[forgotmyoldacc]

Is it difficult to notice that you're in the minority here?

[JoshTriplett]

It's not acceptable to prohibit a use case because some people are using it for illicit purposes, assuming that all aren't.

Game producers would like to claim that all such uses are fundamentally illicit. The point of my comment was to reject that claim, not to claim that the majority of users are licit.

(There's a separate argument that I'd also make that all such uses should be entirely accepted, but that's an orthogonal argument that I'm not making here.)

[umanwizard]

> It's not acceptable to prohibit a use case because some people are using it for illicit purposes, assuming that all aren't.

Sure it is. Try extending this argument to every other kind of business. Most shops, for example, don’t let you take whatever you want off the shelves and promise to mail them a check later. Even if many people would be honest, enough wouldn’t that it would make their business unsustainable (or at least substantially less profitable). Therefore, they almost universally prohibit this.

That’s just one example among many. The logical conclusion of your argument is that it’s unacceptable for any business not to extend unlimited trust to all their customers unconditionally.

[avindroth]

Why is it not acceptable if a machine is not being used for its intended purposes and most people using it are for pirating games?

Why is there any notion of acceptability for a company’s rulings on how their copyrights should be protected?