redeeming things to say when in the rare state of not
>ranting against Valve, so to be honest you haven't even been in the
>aiming reticle for a  killfiling.  I actually try to refrain from
>killfiling people wherever possible, because it can muck up the
>threads when folks reply to the killfilees.
>
>As I've said in the past though, I do accept requests for killfiling
>and take each one into careful consideration, so if that's what you
>really want, then your  request has been noted for future review.
>However if your request is an evasive action to avoid ongoing
>ball-busting by yours truly, I'm afraid it will be ineffective.  A
>unilateral killfile job means I will still be able to bust your balls,
>yet won't have to read your feeble attempts to do same.
>
>

Still trying to be the big quack in this little duck-pond ?

Were you also the school-yard bully in your youth? 

John Lewis

On 22/03/2013 8:34 PM, John Lewis wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 01:14:07 +0400, "Andrew Rybenkov"
> <aryb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> T24gU2F0LCAyMyBNYXIgMjAxMyAwMDoxOTo1MiArMDQwMCwgSm9obiBMZXdpcyA8
>> am9obi5kc2xAZnJvbnRpZXIuY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBPbiBGcmksIDIyIE1h
>> ciAyMDEzIDIzOjAxOjE4ICswNDAwLCAiQW5kcmV3IFJ5YmVua292Ig0KPiA8YXJ5
>> YmVua292QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+DQo+PiBPbiBGcmksIDIyIE1hciAy
>> MDEzIDIyOjQxOjUwICswNDAwLCBKb2huIExld2lzIDxqb2huLmRzbEBmcm9udGll
>> ci5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4NCj4+PiBCVFcsIHlvdSBjYW4gaW5kZWVkIG5vdyBw
>> cmVvcmRlciB0aGUgZ2FtZSBvbiBHT0cuLi4uIERSTS1mcmVlLCBvZg0KPj4+IGNv
> ....................... etc...
>
> I'm sure this chunk of gibberish (that I have truncated) has some
> code-related meaning, but since I am using a text-only newsreader and
> am not inclined to dig further, maye you could elucidate?
>
> John Lewis
>

It's a UTF encoding of his answer, which was a bunch of examples of 
Russian comments in Cyrillic. Thunderbird could handle it, but, sorry, 
Andrew, USENET is supposed to be ASCII only.

I think I figured out which one was 'F** GOG, get it from Steam"

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:44:48 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:50:28 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:10:57 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:49:45 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:45:59 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Can't you do any better than pull up of that 3-year-old misbegotten
>>>>>marketing stunt again...
>>>>
>>>>I'll take a misbegotten marketing stunt at the rate of once every
>>>>three years in exchange for your misbegotten anti-Steam rants at the
>>>>rate of once every couple of weeks, if I'm given the choice.
>>>>
>>>>How are the meds going?  Doesn't seem like you're getting your moneys
>>>>worth.  Not combining them with paint huffing against doctors orders
>>>>again are ya?
>>>
>>>
>>>Run out of logical arguments again ? Back to the personal insults ?
>>>How sad.  
>>>
>>>Methinks you should killfile me. Then my replies to your postings
>>>would not cause you to waste any more of your valuable time in
>>>creating responses
>>>
>>> I guarantee that my kill-filed replies will not stoop to belittling
>>>insults. However, I might have a little fun with your "screen-name" on
>>>these newsgroups.
>>
>>Is that an official request?  If so, then noted, and I will keep it
>>under consideration.
>>
>>The folks who have been killfiled got where they are because of
>>*intentional* douchebaggery.  I truly believe yours is unintentional,
>>and prescription meds and other issues beyond your control are
>>responsible for a considerable amount of it.  As I've said before, you
>>do have some redeeming things to say when in the rare state of not
>>ranting against Valve, so to be honest you haven't even been in the
>>aiming reticle for a  killfiling.  I actually try to refrain from
>>killfiling people wherever possible, because it can muck up the
>>threads when folks reply to the killfilees.
>>
>>As I've said in the past though, I do accept requests for killfiling
>>and take each one into careful consideration, so if that's what you
>>really want, then your  request has been noted for future review.
>>However if your request is an evasive action to avoid ongoing
>>ball-busting by yours truly, I'm afraid it will be ineffective.  A
>>unilateral killfile job means I will still be able to bust your balls,
>>yet won't have to read your feeble attempts to do same.
>>
>>
>
>Still trying to be the big quack in this little duck-pond ?

You keep your hands off my quawk, perv.

john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) writes:
> I'm sure this chunk of gibberish (that I have truncated) has some
> code-related meaning, but since I am using a text-only newsreader

FWIW, his post displays fine in this text-only newsreader...

I imagine the real issue is that your newsreader doesn't grok MIME, or
can't handle UTF-8.

-miles

-- 
Would you like fries with that?

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:35:12 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:

>john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) writes:
>> I'm sure this chunk of gibberish (that I have truncated) has some
>> code-related meaning, but since I am using a text-only newsreader
>
>FWIW, his post displays fine in this text-only newsreader...
>
>I imagine the real issue is that your newsreader doesn't grok MIME, or
>can't handle UTF-8.
>
>-miles

Sorry but all attempts thus far are wrong..

It's simply Base 64 encoding.

I'm not sure how it got there, and that could be because I've
killfiled most of the people in this newsgroup with a 2-digit IQ
already and could be missing a post (I'm keeping John around for
entertainment value, if anyone wondered).

If you take the characters and Base64 unencode to a readable format of
choice, it is simply:

"On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:19:52 +0400, John Lewis
<john...@frontier.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:01:18 +0400, "Andrew Rybenkov"
> <aryb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:41:50 +0400, John Lewis <john...@frontier.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, you can indeed now preorder the game on GOG.... DRM-free, of
>>> co"


Like I said I don't know how that snippet got there but I think John
confused himself as usual.

Jeezus H Fuck, am I really the only one here who recognized that
instantly?  We need to get you guys some technical skills.  :)

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> writes:
>>FWIW, his post displays fine in this text-only newsreader...
>>
>>I imagine the real issue is that your newsreader doesn't grok MIME, or
>>can't handle UTF-8.
>
> Sorry but all attempts thus far are wrong..
>
> It's simply Base 64 encoding.

It's MIME base-64 transfer-encoding; from the headers:

     Mime-Version: 1.0
     Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
     Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64

A typical newsreader than can handle MIME will transparently decode it
without any user intervention (this one certainly does).

-miles

-- 
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human
affairs has always been dominant and controlling.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:35:12 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:

>john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) writes:
>> I'm sure this chunk of gibberish (that I have truncated) has some
>> code-related meaning, but since I am using a text-only newsreader
>
>FWIW, his post displays fine in this text-only newsreader...
>
>I imagine the real issue is that your newsreader doesn't grok MIME, or
>can't handle UTF-8.
>

Straight text.  Ultimate for keeping maliciousness away from
computers....

I suggest that Andrew alternately reply-post the URLs of the
respective anti-GOG Eador Steam-comment page(s).

There were no Russian or English anti-GOG comments in the  first 6
pages (Feb-March 2013) postings present on the " Eador: Masters..... "
Steam comment page as viewed here in the US. Maybe Steam filters some
of the Russian comments before we see them in the US?

Starforce seemed to be the hot issue with the recent Russian comments.
Saw only two GOG-relevant Russian comments for Feb-March: One  was
that GOG was going to carry the game and thus Starforce was not likely
to be an issue with the GOG release. The second relevant Russian
posting mentioned that the game was going to be carried on GOG and
wished that it would be also carried on Steam. Just a wish. No
complaint.

John Lewis

>-miles
>
>-- 
>Would you like fries with that?

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 14:19:29 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:

>Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>FWIW, his post displays fine in this text-only newsreader...
>>>
>>>I imagine the real issue is that your newsreader doesn't grok MIME, or
>>>can't handle UTF-8.
>>
>> Sorry but all attempts thus far are wrong..
>>
>> It's simply Base 64 encoding.
>
>It's MIME base-64 transfer-encoding; from the headers:
>
>     Mime-Version: 1.0
>     Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>     Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64

MIME, in this case is sort of like the type of envelope the message
was sent in (i.e. it's really referring to the equivalent of
"attachment protocol").  UTF-8 can be best thought of as "how many
bytes will it really take to move across the wire" and has nothing to
do with the actual contents in this case (see minor caveat below).

John's message was asking about the message itself, the "chunk of
gibberish" with "code-related meaning" as he put it (almost spit my
drink cracking up typing that).

In other words, its just like recognizing Spanish when you see it and
distinguishing it from French or anything else.  The characters were
very clearly expressed in Base64 and it really made no difference
whether it was being expressed in UTF-8, UTF-16 or anything else. MIME
is simply the mechanism used to attach it to the message and not
related to the contents.  UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32 et all has more to do
with how many bytes you need to cram the information into than it does
the information itself.

A string of Base64 encoded text is what it is.  Unless it's encrypted
it is straight forward to convert as long as you recognize what it is,
that's all I'm saying.

Since he's using an antiquated newsreader (Forte Agent v1.11!  LOL!  I
think he got a retro discount on GOG), there is a remote possibility
that he is seeing something different than he posted, but I doubt it.
I'm sure he saw the (even granny-newsreader friendly text) starting
with "T24gU2F0LCAyMyBN".

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 05:29:59 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:35:12 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>>john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) writes:
>>> I'm sure this chunk of gibberish (that I have truncated) has some
>>> code-related meaning, but since I am using a text-only newsreader
>>
>>FWIW, his post displays fine in this text-only newsreader...
>>
>>I imagine the real issue is that your newsreader doesn't grok MIME, or
>>can't handle UTF-8.
>>
>
>Straight text.  Ultimate for keeping maliciousness away from
>computers....

LOL!!!!  It's getting better and better...

>I suggest that Andrew alternately reply-post the URLs of the
>respective anti-GOG Eador Steam-comment page(s).

So, despite the fact that you're afraid of allowing UTF-8 (despite the
fact that is what the rest of your system is using, as opposed to
"straight text" for just about everything (still laughing), you're now
saying you have Cyrillic fonts installed and ready to go in case he
did?  How did you plan to read the Russian comments he mentioned?

john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 01:14:07 +0400, "Andrew Rybenkov"
><aryb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>T24gU2F0LCAyMyBNYXIgMjAxMyAwMDoxOTo1MiArMDQwMCwgSm9obiBMZXdpcyA8
>>am9obi5kc2xAZnJvbnRpZXIuY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBPbiBGcmksIDIyIE1h
>>ciAyMDEzIDIzOjAxOjE4ICswNDAwLCAiQW5kcmV3IFJ5YmVua292Ig0KPiA8YXJ5
>>YmVua292QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+DQo+PiBPbiBGcmksIDIyIE1hciAy
>>MDEzIDIyOjQxOjUwICswNDAwLCBKb2huIExld2lzIDxqb2huLmRzbEBmcm9udGll
>>ci5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4NCj4+PiBCVFcsIHlvdSBjYW4gaW5kZWVkIG5vdyBw
>>cmVvcmRlciB0aGUgZ2FtZSBvbiBHT0cuLi4uIERSTS1mcmVlLCBvZg0KPj4+IGNv
>....................... etc...
>
>I'm sure this chunk of gibberish (that I have truncated) has some
>code-related meaning, but since I am using a text-only newsreader and
>am not inclined to dig further, maye you could elucidate?

Press ctrl+R to view in raw message mode, which is how I have Agent set
up to view by default.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On 23/03/2013 03:55, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:11:10 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Rin
> Stowleigh wrote:
>
>> Sticking your hands down the pants of one of my many kill-filees for a
>> tug-a-boo I see.  Well just remember the floaters that got flushed
>> received what they did for a reason.  Now they are forever sentenced
>> to follow me from thread to thread, making what I write their new
>> religion as they dutifully follow me, yet I only occasionally have to
>> smell the likes of them when someone quotes them, and even then I
>> rarely read their drivel.
>
> Says the man who never fails to reply when I'm quoted. Have fun with your
> solo tug you rude, classless son of a bitch. At least I can get gay
> reacharounds. ;^)
>

Correction: Reads your posts and then waits for you to be posted ...

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:23:00 +0400, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Andrew, you might want to reconfigure Opera to send plaintext,
> and see if it comes through properly.

Well, I think, it's much better for anyone who use a crappy newsreader to switch
to proper news/RSS/mail reader. Like Opera M2, for example, or Outlook Express in case
of older OS, and if you don't use yenc. There are really only few proper readers.

-- 
Andrew Rybenkov

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:59:43 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

>john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) looked up from reading the entrails
>of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 01:14:07 +0400, "Andrew Rybenkov"
>><aryb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>T24gU2F0LCAyMyBNYXIgMjAxMyAwMDoxOTo1MiArMDQwMCwgSm9obiBMZXdpcyA8
>>>am9obi5kc2xAZnJvbnRpZXIuY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBPbiBGcmksIDIyIE1h
>>>ciAyMDEzIDIzOjAxOjE4ICswNDAwLCAiQW5kcmV3IFJ5YmVua292Ig0KPiA8YXJ5
>>>YmVua292QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+DQo+PiBPbiBGcmksIDIyIE1hciAy
>>>MDEzIDIyOjQxOjUwICswNDAwLCBKb2huIExld2lzIDxqb2huLmRzbEBmcm9udGll
>>>ci5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4NCj4+PiBCVFcsIHlvdSBjYW4gaW5kZWVkIG5vdyBw
>>>cmVvcmRlciB0aGUgZ2FtZSBvbiBHT0cuLi4uIERSTS1mcmVlLCBvZg0KPj4+IGNv
>>....................... etc...
>>
>>I'm sure this chunk of gibberish (that I have truncated) has some
>>code-related meaning, but since I am using a text-only newsreader and
>>am not inclined to dig further, maye you could elucidate?
>
>Press ctrl+R to view in raw message mode, which is how I have Agent set
>up to view by default.
>
>Xocyll

The big mystery here for me, is that I never even saw the message that
John was referring to (I just saw the Base64 snippet he posted and
converted it).  

Apparently there was a followup by Andrew in response to John's
request for quoted Russian comments?

I would say my usenet server somehow dropped it, but John is using the
same provider I am.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:45:03 +0400, "Andrew Rybenkov"
<aryb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, I think, it's much better for anyone who use a crappy newsreader to switch
>to proper news/RSS/mail reader. Like Opera M2, for example, or Outlook Express in case
>of older OS, and if you don't use yenc. There are really only few proper readers.

Agent is a proper news reader. His version is out of date. Laughably
out of date in fact.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:10:51 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The big mystery here for me, is that I never even saw the message that
>John was referring to (I just saw the Base64 snippet he posted and
>converted it).  
>
>Apparently there was a followup by Andrew in response to John's
>request for quoted Russian comments?
>
>I would say my usenet server somehow dropped it, but John is using the
>same provider I am.

I never saw it either. I am just assuming John's ancient news reader
has something to do with it.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:21:32 -0400, Mike S. <Mik...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:10:51 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The big mystery here for me, is that I never even saw the message that
>>John was referring to (I just saw the Base64 snippet he posted and
>>converted it).  
>>
>>Apparently there was a followup by Andrew in response to John's
>>request for quoted Russian comments?
>>
>>I would say my usenet server somehow dropped it, but John is using the
>>same provider I am.
>
>I never saw it either. I am just assuming John's ancient news reader
>has something to do with it.

Hmm.  Possible.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:54:33 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:21:32 -0400, Mike S. <Mik...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:10:51 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The big mystery here for me, is that I never even saw the message that
>>>John was referring to (I just saw the Base64 snippet he posted and
>>>converted it).  
>>>
>>>Apparently there was a followup by Andrew in response to John's
>>>request for quoted Russian comments?
>>>
>>>I would say my usenet server somehow dropped it, but John is using the
>>>same provider I am.
>>
>>I never saw it either. I am just assuming John's ancient news reader
>>has something to do with it.
>
>Hmm.  Possible.


Andrew has not yet replied to my request for the URL references to the
anti-GOG Russian user-comments on the Eador Steam pages, but there is
always hope. And if the reply got lost, maybe he might consider
posting it again?

As far as decoding anything other than plain-text on these newsgroups
I have no interest. There was a time long since past ( thank goodness)
that some posters used to gobble many pages of posting by
binary-to-text encoding (of game patches, or whatever)  on these
newsgroups instead of posting to the appropriate binary newsgroup....
and quite a few of these posters continued to gobble bandwidth
(precious at that time) on text-only newsgroups regardless of repeated
requests to refrain.

These newsgroups are still intended for text-only communication, so I
have zero interest on upgrading (or adjusting) my usenet newsreader to
read anything other than plain-text on these groups. My antique usenet
newsreader has served me with impeccable reliability over the years.

Many apologies for involuntarily stimulating a long off-topic
under-thread here.

John Lewis

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:45:15 +0400, John Lewis <john...@frontier.com> wrote:

> Andrew has not yet replied to my request for the URL references to the
> anti-GOG Russian user-comments on the Eador Steam pages

are you sure?

-- 
Andrew Rybenkov

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:02:31 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 07:23:00 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Zaghadka wrote: 
>
>>1992 called, and it wants its data transfer problem back.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Yikes.
>
>I've done some research, and Agent still has the goofy .COD conversion
>files right up to the present version, and no actual direct Unicode
>support that I could find. I  never had a need to use it, so I never
>checked. There's all sorts of options to use, or allow use of UTF-8, in
>"languages," but it's broken. So it looks like no amount of upgrading
>will fix Forte's sorry kludge of Unicode "support."
>
>So even when it converts the Base64 properly to UTF-8, as version 3.3 and
>7.0 do, Agent's internal code page conversion is going to read the UTF-8
>and turn it into "???????????" because it doesn't match some arbitrary
>256 character code page. Which is exactly what happened in my case.
>
>This happens even if I choose UTF-8 as my "default charset" (Note: UTF-8
>is not a character set, that's what the Universal Character Set is). Even
>if I tell it to send messages in UTF-8, or "allow" UTF-8, Agent has it's
>own panoply of code pages from the 1980's, and diligently and efficiently
>breaks Unicode by ignoring anything that doesn't match the particular
>single page you've chosen to load. It doesn't ship with a real UTF-8
>option, near as I can tell. It lets you use UTF-8, but only insofar that
>you can convert it to a code page from the early eighties. If you look in
>the .COD files, it's a one byte code page to three byte Unicode
>conversion table.
>
>And yes, technically this means I was, in the strictest sense, wrong to
>call UTF-8 a "code page," as there is a distinction to be made between
>*any* UCS character encoding scheme and this sort of rank barbarism. 
>
>tl;dr:
>
> "1983 called; it wants it's international character display issues back.
>It makes the previous 1992 phone call seem timely and topical."
>
>Please, someone tell me I'm wrong about this. I can't believe they
>haven't fixed this by now. Is it really that hard to implement Unicode?
>
>P.S.: I pulled your post in Thunderbird, Andrew, and it had no problems
>whatsoever with it. Standards compliance FTW.
>
>-- 
>Zag
>
>No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
>spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Er, please read my latest posting in the original thread from which
this one got spawned by you. Contamination of these newsgroups by
things other that plain-text has a rather unsavory history. 

John Lewis

On 23/03/2013 2:45 PM, John Lewis wrote:
> As far as decoding anything other than plain-text on these newsgroups
> I have no interest.

Several people consider Andrew's post to *be* plain text. It says so 
right in the MIME header.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:59:49 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
wrote:

>On 23/03/2013 2:45 PM, John Lewis wrote:
>> As far as decoding anything other than plain-text on these newsgroups
>> I have no interest.
>
>Several people consider Andrew's post to *be* plain text. It says so 
>right in the MIME header.

That was part of my earlier point.  Base64 is plain text.  It is
taking something else (perhaps binary data, or data that requires a
unicode byte width) and expressing it as text that can be read as 7-
bit (I am admittedly simplying a bit to avoid writing a dissertation).

I think John's concern was that when he saw the Base64 characters, he
was worried that it might have been some sort of malicious binary data
(technically it could have been, I would need to see the original post
as he did but there's still no need to worry about some sort of
malicious virus or whatever, simply by opening a usenet post, with any
sort of combination of modern PC/OS combined with even remedial PC
skills, so too much has been made out of it, IMO.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:52:23 +0400, "Andrew Rybenkov"
<aryb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:45:15 +0400, John Lewis <john...@frontier.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew has not yet replied to my request for the URL references to the
>> anti-GOG Russian user-comments on the Eador Steam pages
>
>are you sure?
>
>-- 
>Andrew Rybenkov


How about reply-posting in plain-text the URL-pointers to the relevant
Russian comments and we can go from there? I am quite happy to 
have Google translate the Russian entries for me.

Regards,

John Lewis

"John Lewis" <john...@frontier.com> wrote in message 
news:514ca15c.9732859@news.giganews.com...
> Valve, being chronic $$control-freaks$$, will probably now
> contractually insist that any games achieving "greenlit" status either
> be sold exclusively using Steam-DRM,. or have a limited Steam initial
> exclusivity....
>
> BTW, you can indeed now preorder the game on GOG.... DRM-free, of
> course....

There are DRM free games on Steam so I don't think its required.
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_steam/page1
Skyrim was DRM free until the first patch so if it is required its not 
enforced very well. 

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:13:55 -0400, "Jim" <gtfo@stfu.invalid> wrote:

>"John Lewis" <john...@frontier.com> wrote in message 
>news:514ca15c.9732859@news.giganews.com...
>> Valve, being chronic $$control-freaks$$, will probably now
>> contractually insist that any games achieving "greenlit" status either
>> be sold exclusively using Steam-DRM,. or have a limited Steam initial
>> exclusivity....
>>
>> BTW, you can indeed now preorder the game on GOG.... DRM-free, of
>> course....
>
>There are DRM free games on Steam so I don't think its required.
>http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_steam/page1
>Skyrim was DRM free until the first patch so if it is required its not 
>enforced very well. 
>

Thanks for the list.

John Lewis

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:13:55 -0400, "Jim" <gtfo@stfu.invalid> wrote:

>"John Lewis" <john...@frontier.com> wrote in message 
>news:514ca15c.9732859@news.giganews.com...
>> Valve, being chronic $$control-freaks$$, will probably now
>> contractually insist that any games achieving "greenlit" status either
>> be sold exclusively using Steam-DRM,. or have a limited Steam initial
>> exclusivity....
>>
>> BTW, you can indeed now preorder the game on GOG.... DRM-free, of
>> course....
>
>There are DRM free games on Steam so I don't think its required.
>http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_steam/page1
>Skyrim was DRM free until the first patch so if it is required its not 
>enforced very well. 

You might have better luck with this argument here than me, but I
tried a long time ago to explain that Steam's authentication and DRM
are not the same thing.  Yes some games do have DRM in addition to a
Steam account requirement, but there are also free games that don't
care how many copies you have or how many accounts you've tied it to,
as long as you tie it to an account.

Simple authentication and not DRM.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:06:38 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:13:55 -0400, "Jim" <gtfo@stfu.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"John Lewis" <john...@frontier.com> wrote in message 
>>news:514ca15c.9732859@news.giganews.com...
>>> Valve, being chronic $$control-freaks$$, will probably now
>>> contractually insist that any games achieving "greenlit" status either
>>> be sold exclusively using Steam-DRM,. or have a limited Steam initial
>>> exclusivity....
>>>
>>> BTW, you can indeed now preorder the game on GOG.... DRM-free, of
>>> course....
>>
>>There are DRM free games on Steam so I don't think its required.
>>http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_steam/page1
>>Skyrim was DRM free until the first patch so if it is required its not 
>>enforced very well. 
>
>You might have better luck with this argument here than me, but I
>tried a long time ago to explain that Steam's authentication and DRM
>are not the same thing.  Yes some games do have DRM in addition to a
>Steam account requirement, but there are also free games that don't
>care how many copies you have or how many accounts you've tied it to,
>as long as you tie it to an account.
>
>Simple authentication and not DRM.
>

Simple authentication used to mean a CD-Key, locking the game to its
purchased CD or DVD. The key also had the dual-purpose of validating
on-line play in a game with a MP component.  The EULA's of such games
permitted the transfer to a third-party provided the original CD/DVD
and documentation accompanied the transfer. 

Another variant on simple authentication is the Microsoft
authentication mechanisms on WinXP Retail thru Win7 Retail, where
there is one-time on-line authentication by MS on a particular machine
(instead of a CD-Key-lock) The software can  be sold or donated at any
time and re-authenticated  with MS on another machine. Such
re-authentication invalidates the authentication on the previous
installation. The transfer can be repeated to another party if
desired. Such chain-transfers are not restricted by the MS EULA.

Then people like Valve and others came up with the bright idea of
requiring the activation of a game by mandatorily linking it to an
on-line account, with the DELIBERATE intent of making it difficult,
inconvenient, or practically impossible to pass the game to a
third-party.. without giving away or selling the account as well.
Valve and others then actively encourage the purchase of more games
and linking then to the same (Steam) account making it less likely
that the account woulld be transferred. Also the Steam EULA
specifically prohibits the transfer of a Steam account anyway. This
collection of account-hook, activation decryption and legalities
designed by Valve and deliberately interfering with the transfer of
used games is Steam-DRM. Origin, Games for Windows and others have
their own variants on the Steam-DRM theme. 

DRM-FREE games (as sold by GOG.com, for example)  come with NONE  of
the activation restrictions described in the last three paragraphs.
In the case of games with a MP component, GOG provides a CD-Key for
on-line play, but the SP component of the game is totally free of
installation/play  restrictions. Install the SP game on as many
machines as you like and play all installs at the same time with hands
and feet should you so choose  :-) :-) . No authentication of any form
required. And the MP CD-key is freely transferable to a third-party
should the original owner want to gift or sell the game.

John Lewis
 

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:01:56 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:06:38 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:13:55 -0400, "Jim" <gtfo@stfu.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>"John Lewis" <john...@frontier.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:514ca15c.9732859@news.giganews.com...
>>>> Valve, being chronic $$control-freaks$$, will probably now
>>>> contractually insist that any games achieving "greenlit" status either
>>>> be sold exclusively using Steam-DRM,. or have a limited Steam initial
>>>> exclusivity....
>>>>
>>>> BTW, you can indeed now preorder the game on GOG.... DRM-free, of
>>>> course....
>>>
>>>There are DRM free games on Steam so I don't think its required.
>>>http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_steam/page1
>>>Skyrim was DRM free until the first patch so if it is required its not 
>>>enforced very well. 
>>
>>You might have better luck with this argument here than me, but I
>>tried a long time ago to explain that Steam's authentication and DRM
>>are not the same thing.  Yes some games do have DRM in addition to a
>>Steam account requirement, but there are also free games that don't
>>care how many copies you have or how many accounts you've tied it to,
>>as long as you tie it to an account.
>>
>>Simple authentication and not DRM.
>>
>
>Simple authentication used to mean a CD-Key, locking the game to its
>purchased CD or DVD. 

No, you're just confusing matters.  That is a form of copy protection,
not authentication.  Please research these things before discussing,
because a mistake like this so early in the post nulllifies pretty
much everything that follows it.

On 25/03/2013 6:40 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:01:56 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:06:38 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>> <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Simple authentication and not DRM.
>> Simple authentication used to mean a CD-Key, locking the game to its
>> purchased CD or DVD.
>
> No, you're just confusing matters.  That is a form of copy protection,
> not authentication.  Please research these things before discussing,
> because a mistake like this so early in the post nulllifies pretty
> much everything that follows it.

When I first read your post, Rin, I thought, yeah, copy protection and 
authentication are different things, and then I started wondering 
whether the difference makes any difference and which one CD keys really 
were. Do you have technical definitions of both terms that would make it 
clear that the difference matters?

It has been many moons since I used a CD-key game so I have forgotten 
most details. If I recall correctly you'd install the game, but it 
wouldn't work until you typed in the CD key; the installed game only 
enabled itself for use if it decided the long string of characters was a 
valid key. What was it that prevented someone from using the same key on 
different machines? Online registration? CD key had to match something 
in the data burned into the CD itself and CD had to be in the drive? 
something else? If you required online registration of a CD key, then 
surely that was authentication. If not -- what was it that prevented 
somebody from using the same key on different machines?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:19:53 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
wrote:

>On 25/03/2013 6:40 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:01:56 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:06:38 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>> <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Simple authentication and not DRM.
>>> Simple authentication used to mean a CD-Key, locking the game to its
>>> purchased CD or DVD.
>>
>> No, you're just confusing matters.  That is a form of copy protection,
>> not authentication.  Please research these things before discussing,
>> because a mistake like this so early in the post nulllifies pretty
>> much everything that follows it.
>
>When I first read your post, Rin, I thought, yeah, copy protection and 
>authentication are different things, and then I started wondering 
>whether the difference makes any difference and which one CD keys really 
>were. Do you have technical definitions of both terms that would make it 
>clear that the difference matters?
>
>It has been many moons since I used a CD-key game so I have forgotten 
>most details. If I recall correctly you'd install the game, but it 
>wouldn't work until you typed in the CD key; the installed game only 
>enabled itself for use if it decided the long string of characters was a 
>valid key. What was it that prevented someone from using the same key on 
>different machines? Online registration? CD key had to match something 
>in the data burned into the CD itself and CD had to be in the drive? 
>something else? If you required online registration of a CD key, then 
>surely that was authentication. If not -- what was it that prevented 
>somebody from using the same key on different machines?

Lately, definitions seem to be a can of worms around here.  We could
analyze what the word "authorize" means (outside of
technical/computing terminology).  Then we could go down the road of
"well here's what it means to _________" (fill in the blank with any
one person, group of people in a given industry, etc.

I think what matters for purpose of this thread is the context I was
using for the term when I talked about Steam using authorization
rather than DRM, because that was the meaning that John was attempting
to counterargue.

That context was the generally accepted meaning in computing, which is
basically "verifying a user is who they say they are".  That does not
mean necessarily that the user has given a real name or true
identifying information, it just means that if I have registered with
a service under the name John Doe, then that service authorizes me
when I log on using some unique password that proves I am John Doe
(even if I'm not really John Doe).  The term is usually used to
identify the "credential identification" portion of a login sequence
or other type of check, and to differentiate it from "authorization"
(the two terms are often confused or used incorrectly).

In other words, authentication is "Who's there?  Lets see some ID.."
and authorization is "Ok John Doe, we've confirmed you're who you say
you are, here's what you have access to based on your permission set".

When you enter a serial key into an application to "unlock it",
"activate it" (i.e. allow the player to play it), that process is
really authorization (and usually called serial key authorization),
because it is not about identifying a users credentials or logging
them into to a session for some entity (although admittedly it could
be combined with that, as it is for some Steam games with serial
keys), because it is basically authorizing that computer (not person)
to play the game.

I believe Steam is a somewhat pure example of authentication, because
it's really all about identifying the account holder.  The company
that sells/produces the games sold on Steam are who decides how it is
authorized, whether DRM is involved, etc.  Steam is just verifying you
are who you say you are (arguably you could still be anonymous
although that typically changes the moment you give them a credit
card, a somewhat "more accurate" form of authentication).  A game
company can release a completely free to play game on Steam; in that
case, anyone can play from any account and any PC, thus there is
really no authorization in that case.  A company can also sell a game
that is restricted to one paid copy per account (Steam has handled the
authentication, but the seller of the game is handling authorization).
They could also go one step further and add DRM, which can do things
like restrict how many PC's total the app can be installed on.  

Some folks think Steam itself *is* the DRM mechanism but it's not. Can
it be utilized if the game publisher chooses to help enforce DRM?
Surely, but by itself Steam only authenticates.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 23:42:47 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:19:53 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On 25/03/2013 6:40 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:01:56 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:06:38 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>>> <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Simple authentication and not DRM.
>>>> Simple authentication used to mean a CD-Key, locking the game to its
>>>> purchased CD or DVD.
>>>
>>> No, you're just confusing matters.  That is a form of copy protection,
>>> not authentication.  Please research these things before discussing,
>>> because a mistake like this so early in the post nulllifies pretty
>>> much everything that follows it.
>>
>>When I first read your post, Rin, I thought, yeah, copy protection and 
>>authentication are different things, and then I started wondering 
>>whether the difference makes any difference and which one CD keys really 
>>were. Do you have technical definitions of both terms that would make it 
>>clear that the difference matters?
>>
>>It has been many moons since I used a CD-key game so I have forgotten 
>>most details. If I recall correctly you'd install the game, but it 
>>wouldn't work until you typed in the CD key; the installed game only 
>>enabled itself for use if it decided the long string of characters was a 
>>valid key. What was it that prevented someone from using the same key on 
>>different machines? Online registration? CD key had to match something 
>>in the data burned into the CD itself and CD had to be in the drive? 
>>something else? If you required online registration of a CD key, then 
>>surely that was authentication. If not -- what was it that prevented 
>>somebody from using the same key on different machines?
>
>Lately, definitions seem to be a can of worms around here.  We could
>analyze what the word "authorize" means (outside of
>technical/computing terminology).  Then we could go down the road of
>"well here's what it means to _________" (fill in the blank with any
>one person, group of people in a given industry, etc.
>
>I think what matters for purpose of this thread is the context I was
>using for the term when I talked about Steam using *authentication*
>rather than DRM, because that was the meaning that John was attempting
>to counterargue.
>
>That context was the generally accepted meaning in computing, which is
>basically "verifying a user is who they say they are".  That does not
>mean necessarily that the user has given a real name or true
>identifying information, it just means that if I have registered with
>a service under the name John Doe, then that service  *authenticates* me
>when I log on using some unique password that proves I am John Doe
>(even if I'm not really John Doe).  The term is usually used to
>identify the "credential identification" portion of a login sequence
>or other type of check, and to differentiate it from "authorization"
>(the two terms are often confused or used incorrectly).
>
>In other words, authentication is "Who's there?  Lets see some ID.."
>and authorization is "Ok John Doe, we've confirmed you're who you say
>you are, here's what you have access to based on your permission set".
>
>When you enter a serial key into an application to "unlock it",
>"activate it" (i.e. allow the player to play it), that process is
>really authorization (and usually called serial key authorization),
>because it is not about identifying a users credentials or logging
>them into to a session for some entity (although admittedly it could
>be combined with that, as it is for some Steam games with serial
>keys), because it is basically authorizing that computer (not person)
>to play the game.
>
>I believe Steam is a somewhat pure example of authentication, because
>it's really all about identifying the account holder.  The company
>that sells/produces the games sold on Steam are who decides how it is
>authorized, whether DRM is involved, etc.  Steam is just verifying you
>are who you say you are (arguably you could still be anonymous
>although that typically changes the moment you give them a credit
>card, a somewhat "more accurate" form of authentication).  A game
>company can release a completely free to play game on Steam; in that
>case, anyone can play from any account and any PC, thus there is
>really no authorization in that case.  A company can also sell a game
>that is restricted to one paid copy per account (Steam has handled the
>authentication, but the seller of the game is handling authorization).
>They could also go one step further and add DRM, which can do things
>like restrict how many PC's total the app can be installed on.  
>
>Some folks think Steam itself *is* the DRM mechanism but it's not. Can
>it be utilized if the game publisher chooses to help enforce DRM?
>Surely, but by itself Steam only authenticates.

Wow, it's been a long day, and I just did a great job of confusing
matters further by saying authorization when I meant authentication.
Great example of why they so often get mixed up :)

I've gone through and corrected the above in the places where I
screwed it up (look for the word in asterisks above).

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:19:53 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
wrote:

>On 25/03/2013 6:40 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:01:56 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:06:38 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>> <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Simple authentication and not DRM.
>>> Simple authentication used to mean a CD-Key, locking the game to its
>>> purchased CD or DVD.
>>
>> No, you're just confusing matters.  That is a form of copy protection,
>> not authentication.  Please research these things before discussing,
>> because a mistake like this so early in the post nulllifies pretty
>> much everything that follows it.
>
>When I first read your post, Rin, I thought, yeah, copy protection and 
>authentication are different things, and then I started wondering 
>whether the difference makes any difference and which one CD keys really 
>were. Do you have technical definitions of both terms that would make it 
>clear that the difference matters?
>
>It has been many moons since I used a CD-key game so I have forgotten 
>most details. If I recall correctly you'd install the game, but it 
>wouldn't work until you typed in the CD key; the installed game only 
>enabled itself for use if it decided the long string of characters was a 
>valid key. What was it that prevented someone from using the same key on 
>different machines? Online registration? CD key had to match something 
>in the data burned into the CD itself and CD had to be in the drive? 
>something else? If you required online registration of a CD key, then 
>surely that was authentication. If not -- what was it that prevented 
>somebody from using the same key on different machines?
>

David, 

Unlike Rin,  I am quite happy to accepts Amazon's definition of 
Steam's ... "authentication"  process of locking a game purchase to
an unchangeable on-line account, access to which is REQUIRED to
install (or re-install) the game. Amazon labels it Steam-DRM, putting
it in the same category as Ubisoft's UPlay, Origin and Games for
Windows all intended to inhibit the sale or re-distribution of PC
games. In all these cases, to move the game to a party other than the
original purchaser, the umbilically attached account must be
transferred as well, and all the EULAs for these schemes specifically
prohibit the transfers of the associated account.

There are some interesting cases wending their ways slowly through the
US courts with regard to the disposal of 'virtual assets' belonging to
a decesed person. The argument that such assets die with the owner
will not hold water.. the EFF and others are beginning  to take an
active interest.  The most interesting issues will arise if some of
the assets are to be divided between heirs and they happen to be
authentication-attached to one on-line account. 

John Lewis

John Lewis

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 04:28:52 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:19:53 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On 25/03/2013 6:40 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:01:56 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:06:38 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>>> <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Simple authentication and not DRM.
>>>> Simple authentication used to mean a CD-Key, locking the game to its
>>>> purchased CD or DVD.
>>>
>>> No, you're just confusing matters.  That is a form of copy protection,
>>> not authentication.  Please research these things before discussing,
>>> because a mistake like this so early in the post nulllifies pretty
>>> much everything that follows it.
>>
>>When I first read your post, Rin, I thought, yeah, copy protection and 
>>authentication are different things, and then I started wondering 
>>whether the difference makes any difference and which one CD keys really 
>>were. Do you have technical definitions of both terms that would make it 
>>clear that the difference matters?
>>
>>It has been many moons since I used a CD-key game so I have forgotten 
>>most details. If I recall correctly you'd install the game, but it 
>>wouldn't work until you typed in the CD key; the installed game only 
>>enabled itself for use if it decided the long string of characters was a 
>>valid key. What was it that prevented someone from using the same key on 
>>different machines? Online registration? CD key had to match something 
>>in the data burned into the CD itself and CD had to be in the drive? 
>>something else? If you required online registration of a CD key, then 
>>surely that was authentication. If not -- what was it that prevented 
>>somebody from using the same key on different machines?
>>
>
>David, 
>
>Unlike Rin,  I am quite happy to accepts Amazon's definition of 
>Steam's ... "authentication"  process of locking a game purchase to
>an unchangeable on-line account, access to which is REQUIRED to
>install (or re-install) the game. Amazon labels it Steam-DRM, putting
>it in the same category as Ubisoft's UPlay, Origin and Games for
>Windows all intended to inhibit the sale or re-distribution of PC
>games. In all these cases, to move the game to a party other than the
>original purchaser, the umbilically attached account must be
>transferred as well, and all the EULAs for these schemes specifically
>prohibit the transfers of the associated account.
>
>There are some interesting cases wending their ways slowly through the
>US courts with regard to the disposal of 'virtual assets' belonging to
>a decesed person. The argument that such assets die with the owner
>will not hold water.. the EFF and others are beginning  to take an
>active interest.  The most interesting issues will arise if some of
>the assets are to be divided between heirs and they happen to be
>authentication-attached to one on-line account. 
>
>John Lewis

But do you realize that the "Steam-DRM" in the case you've just
described, regardless of how it is described by Amazon, is imposed by
the publisher of the game, and not Valve?  They are specifically using
a feature that is available to them on Steam that will lock their CD
to that account.  *Steam does not require this for all games*.

That's what I mean by Steam's only mandate is authentication, not
authorization (or DRM).  

Not all games on Amazon that are Steam-enabled use the term
"Steam-DRM", and you seem to be under the impression they do.  Far Cry
3, for example, is available on Amazon with Steam-DRM as a purchase
option, as opposed to using Uplay DRM.  It's a simple choice they are
providing the consumer, you don't have to choose it.

Bioshock Infinite simply says "Requires Steam Client to activate", and
makes no mention of Steam-DRM.

Once again, rather than take a few minutes to do the research, you've
been ranting on here for weeks about "Steam-DRM" to refer to any game
played on Steam.

Now Bethesda, the one company you always cite as the shining
cant-do-wrong, has chosen to use Steamworks-DRM for their games.  The
Steamworks-DRM is a service that Valve provides if their customer
(Bethesda in this case) would like to use it.  They charge for the
service.   Amazon does not always list whether or not a game uses
Steamworks-DRM because it has no bearing on which version the user
should buy (see above about the Steam-DRM vs Uplay DRM option in the
case of Far Cry 3).

Once again, you are recklessly spreading misinformation without doing
your homework first.  You've wasted a lot of folks' time with all of
this nonsense.  The least you could do is start with a bit of a clue
going into each rant.

In article <kir0gb$95d$1...@dont-email.me>, dal...@cs.queensu.ca says...
> 
> It has been many moons since I used a CD-key game so I have forgotten 
> most details. If I recall correctly you'd install the game, but it 
> wouldn't work until you typed in the CD key; the installed game only 
> enabled itself for use if it decided the long string of characters was a 
> valid key. What was it that prevented someone from using the same key on 
> different machines? Online registration? CD key had to match something 
> in the data burned into the CD itself and CD had to be in the drive? 
> something else? If you required online registration of a CD key, then 
> surely that was authentication. If not -- what was it that prevented 
> somebody from using the same key on different machines?


I used one yesterday. Installed SE5 on my laptop, typed in the long-
winded cd key and that was it. NO online validatin' (how, the company's 
gone), no The CD Must Be In The Drive nuissance... 

Not all of them are like that of course.

I also installed Fallout 1 at the same time. No shagging around with CD 
keys or anything else there. Interplay was always good like that. One 
reason I often bought games off them.

-P.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:57:50 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 04:28:52 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:19:53 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 25/03/2013 6:40 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:01:56 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:06:38 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>>>> <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Simple authentication and not DRM.
>>>>> Simple authentication used to mean a CD-Key, locking the game to its
>>>>> purchased CD or DVD.
>>>>
>>>> No, you're just confusing matters.  That is a form of copy protection,
>>>> not authentication.  Please research these things before discussing,
>>>> because a mistake like this so early in the post nulllifies pretty
>>>> much everything that follows it.
>>>
>>>When I first read your post, Rin, I thought, yeah, copy protection and 
>>>authentication are different things, and then I started wondering 
>>>whether the difference makes any difference and which one CD keys really 
>>>were. Do you have technical definitions of both terms that would make it 
>>>clear that the difference matters?
>>>
>>>It has been many moons since I used a CD-key game so I have forgotten 
>>>most details. If I recall correctly you'd install the game, but it 
>>>wouldn't work until you typed in the CD key; the installed game only 
>>>enabled itself for use if it decided the long string of characters was a 
>>>valid key. What was it that prevented someone from using the same key on 
>>>different machines? Online registration? CD key had to match something 
>>>in the data burned into the CD itself and CD had to be in the drive? 
>>>something else? If you required online registration of a CD key, then 
>>>surely that was authentication. If not -- what was it that prevented 
>>>somebody from using the same key on different machines?
>>>
>>
>>David, 
>>
>>Unlike Rin,  I am quite happy to accepts Amazon's definition of 
>>Steam's ... "authentication"  process of locking a game purchase to
>>an unchangeable on-line account, access to which is REQUIRED to
>>install (or re-install) the game. Amazon labels it Steam-DRM, putting
>>it in the same category as Ubisoft's UPlay, Origin and Games for
>>Windows all intended to inhibit the sale or re-distribution of PC
>>games. In all these cases, to move the game to a party other than the
>>original purchaser, the umbilically attached account must be
>>transferred as well, and all the EULAs for these schemes specifically
>>prohibit the transfers of the associated account.
>>
>>There are some interesting cases wending their ways slowly through the
>>US courts with regard to the disposal of 'virtual assets' belonging to
>>a decesed person. The argument that such assets die with the owner
>>will not hold water.. the EFF and others are beginning  to take an
>>active interest.  The most interesting issues will arise if some of
>>the assets are to be divided between heirs and they happen to be
>>authentication-attached to one on-line account. 
>>
>>John Lewis
>
>But do you realize that the "Steam-DRM" in the case you've just
>described, regardless of how it is described by Amazon, is imposed by
>the publisher of the game, and not Valve?  They are specifically using
>a feature that is available to them on Steam that will lock their CD
>to that account.  *Steam does not require this for all games*.
>
>That's what I mean by Steam's only mandate is authentication, not
>authorization (or DRM).  
>
>Not all games on Amazon that are Steam-enabled use the term
>"Steam-DRM", and you seem to be under the impression they do.  Far Cry
>3, for example, is available on Amazon with Steam-DRM as a purchase
>option, as opposed to using Uplay DRM.  It's a simple choice they are
>providing the consumer, you don't have to choose it.
>

The retail box version of Far Cry3 uses UPlay only, the download
version have Steam-DRM PLUS Uplay. In the case of Far Cry 3 the  only
'advantage' of the additional Steam-DRM ( er, "authentication") is the
auto-updates. However the latest patch for the disc-distribution of
Far Cry3 is available on Patches-Scrolls

>Bioshock Infinite simply says "Requires Steam Client to activate", and
>makes no mention of Steam-DRM.

Sure. Amazon sometimes alternates between having "Steam-DRM" in the
selection block and the text that you mentioned.  Notice the word
":Requires" ..... whicxh automatically locks the purchase to a fixed
Steam account and the automatic (developer/distributor, NOT customer) 
Rights Management --- the denial of the ability for the customer to
frelly use or dispose of his/her LEGITIMATELY PURCHASE game
in any way he/she desires. Hopefully, the day will never come when 
any of my otrher tangible purchases will be saubject to the same
restriction. If the distributors of games were honest enough to admit
that they were really renting the games, then they would come up with
an appropriate rental model via Steam, Uplay, GFW, Origin, with a
downward sliding scale as the game got older. No, they want their 
full-purchase cash up front and let the customer deal with the
restrictive consequences of their rental-DRM. 

Thank goodness for GOG.com and their rapidly expanding inventory of
DRM-free classic PC games..

BW, the subject of the re-sale of electronic books has become a hot
legal topic. Interesting to find Amazon and Apple/iTunes and the
libraries all on the same side. Once that domino falls --- which it
will do, gives the centuries of history of the resale of physical
books, then DRM-protected download video games and digital music
should be next. 


>
>Once again, rather than take a few minutes to do the research, you've
>been ranting on here for weeks about "Steam-DRM" to refer to any game
>played on Steam.
>
>Now Bethesda, the one company you always cite as the shining
>cant-do-wrong, has chosen to use Steamworks-DRM for their games.  The
>Steamworks-DRM is a service that Valve provides if their customer
>(Bethesda in this case) would like to use it.  They charge for the
>service.   Amazon does not always list whether or not a game uses
>Steamworks-DRM because it has no bearing on which version the user
>should buy (see above about the Steam-DRM vs Uplay DRM option in the
>case of Far Cry 3).

Sure, I am well aware that BethSoft is using Steam-DRM for Skyrim.
Sad, really, since FO3/PC had massive sales without the need of any
such piracy-protection. You do know that one of the virtues of
Steam-DRM-encryption and attachment to a fixed Steam account is a
pretty effective means of preventing casual pirscy, didn't you ??

Steam-DRM is an old piracy-protection sock pretending it is a rose.

However, Steam as a distribution system involving a large and diverse
client base of PC gamers does bring enormous benefit to developers
trying to bring the best gaming experiences to their customers. The
Steam "Early Access" program is a serious attempt
in that direction, the presence of Steam-DRM is a lesser evil than 
the purchaser throwing away good money on  many of the horrible
rushed-to-market games we have seen recently.
>
>Once again, you are recklessly spreading misinformation without doing
>your homework first.  You've wasted a lot of folks' time with all of
>this nonsense.  The least you could do is start with a bit of a clue
>going into each rant.

Your frustration with my relentless loigic is showing :-) :-)

John Lewis

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:09:50 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:57:50 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 04:28:52 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:19:53 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 25/03/2013 6:40 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:01:56 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:06:38 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>>>>> <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Simple authentication and not DRM.
>>>>>> Simple authentication used to mean a CD-Key, locking the game to its
>>>>>> purchased CD or DVD.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you're just confusing matters.  That is a form of copy protection,
>>>>> not authentication.  Please research these things before discussing,
>>>>> because a mistake like this so early in the post nulllifies pretty
>>>>> much everything that follows it.
>>>>
>>>>When I first read your post, Rin, I thought, yeah, copy protection and 
>>>>authentication are different things, and then I started wondering 
>>>>whether the difference makes any difference and which one CD keys really 
>>>>were. Do you have technical definitions of both terms that would make it 
>>>>clear that the difference matters?
>>>>
>>>>It has been many moons since I used a CD-key game so I have forgotten 
>>>>most details. If I recall correctly you'd install the game, but it 
>>>>wouldn't work until you typed in the CD key; the installed game only 
>>>>enabled itself for use if it decided the long string of characters was a 
>>>>valid key. What was it that prevented someone from using the same key on 
>>>>different machines? Online registration? CD key had to match something 
>>>>in the data burned into the CD itself and CD had to be in the drive? 
>>>>something else? If you required online registration of a CD key, then 
>>>>surely that was authentication. If not -- what was it that prevented 
>>>>somebody from using the same key on different machines?
>>>>
>>>
>>>David, 
>>>
>>>Unlike Rin,  I am quite happy to accepts Amazon's definition of 
>>>Steam's ... "authentication"  process of locking a game purchase to
>>>an unchangeable on-line account, access to which is REQUIRED to
>>>install (or re-install) the game. Amazon labels it Steam-DRM, putting
>>>it in the same category as Ubisoft's UPlay, Origin and Games for
>>>Windows all intended to inhibit the sale or re-distribution of PC
>>>games. In all these cases, to move the game to a party other than the
>>>original purchaser, the umbilically attached account must be
>>>transferred as well, and all the EULAs for these schemes specifically
>>>prohibit the transfers of the associated account.
>>>
>>>There are some interesting cases wending their ways slowly through the
>>>US courts with regard to the disposal of 'virtual assets' belonging to
>>>a decesed person. The argument that such assets die with the owner
>>>will not hold water.. the EFF and others are beginning  to take an
>>>active interest.  The most interesting issues will arise if some of
>>>the assets are to be divided between heirs and they happen to be
>>>authentication-attached to one on-line account. 
>>>
>>>John Lewis
>>
>>But do you realize that the "Steam-DRM" in the case you've just
>>described, regardless of how it is described by Amazon, is imposed by
>>the publisher of the game, and not Valve?  They are specifically using
>>a feature that is available to them on Steam that will lock their CD
>>to that account.  *Steam does not require this for all games*.
>>
>>That's what I mean by Steam's only mandate is authentication, not
>>authorization (or DRM).  
>>
>>Not all games on Amazon that are Steam-enabled use the term
>>"Steam-DRM", and you seem to be under the impression they do.  Far Cry
>>3, for example, is available on Amazon with Steam-DRM as a purchase
>>option, as opposed to using Uplay DRM.  It's a simple choice they are
>>providing the consumer, you don't have to choose it.
>>
>
>The retail box version of Far Cry3 uses UPlay only, the download
>version have Steam-DRM PLUS Uplay. In the case of Far Cry 3 the  only
>'advantage' of the additional Steam-DRM ( er, "authentication") is the
>auto-updates.

Stop right there. 

 If, after I spent the time to explain what I did in my last post,
you're still too daft to understand the difference between Steamworks
DRM and authentication and that they are two different things, then as
far as I'm concerned you can just continue stressing over your
misaligned obsessions and stand by as others mock your inaccurate
beliefs; you've wasted enough of everyone's time already.

If, for some reason, you should decide to pull your head out of your
ass, there is a page here that will helps shed light on the
differences between play Steam authentication (what all Steam games
have) and Steamworks DRM (which some games have, depending on whether
the game company, i.e. Bethesda in prior example, chooses to
implement).

https://partner.steamgames.com/documentation/

On 26/03/2013 1:38 AM, Peter Huebner wrote:
> In article <kir0gb$95d$1...@dont-email.me>, dal...@cs.queensu.ca says...
>>
>> It has been many moons since I used a CD-key game so I have forgotten
>> most details. If I recall correctly you'd install the game, but it
>> wouldn't work until you typed in the CD key; the installed game only
>> enabled itself for use if it decided the long string of characters was a
>> valid key. What was it that prevented someone from using the same key on
>> different machines? Online registration? CD key had to match something
>> in the data burned into the CD itself and CD had to be in the drive?
>> something else? If you required online registration of a CD key, then
>> surely that was authentication. If not -- what was it that prevented
>> somebody from using the same key on different machines?
>
>
> I used one yesterday. Installed SE5 on my laptop, typed in the long-
> winded cd key and that was it. NO online validatin' (how, the company's
> gone), no The CD Must Be In The Drive nuissance...
>
> Not all of them are like that of course.
>
> I also installed Fallout 1 at the same time. No shagging around with CD
> keys or anything else there. Interplay was always good like that. One
> reason I often bought games off them.
>
> -P.
>

OK, so to be clear, does that mean you could have installed the software 
on a different computer using the same CD key? So you just have to have 
the CD in your posession long enough to install the program and type in 
the key?

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:23:33 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
wrote:

>On 26/03/2013 1:38 AM, Peter Huebner wrote:
>> In article <kir0gb$95d$1...@dont-email.me>, dal...@cs.queensu.ca says...
>>>
>>> It has been many moons since I used a CD-key game so I have forgotten
>>> most details. If I recall correctly you'd install the game, but it
>>> wouldn't work until you typed in the CD key; the installed game only
>>> enabled itself for use if it decided the long string of characters was a
>>> valid key. What was it that prevented someone from using the same key on
>>> different machines? Online registration? CD key had to match something
>>> in the data burned into the CD itself and CD had to be in the drive?
>>> something else? If you required online registration of a CD key, then
>>> surely that was authentication. If not -- what was it that prevented
>>> somebody from using the same key on different machines?
>>
>>
>> I used one yesterday. Installed SE5 on my laptop, typed in the long-
>> winded cd key and that was it. NO online validatin' (how, the company's
>> gone), no The CD Must Be In The Drive nuissance...
>>
>> Not all of them are like that of course.
>>
>> I also installed Fallout 1 at the same time. No shagging around with CD
>> keys or anything else there. Interplay was always good like that. One
>> reason I often bought games off them.
>>
>> -P.
>>
>
>OK, so to be clear, does that mean you could have installed the software 
>on a different computer using the same CD key? So you just have to have 
>the CD in your posession long enough to install the program and type in 
>the key?
>

fyi: FO1 and FO2 are both available for purchase from GOG.com  totally
DRM/CD-key free. 

John Lewis