No, they couldn't, but as I pointed out, copyright is a completely batshit insane legal theory to be operating under. Password are not copyrighted, and 'Concern' post is total fucktardary.
If a bank manager walked out on the job with the only bank vault combination, and the banks had a choice of either getting it from him or destroying their million dollar door....yeah, the courts might order him to turn it over.
Not under the insane theory of copyright, but under the theory that part of their job was to make sure their successor could get into the vault, and by failing to do their job they possibly have cost the bank millions, and the bank would either like the combination or those millions.
And, of course, he could rebut this by claiming that is not, in fact, part of his job, etc, whatever. I'm not saying the person bringing suit would win, I'm saying there's valid grounds for a suit.
Well, no, at worse they could sue you and get the court to order you to produce said work and hold you in contempt when you didn't.
Of course, this absurd for copyrighted works, but, OTOH, it's absurd to pretend to that passwords are copyrighted anyway.
If they did sue, they'd probably win a lawsuit demanding passwords to their own equipment. There's plenty of legal theories that could happen under, just not the insane example of copyright.
But the point is, if they are suffering wrongful harm at your hands because of your failure to do something, the actual correct behavior is to sue to you, get a judgment against you, and then the court will enforce it. If you fail to do the thing after the court has demanded it, they will lock you away until you do.
It is not to throw you in jail, even if they do own the police.
Oh, you're right, but you're arguing from the wrong direction. Don't fall into the idea that there is such thing as a 'software license'.
<explanation>When you buy a copy of a computer program, those things they sell at a store on the shelves, that is what you have purchased...a copy of a computer program, as defined by copyright law. Usually a copyrighted computer program.
With that copy of a computer program, according to copyright law, you do not have the right to copy (or alter) it except on your own computer as necessary for your own use. (There are other things that it is illegal to do with it, such as kill people. Check your local laws.)
It was a normal purchase of goods that are slightly restricted by the government, like when you buy a shotgun you might not be allowed to fire it within city limits unless your life is in danger, or to shorten the barrel.</explanation>
At on point in that explanation did I utter the word 'license', and that is because there is no 'license' relevant to this, just like there is no 'elephant' relevant to this. The whole concept is entirely unrelated.
Now, this box may also come with something asserting more, or less, abilities than allowed by copyright law, just like your shotgun might come with some special permission to saw off the barrel if you pay the police some money and get a permit. (Unlikely, but possible.)
You can call this a 'software license' if you want. Although in actuality copyright 'licenses' are something else that companies that do to gain use of a copyright for a time, link companies that produce toys based on TV shows, and this thing would be more correctly called a general 'contract'. You are not 'licensing' the software in any meaningful sense of 'licensing'.
But you can agree to the terms if you want. Or not. Whatever you want to do.
While this contract, if agreed to, might alter your ability to use the copy of the computer program you purchased, feel free to completely ignore said contract and use the program however you want to within the law. Note the law grants you the right to copy and alter the program as long as such copies and alterations are in order to use the program, so you might wish to alter the install process so you can get past a weird screen talking about a contract you're not interested in.
If you were just charging it, I'm failing to see why it would be plugged into a docking station. OTOH, if you car had a docking station, you would not need to pick it up...you'd answer through the car speakers or whatever.
I have the feeling I'm not getting through here. I don't want any changes in existing headsets or chargers whatsoever. However well those work, they would continue to work. Every single device, every single cable, would continue to function the same. It would work exactly the same in your car with your phone, pretending your phone had done this.
I would just like the plugs spaced in a standard manner so that it was possible to design one plug to go into both at the same time, for when, and only when, it would make sense for the device to be plugged into something that both wants audio and to charge it.
Right now such devices don't even exist for anything except for iPods. I'd like every stereo that has a iPod dock built in to also have an inch of cable sticking out that can plug into such a plug. And the same with car stereos. And cigarette lighter FM transmitters.
Oh, that reminds me. This standard should also specify that shorting the microphone input direct to audio ground means the dock doesn't have a microphone, which would let cell phones plug into stereos, car or otherwise, and use them to play mp3s and the output from an call, but use the phone mic for input. (Presumably they'd switch to speaker-phone mic.)
The S-video thing is just as stupid -- AFAIK, one doesn't even need a low-pass filter to sum the two signals together with good quality.
I once wired a convertor simply by twisting the ends of a s-video cable to the ends of a RCA cable. But then I found one for 70 cents somewhere, s-video female to rca male, so I can stick it on the end of my six-foot s-video stereo audio cable if I need to hook my laptop into TV. I've always wondered if it's 100% straight through or they have the little resister layout to clean the signal up a little. It works backwards just fine, which makes me suspicious it's just straight through.
And speaking of stupid plugs, in my universe s-video, the worse plug of all, would not exist. Damn that plug is stupid.
I'm with you that all plugs should be roughly like the 3.5mm plugs. USB should have been like that. Well, it does carry power...maybe it should be more like those DC adapter plugs, with the positive current in the middle so it can't touch things, but with three strips on the outside for ground and +/- data. And all the cables should have been female at both ends. Most plugs about 4mm wide, but a tiny one that's 2mm for small stuff.
It's sorta funny they worked so hard on the USB plug, making it impossible to misorient, but a) screwed up the smaller sizes so much we've had half a dozen different designs, when all they needed was one big one and one little one, (and inexplicable had a 'B' plug for no reason.) b) failed to realize that an easy way to stop a plug from being misoriented was to make it plug in in any direction, and c) inexplicably made it exactly fit in a RJ-45 jack. (Even making it slightly smaller would have helped.)
There's absolutely nothing in the law that says you have to stay within the bounds of 'directed by the code'.
You can legally run software in any manner you see fit, adaptating it and copying it as you see fit, if that is 'essential step in the utilization of the computer program'. Not 'essential step in the utilization of the computer program in a manner designed by the programmer'.
If you want to run five hundred copies of Microsoft Word at the same time as part of some mad scientist experiment, you can legally do that, and alter the code so it actually works. You are utilizing the code, and all copies and alterations are required to utilize the code like that.
Any 'used' copy of the code, any copy you must make to do what you're trying to do with the code, is legal. There's nothing in there about doing what 'the code' says at all.
Which, incidentally, makes no-cd patches legal. (In the strict sense of a 'patch' that alters the code. Copying already-altered executable around between people is, of course, illegal.) You are altering the code in a manner necessary to use it in the manner you're attempting to use it.
Yes, it's absurdly circular, but it's supposed to be circular. Or, rather, the intent is that once you own a copy of a computer program, you have the ability to use said program in any manner within your computer without violating copyright, no matter how many times it gets copied around and changed.
I know people don't believe this, thanks to years of brainwashing by the software industry, but that's actually how it's supposed to work. Legally, when I put a CD with a copyrighted computer program in my computer, I am able to run it or hack it in any manner I see fit, as long as it's limited to running in that 'machine'. That's why they added that exemption.
Now, I've ignored two things here. One, if you agree to an EULA, or a contract before purchasing like online software, it's entirely possible that you are bound to said EULA or contract. I'm talking solely about your rights without agreeing to one of those. Of course, if you haven't agreed to the EULA, you can make copies and edit them so you can install without agreeing to the EULA.
And I am ignoring the DMCA in this. That might be relevant to some aspect of altering the code to skip the EULA, or skip copy protection, but it is not relevant to the 117 exception to 106. The DMCA is about subverting copy and/or access control, not making the copy. (And a very strong case can be made that EULA are neither access controls nor copy controls.)
And, if they weren't fair use, if you weren't legally allowed to use the software without their additional permission, then selling you the software was consumer fraud.
I can't sell you a car, and then refuse to give you a key to that car and try to sell you one. A car's purpose is to drive, it was demonstrated as if it could drive, and if I know it cannot drive in the state it is sold in, without the key, I have committed fraud by representing it as such. I can't cleverly motion at the car over there as what I'm selling you, while hiding the key in my pocket.
If someone buys a 'word processor' but instead gets only a program that prompts him to agree to give away random legal rights in return for said word processor, well, that software is 'unfit for the purpose sold' and is outright fraud. An EULA box is not a 'word processor' in anyone's dictionary. (Unless, heh, it's editable.)
You can sell someone half a product, or a product that is completely useless without an additional product. But you can't represent it as anything but that at the time of sale, even by implication. If you're calling something 'an X', it has to be able to do the things people expect 'an X' to do, and not require additional things to make it work. You want to sell things 'as is', you have to sell them 'as is'.
Ironically, the fact that they claim to 'give you something', the ability to install the software, which is required for a 'contract' to take place, (Consideration on each side.) exactly backfires for them here. I.e, if copyright law and contract law combined made EULAs legally required for the user to agree to, that magically makes the thing a violation of consumer protection laws that don't let companies sell products that don't work for the stated purposes.
If someone else signs your name on a check you aren't liable for you, you loon. It would be entirely possible to have a check reversed on the grounds you had someone else sign it.
Unfortunately, if you try to get out of paying it by claiming you got someone else to sign it, you a) just admitted to committing fraud while purchasing whatever without intending to pay for it, and b) admitted to the entirely different crime of check fraud on your bank. Oh, and conspiracy to do those two things, too.
And, on top of all that, you still would have to pay for whatever, so you'd have to write another check. Actually, they'd probably demand cash.
So, it's not a very popular means of writing checks, consisting as it does of four counts of fraud and four counts of conspiracy shared between two people. And in the end wouldn't work.
As to how all this relates to the EULA: It doesn't. Installing software without agreeing to the EULA is not a violation of copyright law, and has not been for some years. Someone else agreeing to the terms does, indeed, put them on the hook, or not if they're a minor.
So let's see how this logically works. You admit someone 'buys the tangible CD'. If something is bought, it is owned by the person who bought it. (That's what bought means.) So the person owns a 'tangible CD', correct?
Definition in copyright law:
"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.
A CD is a material object. The work can be both perceived, by running the program and simply by looking at files, and reproduced by copying it, both with the aid of a machine called a computer. The work is fixed onto the CD because the CD lasts long enough for you to repeatedly read it. (I haven't defined 'computer program', but if you attempt to redefine copyright law on that one, you'll end up with no copyright on computer programs at all.)
So a CD with a computer program on it is 'a copy of a computer program'.
So someone who owns a tangible CD does 'own a copy of the computer program'.
See, the problem is, you're right in that there's a difference between owning software and owning a copy of the software. You don't have the right to do whatever you want if you just own a copy, and that's exactly what you're trying to say. It's 100% exactly correct.
The problem is that law, in addition to granting right to the 'owner of the software program', explicitly says what 'owners of a copy of the software program' are able do without violating copyright, so you're now trying to invent an imaginary third category that is 'owner of a copy' without actually falling under the law that says what an 'owner of the copy' can do.
I'd actually be rather interesting in finding out exactly who you think 'the owner of a copy of a computer program' would be. It can't possibly be the copyright holder, they don't need an exception under copyright law to make a copy. So who is it?
And if you do something they assert work for hire, and didn't make them a copy, can they arrest you? NO
Like I said, they have to go to court to get a decision on it, and the court will then enforce it, and if you fail to turn it over, you're in contempt.
And, incidentally, passwords are not copyrightable. They are entirely functional, and designed not to be published, and perhaps most important, are never fixed in any sort of media. (Computers usually hold hashs of passwords, not passwords.) So are about as far away as copyrightable as possible, and so cannot possibly be a 'work for hire'.
Not to mention, um, you can't be forced to reproduce a 'work from hire' from memory. Even if we work in this insane theory that the city owns the copyright of the password, and can demand he not produce copies of it, and even turn over all tangible copies of it, they still can't make him produce a copy from memory under that theory under any circumstances.
There is no theory of copyright law where the copyright holder of a work can require someone else to produce a copy of said work simply because they have lost theirs. That's just idiotic. And being forced to 'generate' a copy is even more inane.
So to recap:
1) Passwords are not copyrightable, as they are never fixed in a media.
2) Even if they were copyrightable, the idea that this one is a work for hire is dubious.
3) Even if it was a work for hire and the city the legitimate copyright holder, no theory of law would allow them to demand that someone else recreate said work and give it to them. If they lost their copy, they lose. (And if no copy was made, it ipso facto cannot be copyrighted, see 1.)
4) Even if a theory of law did demand that, we run into the original objection in that you can't simply arrest people by asserting that, you have to go to civil court and get a court decision requiring him to do that, and then arrest him for contempt if he doesn't. It's not 'theft', it's not a crime, it's someone withholding something and causing economic harm, and hence it's a civil problem.
I'm 100% sure of all those except 2, which might be true, except that I know 1 isn't so it's rather moot. Maybe it's you who shouldn't be giving legal advice here.
As it is, there are plenty of legal theories were he could be forced to turn over the password. (Copyright is not one of them.) However, the actual objection to those is still #4, the way to force someone to turn over a password is to sue him for said password and once the court says he has to, he'll be arrested on contempt of court.
Even if people have legal obligations to other people, they cannot get arrested for failing in those obligations unless such failure is an actual crime. (Or they deliberately committed fraud.)
This is why they didn't arrest him for failing to turn it over...they arrested him on absurd bogus charges of some sort of malicious planning.
The fact that EULAs might be enforceable has no bearing on whether or not software requires an EULA to be installed.
Copyright law says, in Title 17 117, you can install software onto your computer without permission of the copyright owner. Ergo, you don't need to agree to the EULA if you don't want to.
That doesn't mean if you're silly enough to agree to the EULA that you aren't bound by it. (Although contracts need consideration on both sides, and I've never seen an EULA with consideration on the user's side except 'right to install', which they already have and hence is not a 'consideration'.)
Jesus Christ. When I say 'People think copyright law says X, but it actually says Y', you'd think people would be smart enough to actually check to see if I'm correct before asserting that, no, it's X.
Title 17, Section 1, 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Section 106 is the law that creates the exclusive rights of copyright holders to copy their own works, and no one else, and is the entire basis of copyright law. If you break copyright, you're breaking that law, all the other laws are exceptions of that law, making things legal. (Except 106A, which also makes it illegal to misattribute copyrighted works even if you don't copy them, and isn't relevant here.)
So saying 'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement...' means 'Regardless of what the copyright law stated above would appear to say about all copies being illegal unless made by the copyright holder, it's actually not an infringement of copyright law to...'.
Here it is minus some extranous 'or's:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make another copy of that computer program provided that such a new copy is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
It's right there in black and white, unless you think 'Installing software' isn't essential in 'the utilization of software in connection with a machine'.
You have the right to fucking install software that you 'are an owner of the copy of' without any damn 'permission', period, full stop. And make any copies in memory and swap and wherever you need to have the software operate.
He's not a convinced felon. They talk about 'burglary' charges, but it appears all he was convicted of was a misdemeanor, and can legally own firearms all he wants.
Or, for more fun, install it with the screen off. (You can run the install, find out where the EULA is, abort the install, and restart it, turning the screen off before it's presented and back on after you agree.)
No, you can't agree to a contract that way. You cannot legally agree to contracts you do not understand, no matter how much you want to. There must be a 'meeting of the minds'.
And you obviously cannot understand a contract you cannot see.
Well, I don't remember signing any contract, and I don't seem to have a copy anywhere, but if I've signed a contract with the company, that company should be able to produce a signed copy of said contract, so we'll work off that. I must have lost my copy, but I trust them not to forge it.
Oh, they can't produce the signed contract, just an unsigned copy. Well, okay, we'll talk to the company representative who signed it with me and try to figure out if that's exactly what I signed?
Oh, he didn't sign it at the same time as me. Okay, well, who else was there?
Oh, they don't have any witnesses at all. Do they have any evidence I worked out a contract with them at all and came in and signed it?
Oh, I didn't come in and sign it. I signed it at home, apparently. And what, just called them up and told them I signed it?
Oh, I didn't notify them I signed it. But how do they know my name?
Oh, they don't know that I signed it, just that someone did. They didn't bother to collect the name. Okay, well, when was that?
Oh, they don't know when. Odd. But then how do they know that someone did signed it at all?
Because it's installed on my computer? What? That's it?
So, um, to recap: They don't actually know I, or anyone else, signed anything whatsoever. They not only have no evidence that I did so, but admit they actually don't know that I, or anyone else, was even presented with such a contract, or any contract at all, much less agreed to it before the supposed violation.
Their entire evidence that someone signed it, and when, is based on entirely alterable evidence like file timestamps and supposed behaviors of installers, and even if it's a 100% accurate and correct they have no evidence it was actually me doing the agreeing?
You joke, and it's not true about cats, but various laws about animals do, in fact, make it very difficult to 'own' certain types of animals. Or at least do things you'd normally be allowed to do with your property.
For example, in Georgia it's illegal to kill non-poisonous snakes. All of them, even pets. I pity the snake-owner who wants to have his suffering pet put out of its misery, because he can't. A law designed to keep people from acting paranoid and irrationally towards harmless snake backfires against people who like snakes so much they own one.
And various states have pet registries to record ownership of pets, like you'd want to record any mobile, valuable thing, like a car. The problem is, they are often restricted towards common pets, and you can't register, for example, a squirrel.
It's sorta the same problem with ownership of natural objects. If a stick falls in my yard, it's not legally my property. Someone is not commit theft if they take it and claim it. OTOH, if I take it and claim it, that's fine...but what if I then leave my stick in the yard? (This was actually such an issue with people stealing from orchids and gardens there are specific laws about growing things. Until such laws, legally, anyone could just grab fruit from the trees, and had to be kept out with trespassing law. And you couldn't do anything if you had flowers accessible from public land, like along the sidewalk.)
This can cause large problems with dead animals on the side of the road, when said animal isn't legally anyone's property, and everyone can disclaim responsibility for it. (This problem was obviously eventually solved by having the government do it.)
Property laws are not applicable to 'natural things'...until they magically are, and the boundary is very tricky. (Let's not even try to figure out if gas station air pumps are charging for 'air', and, if so, whose air? We'll just assume that they are actually charging for a service.)
Wrong. Copyright law says you can use software that you have purchased. Including making copies while installing it and into memory and swap while using it. (And you can even make backups of it, both of the install medium and hard drive backups of the whole system.)
Your logic used to be the rational behind EULA. It stopped being applicable when copyright law was amended for software to allow normal usage without violating copyright. (Which disallowed normal usage without the wavier granted you in the EULA.)
EULAs are, nowadays, no more required for using software than for reading books.
You don't need to be 'authorized' to use software you bought anymore than you need authorization to eat a pizza you bought.
No, copyright law doesn't stop you. If you have software, you are allowed under the law to make an installed copy of it, and make incidental copies into memory and swap.
EULA originate from before the law allowed that, under the theory that they could impose rules on you in exchange for 'letting' you install and use it. Which shouldn't have been legal, they can't sell you something that's manifestly unsuited for the purposes they sold you it for, and if you refuse to agree to the contract it's completely unsuitable as it deliberately doesn't work at all. If the box says you can use it in a certain way, the software has to be able to do that, or they are in violation of consumer protection laws.
But regardless of whether that logic used to work, it doesn't now, as the law says if I'm have a piece of copyrighted software, I have the right to copy it onto the disk, into memory, into swap, wherever I need to copy it to use the damn thing.
As I don't need their fucking permission to install and use the software, I don't need to agree to the EULA. I can, if I'm stupid, or I can get a cat or minor child to do it. (Or some random person off the street...they are rather unlikely to violate the EULA if they aren't using my computer.) Or edit the installer to not display that box.
And, on top of all that, I have the right to make backup copies, too. (Not 'one' copy, that's a misreading of the law. Any copy I make is legal if it's 'a' backup copy, but that simply means 'a' copy I just made is legal if made for backup purposes, not that I can only make one of them. Each and every copy is legal if it is for the purposes of backup, there's no requirement there be only one.)
They maybe your company should spring for fucking 5-dollar-a-month phone.com number that you can dial into and back out of, you tard. It can even be set to forward to different phones at various times of day and do voicemail.
Forget $700. Phone.com does it for incredibly cheap, along with voice mail, and queued incoming calls that forward to different numbers until one of them is answered, and menuing systems that let you set up direct forwards to different people...without exposing real phone numbers at all.
Additionally, they forge outgoing caller ID for calls forwarded to you, so you'd get the correct caller ID on your phone. (OTOH, you wouldn't know it was forwarded from work and they didn't call you direct. They really should mangle it slightly with a - at the end or something to indicate that.)
Not that that's an ad for phone.com, that's just what my company uses currently, there are probably a dozen companies like that.
If you call someone, you have no right for them not to know you're calling them. You don't have a privacy right from the person you're speaking to.(1) That's just dumb.
And you have the right not to be tracked down and abused regardless of how it happens, it has nothing to do with phone lines at all.
1) Questions anonymity in general aside...you could easily have the right to address society at large, or consensually talk to someone anonymous, but still have no right to talk to someone without telling them who you are if they don't want you to.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they couldn't, but as I pointed out, copyright is a completely batshit insane legal theory to be operating under. Password are not copyrighted, and 'Concern' post is total fucktardary.
If a bank manager walked out on the job with the only bank vault combination, and the banks had a choice of either getting it from him or destroying their million dollar door....yeah, the courts might order him to turn it over.
Not under the insane theory of copyright, but under the theory that part of their job was to make sure their successor could get into the vault, and by failing to do their job they possibly have cost the bank millions, and the bank would either like the combination or those millions.
And, of course, he could rebut this by claiming that is not, in fact, part of his job, etc, whatever. I'm not saying the person bringing suit would win, I'm saying there's valid grounds for a suit.
At worst, they can fire me.
Well, no, at worse they could sue you and get the court to order you to produce said work and hold you in contempt when you didn't.
Of course, this absurd for copyrighted works, but, OTOH, it's absurd to pretend to that passwords are copyrighted anyway.
If they did sue, they'd probably win a lawsuit demanding passwords to their own equipment. There's plenty of legal theories that could happen under, just not the insane example of copyright.
But the point is, if they are suffering wrongful harm at your hands because of your failure to do something, the actual correct behavior is to sue to you, get a judgment against you, and then the court will enforce it. If you fail to do the thing after the court has demanded it, they will lock you away until you do.
It is not to throw you in jail, even if they do own the police.
Oh, you're right, but you're arguing from the wrong direction. Don't fall into the idea that there is such thing as a 'software license'.
<explanation>When you buy a copy of a computer program, those things they sell at a store on the shelves, that is what you have purchased...a copy of a computer program, as defined by copyright law. Usually a copyrighted computer program.
With that copy of a computer program, according to copyright law, you do not have the right to copy (or alter) it except on your own computer as necessary for your own use. (There are other things that it is illegal to do with it, such as kill people. Check your local laws.)
It was a normal purchase of goods that are slightly restricted by the government, like when you buy a shotgun you might not be allowed to fire it within city limits unless your life is in danger, or to shorten the barrel.</explanation>
At on point in that explanation did I utter the word 'license', and that is because there is no 'license' relevant to this, just like there is no 'elephant' relevant to this. The whole concept is entirely unrelated.
Now, this box may also come with something asserting more, or less, abilities than allowed by copyright law, just like your shotgun might come with some special permission to saw off the barrel if you pay the police some money and get a permit. (Unlikely, but possible.)
You can call this a 'software license' if you want. Although in actuality copyright 'licenses' are something else that companies that do to gain use of a copyright for a time, link companies that produce toys based on TV shows, and this thing would be more correctly called a general 'contract'. You are not 'licensing' the software in any meaningful sense of 'licensing'.
But you can agree to the terms if you want. Or not. Whatever you want to do.
While this contract, if agreed to, might alter your ability to use the copy of the computer program you purchased, feel free to completely ignore said contract and use the program however you want to within the law. Note the law grants you the right to copy and alter the program as long as such copies and alterations are in order to use the program, so you might wish to alter the install process so you can get past a weird screen talking about a contract you're not interested in.
If you were just charging it, I'm failing to see why it would be plugged into a docking station. OTOH, if you car had a docking station, you would not need to pick it up...you'd answer through the car speakers or whatever.
I have the feeling I'm not getting through here. I don't want any changes in existing headsets or chargers whatsoever. However well those work, they would continue to work. Every single device, every single cable, would continue to function the same. It would work exactly the same in your car with your phone, pretending your phone had done this.
I would just like the plugs spaced in a standard manner so that it was possible to design one plug to go into both at the same time, for when, and only when, it would make sense for the device to be plugged into something that both wants audio and to charge it.
Right now such devices don't even exist for anything except for iPods. I'd like every stereo that has a iPod dock built in to also have an inch of cable sticking out that can plug into such a plug. And the same with car stereos. And cigarette lighter FM transmitters.
Oh, that reminds me. This standard should also specify that shorting the microphone input direct to audio ground means the dock doesn't have a microphone, which would let cell phones plug into stereos, car or otherwise, and use them to play mp3s and the output from an call, but use the phone mic for input. (Presumably they'd switch to speaker-phone mic.)
The S-video thing is just as stupid -- AFAIK, one doesn't even need a low-pass filter to sum the two signals together with good quality.
I once wired a convertor simply by twisting the ends of a s-video cable to the ends of a RCA cable. But then I found one for 70 cents somewhere, s-video female to rca male, so I can stick it on the end of my six-foot s-video stereo audio cable if I need to hook my laptop into TV. I've always wondered if it's 100% straight through or they have the little resister layout to clean the signal up a little. It works backwards just fine, which makes me suspicious it's just straight through.
And speaking of stupid plugs, in my universe s-video, the worse plug of all, would not exist. Damn that plug is stupid.
I'm with you that all plugs should be roughly like the 3.5mm plugs. USB should have been like that. Well, it does carry power...maybe it should be more like those DC adapter plugs, with the positive current in the middle so it can't touch things, but with three strips on the outside for ground and +/- data. And all the cables should have been female at both ends. Most plugs about 4mm wide, but a tiny one that's 2mm for small stuff.
It's sorta funny they worked so hard on the USB plug, making it impossible to misorient, but a) screwed up the smaller sizes so much we've had half a dozen different designs, when all they needed was one big one and one little one, (and inexplicable had a 'B' plug for no reason.) b) failed to realize that an easy way to stop a plug from being misoriented was to make it plug in in any direction, and c) inexplicably made it exactly fit in a RJ-45 jack. (Even making it slightly smaller would have helped.)
There's absolutely nothing in the law that says you have to stay within the bounds of 'directed by the code'.
You can legally run software in any manner you see fit, adaptating it and copying it as you see fit, if that is 'essential step in the utilization of the computer program'. Not 'essential step in the utilization of the computer program in a manner designed by the programmer'.
If you want to run five hundred copies of Microsoft Word at the same time as part of some mad scientist experiment, you can legally do that, and alter the code so it actually works. You are utilizing the code, and all copies and alterations are required to utilize the code like that.
Any 'used' copy of the code, any copy you must make to do what you're trying to do with the code, is legal. There's nothing in there about doing what 'the code' says at all.
Which, incidentally, makes no-cd patches legal. (In the strict sense of a 'patch' that alters the code. Copying already-altered executable around between people is, of course, illegal.) You are altering the code in a manner necessary to use it in the manner you're attempting to use it.
Yes, it's absurdly circular, but it's supposed to be circular. Or, rather, the intent is that once you own a copy of a computer program, you have the ability to use said program in any manner within your computer without violating copyright, no matter how many times it gets copied around and changed.
I know people don't believe this, thanks to years of brainwashing by the software industry, but that's actually how it's supposed to work. Legally, when I put a CD with a copyrighted computer program in my computer, I am able to run it or hack it in any manner I see fit, as long as it's limited to running in that 'machine'. That's why they added that exemption.
Now, I've ignored two things here. One, if you agree to an EULA, or a contract before purchasing like online software, it's entirely possible that you are bound to said EULA or contract. I'm talking solely about your rights without agreeing to one of those. Of course, if you haven't agreed to the EULA, you can make copies and edit them so you can install without agreeing to the EULA.
And I am ignoring the DMCA in this. That might be relevant to some aspect of altering the code to skip the EULA, or skip copy protection, but it is not relevant to the 117 exception to 106. The DMCA is about subverting copy and/or access control, not making the copy. (And a very strong case can be made that EULA are neither access controls nor copy controls.)
And, if they weren't fair use, if you weren't legally allowed to use the software without their additional permission, then selling you the software was consumer fraud.
I can't sell you a car, and then refuse to give you a key to that car and try to sell you one. A car's purpose is to drive, it was demonstrated as if it could drive, and if I know it cannot drive in the state it is sold in, without the key, I have committed fraud by representing it as such. I can't cleverly motion at the car over there as what I'm selling you, while hiding the key in my pocket.
If someone buys a 'word processor' but instead gets only a program that prompts him to agree to give away random legal rights in return for said word processor, well, that software is 'unfit for the purpose sold' and is outright fraud. An EULA box is not a 'word processor' in anyone's dictionary. (Unless, heh, it's editable.)
You can sell someone half a product, or a product that is completely useless without an additional product. But you can't represent it as anything but that at the time of sale, even by implication. If you're calling something 'an X', it has to be able to do the things people expect 'an X' to do, and not require additional things to make it work. You want to sell things 'as is', you have to sell them 'as is'.
Ironically, the fact that they claim to 'give you something', the ability to install the software, which is required for a 'contract' to take place, (Consideration on each side.) exactly backfires for them here. I.e, if copyright law and contract law combined made EULAs legally required for the user to agree to, that magically makes the thing a violation of consumer protection laws that don't let companies sell products that don't work for the stated purposes.
If someone else signs your name on a check you aren't liable for you, you loon. It would be entirely possible to have a check reversed on the grounds you had someone else sign it.
Unfortunately, if you try to get out of paying it by claiming you got someone else to sign it, you a) just admitted to committing fraud while purchasing whatever without intending to pay for it, and b) admitted to the entirely different crime of check fraud on your bank. Oh, and conspiracy to do those two things, too.
And, on top of all that, you still would have to pay for whatever, so you'd have to write another check. Actually, they'd probably demand cash.
So, it's not a very popular means of writing checks, consisting as it does of four counts of fraud and four counts of conspiracy shared between two people. And in the end wouldn't work.
As to how all this relates to the EULA: It doesn't. Installing software without agreeing to the EULA is not a violation of copyright law, and has not been for some years. Someone else agreeing to the terms does, indeed, put them on the hook, or not if they're a minor.
So let's see how this logically works. You admit someone 'buys the tangible CD'. If something is bought, it is owned by the person who bought it. (That's what bought means.) So the person owns a 'tangible CD', correct?
Definition in copyright law:
"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.
A CD is a material object. The work can be both perceived, by running the program and simply by looking at files, and reproduced by copying it, both with the aid of a machine called a computer. The work is fixed onto the CD because the CD lasts long enough for you to repeatedly read it. (I haven't defined 'computer program', but if you attempt to redefine copyright law on that one, you'll end up with no copyright on computer programs at all.)
So a CD with a computer program on it is 'a copy of a computer program'.
So someone who owns a tangible CD does 'own a copy of the computer program'.
See, the problem is, you're right in that there's a difference between owning software and owning a copy of the software. You don't have the right to do whatever you want if you just own a copy, and that's exactly what you're trying to say. It's 100% exactly correct.
The problem is that law, in addition to granting right to the 'owner of the software program', explicitly says what 'owners of a copy of the software program' are able do without violating copyright, so you're now trying to invent an imaginary third category that is 'owner of a copy' without actually falling under the law that says what an 'owner of the copy' can do.
I'd actually be rather interesting in finding out exactly who you think 'the owner of a copy of a computer program' would be. It can't possibly be the copyright holder, they don't need an exception under copyright law to make a copy. So who is it?
And if you do something they assert work for hire, and didn't make them a copy, can they arrest you? NO
Like I said, they have to go to court to get a decision on it, and the court will then enforce it, and if you fail to turn it over, you're in contempt.
And, incidentally, passwords are not copyrightable. They are entirely functional, and designed not to be published, and perhaps most important, are never fixed in any sort of media. (Computers usually hold hashs of passwords, not passwords.) So are about as far away as copyrightable as possible, and so cannot possibly be a 'work for hire'.
Not to mention, um, you can't be forced to reproduce a 'work from hire' from memory. Even if we work in this insane theory that the city owns the copyright of the password, and can demand he not produce copies of it, and even turn over all tangible copies of it, they still can't make him produce a copy from memory under that theory under any circumstances.
There is no theory of copyright law where the copyright holder of a work can require someone else to produce a copy of said work simply because they have lost theirs. That's just idiotic. And being forced to 'generate' a copy is even more inane.
So to recap:
1) Passwords are not copyrightable, as they are never fixed in a media.
2) Even if they were copyrightable, the idea that this one is a work for hire is dubious.
3) Even if it was a work for hire and the city the legitimate copyright holder, no theory of law would allow them to demand that someone else recreate said work and give it to them. If they lost their copy, they lose. (And if no copy was made, it ipso facto cannot be copyrighted, see 1.)
4) Even if a theory of law did demand that, we run into the original objection in that you can't simply arrest people by asserting that, you have to go to civil court and get a court decision requiring him to do that, and then arrest him for contempt if he doesn't. It's not 'theft', it's not a crime, it's someone withholding something and causing economic harm, and hence it's a civil problem.
I'm 100% sure of all those except 2, which might be true, except that I know 1 isn't so it's rather moot. Maybe it's you who shouldn't be giving legal advice here.
As it is, there are plenty of legal theories were he could be forced to turn over the password. (Copyright is not one of them.) However, the actual objection to those is still #4, the way to force someone to turn over a password is to sue him for said password and once the court says he has to, he'll be arrested on contempt of court.
Even if people have legal obligations to other people, they cannot get arrested for failing in those obligations unless such failure is an actual crime. (Or they deliberately committed fraud.)
This is why they didn't arrest him for failing to turn it over...they arrested him on absurd bogus charges of some sort of malicious planning.
The fact that EULAs might be enforceable has no bearing on whether or not software requires an EULA to be installed.
Copyright law says, in Title 17 117, you can install software onto your computer without permission of the copyright owner. Ergo, you don't need to agree to the EULA if you don't want to.
That doesn't mean if you're silly enough to agree to the EULA that you aren't bound by it. (Although contracts need consideration on both sides, and I've never seen an EULA with consideration on the user's side except 'right to install', which they already have and hence is not a 'consideration'.)
Jesus Christ. When I say 'People think copyright law says X, but it actually says Y', you'd think people would be smart enough to actually check to see if I'm correct before asserting that, no, it's X.
Title 17, Section 1, 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Section 106 is the law that creates the exclusive rights of copyright holders to copy their own works, and no one else, and is the entire basis of copyright law. If you break copyright, you're breaking that law, all the other laws are exceptions of that law, making things legal. (Except 106A, which also makes it illegal to misattribute copyrighted works even if you don't copy them, and isn't relevant here.)
So saying 'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement...' means 'Regardless of what the copyright law stated above would appear to say about all copies being illegal unless made by the copyright holder, it's actually not an infringement of copyright law to...'.
Here it is minus some extranous 'or's:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make another copy of that computer program provided that such a new copy is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
It's right there in black and white, unless you think 'Installing software' isn't essential in 'the utilization of software in connection with a machine'.
You have the right to fucking install software that you 'are an owner of the copy of' without any damn 'permission', period, full stop. And make any copies in memory and swap and wherever you need to have the software operate.
He's not a convinced felon. They talk about 'burglary' charges, but it appears all he was convicted of was a misdemeanor, and can legally own firearms all he wants.
When you were signing their contract, obviously. I mean, if they were witnessing you signing, they should have noticed the SPLA.
Oh, they weren't witnesses the install? How the hell do they know you agreed to the terms, then?
Just ask a minor to install your software.
Or, for more fun, install it with the screen off. (You can run the install, find out where the EULA is, abort the install, and restart it, turning the screen off before it's presented and back on after you agree.)
No, you can't agree to a contract that way. You cannot legally agree to contracts you do not understand, no matter how much you want to. There must be a 'meeting of the minds'.
And you obviously cannot understand a contract you cannot see.
Like I say about EULAs:
Well, I don't remember signing any contract, and I don't seem to have a copy anywhere, but if I've signed a contract with the company, that company should be able to produce a signed copy of said contract, so we'll work off that. I must have lost my copy, but I trust them not to forge it.
Oh, they can't produce the signed contract, just an unsigned copy. Well, okay, we'll talk to the company representative who signed it with me and try to figure out if that's exactly what I signed?
Oh, he didn't sign it at the same time as me. Okay, well, who else was there?
Oh, they don't have any witnesses at all. Do they have any evidence I worked out a contract with them at all and came in and signed it?
Oh, I didn't come in and sign it. I signed it at home, apparently. And what, just called them up and told them I signed it?
Oh, I didn't notify them I signed it. But how do they know my name?
Oh, they don't know that I signed it, just that someone did. They didn't bother to collect the name. Okay, well, when was that?
Oh, they don't know when. Odd. But then how do they know that someone did signed it at all?
Because it's installed on my computer? What? That's it?
So, um, to recap: They don't actually know I, or anyone else, signed anything whatsoever. They not only have no evidence that I did so, but admit they actually don't know that I, or anyone else, was even presented with such a contract, or any contract at all, much less agreed to it before the supposed violation.
Their entire evidence that someone signed it, and when, is based on entirely alterable evidence like file timestamps and supposed behaviors of installers, and even if it's a 100% accurate and correct they have no evidence it was actually me doing the agreeing?
Ah. Yeah, nice strong case they have.
Which is why, instead, there should be a piece of software to remove the EULA from the box. Then you can just agree to nothing at all.
You joke, and it's not true about cats, but various laws about animals do, in fact, make it very difficult to 'own' certain types of animals. Or at least do things you'd normally be allowed to do with your property.
For example, in Georgia it's illegal to kill non-poisonous snakes. All of them, even pets. I pity the snake-owner who wants to have his suffering pet put out of its misery, because he can't. A law designed to keep people from acting paranoid and irrationally towards harmless snake backfires against people who like snakes so much they own one.
And various states have pet registries to record ownership of pets, like you'd want to record any mobile, valuable thing, like a car. The problem is, they are often restricted towards common pets, and you can't register, for example, a squirrel.
It's sorta the same problem with ownership of natural objects. If a stick falls in my yard, it's not legally my property. Someone is not commit theft if they take it and claim it. OTOH, if I take it and claim it, that's fine...but what if I then leave my stick in the yard? (This was actually such an issue with people stealing from orchids and gardens there are specific laws about growing things. Until such laws, legally, anyone could just grab fruit from the trees, and had to be kept out with trespassing law. And you couldn't do anything if you had flowers accessible from public land, like along the sidewalk.)
This can cause large problems with dead animals on the side of the road, when said animal isn't legally anyone's property, and everyone can disclaim responsibility for it. (This problem was obviously eventually solved by having the government do it.)
Property laws are not applicable to 'natural things'...until they magically are, and the boundary is very tricky. (Let's not even try to figure out if gas station air pumps are charging for 'air', and, if so, whose air? We'll just assume that they are actually charging for a service.)
Wrong. Copyright law says you can use software that you have purchased. Including making copies while installing it and into memory and swap while using it. (And you can even make backups of it, both of the install medium and hard drive backups of the whole system.)
Your logic used to be the rational behind EULA. It stopped being applicable when copyright law was amended for software to allow normal usage without violating copyright. (Which disallowed normal usage without the wavier granted you in the EULA.)
EULAs are, nowadays, no more required for using software than for reading books.
You don't need to be 'authorized' to use software you bought anymore than you need authorization to eat a pizza you bought.
No, copyright law doesn't stop you. If you have software, you are allowed under the law to make an installed copy of it, and make incidental copies into memory and swap.
EULA originate from before the law allowed that, under the theory that they could impose rules on you in exchange for 'letting' you install and use it. Which shouldn't have been legal, they can't sell you something that's manifestly unsuited for the purposes they sold you it for, and if you refuse to agree to the contract it's completely unsuitable as it deliberately doesn't work at all. If the box says you can use it in a certain way, the software has to be able to do that, or they are in violation of consumer protection laws.
But regardless of whether that logic used to work, it doesn't now, as the law says if I'm have a piece of copyrighted software, I have the right to copy it onto the disk, into memory, into swap, wherever I need to copy it to use the damn thing.
As I don't need their fucking permission to install and use the software, I don't need to agree to the EULA. I can, if I'm stupid, or I can get a cat or minor child to do it. (Or some random person off the street...they are rather unlikely to violate the EULA if they aren't using my computer.) Or edit the installer to not display that box.
And, on top of all that, I have the right to make backup copies, too. (Not 'one' copy, that's a misreading of the law. Any copy I make is legal if it's 'a' backup copy, but that simply means 'a' copy I just made is legal if made for backup purposes, not that I can only make one of them. Each and every copy is legal if it is for the purposes of backup, there's no requirement there be only one.)
800 numbers have to get the ANI, because they get billed for the call, so have to know who called so know how much to bill.
Actually, you don't have to track them down. This works by forwarding to a 1-800 number.
telemarketers block their caller ID by forwarding it out of the country and back in, resulting in 'OUT OF AREA'.
People in other countries can trivially be blocked from 1-800 numbers.
They maybe your company should spring for fucking 5-dollar-a-month phone.com number that you can dial into and back out of, you tard. It can even be set to forward to different phones at various times of day and do voicemail.
What is this, 1983?
Forget $700. Phone.com does it for incredibly cheap, along with voice mail, and queued incoming calls that forward to different numbers until one of them is answered, and menuing systems that let you set up direct forwards to different people...without exposing real phone numbers at all.
Additionally, they forge outgoing caller ID for calls forwarded to you, so you'd get the correct caller ID on your phone. (OTOH, you wouldn't know it was forwarded from work and they didn't call you direct. They really should mangle it slightly with a - at the end or something to indicate that.)
Not that that's an ad for phone.com, that's just what my company uses currently, there are probably a dozen companies like that.
It's not a 'if you have nothing to hide'.
If you call someone, you have no right for them not to know you're calling them. You don't have a privacy right from the person you're speaking to.(1) That's just dumb.
And you have the right not to be tracked down and abused regardless of how it happens, it has nothing to do with phone lines at all.
1) Questions anonymity in general aside...you could easily have the right to address society at large, or consensually talk to someone anonymous, but still have no right to talk to someone without telling them who you are if they don't want you to.
A saner security policy would be to locate them 30 feet from a police station.