"To this date, with medication I still am hazy on if computer viruses can infect human beings"
They can not. Science fiction writers have written stories about such possibilities in the future - but such a future is still many decades off. Don't worry about that.
I don't agree. Not in any meaningful way, since nothing is negotiated, you don't get to have a say about anything. It's a take it or leave it proposition.
"To say that something that comes with a EULA has no contract is to say that the court declared all EULAs illegal. "
That sentence sounds like utter nonsense to me. They held that you pay for a license to use some software under certain rules and restrictions, the EULA are those restrictions. As has always been the case for all things with EULA's, I fail to see how anything should have changed.
"...but your statement that licenses aren't a contract..."
The law papers are long and filled with text, that is needed for the complete picture - the problem is when you to reduce it you end up being imprecise and people end up fighting about that. Maybe you can call it a contract, maybe not, I don't now (and frankly don't care) - but Court finds, based on previous laws, that Blizzards OWNS this - according to copyright law they have all the rights and can determine what others are allowed to do. If you pay money you pay for a limited license, assuming you follow the rules - if you don't follow the rules the license is void - neither the court nor I care about what you have done in the past or copy etc, clearly they don't know what you do right now - but a crime is a crime even if others don't see it. But the court specifically said (and I read the damn thing) if you don't follow the rules the license is revoked, so if you copy the program or use it, it is now a copyright violation (you violate their rights, since they have no longer given you permission to use their software) and since the glider people sell a program specifically designed to break the rules, they are guilty of contributory copyright impingement.
"The biggest problem with discussing religion on Slashdot is the sheer amount of repetitive noise that doesn't get modded to oblivion because the (oversimplified, inane) statement is one shared by the majority."
It has the virtue of being true.
"Seriously, grow up."
I'm old, and haven't got long left - what does "grow up" mean in your fantasy world? That I must believe in fantasy beings? I wish I could. Even if there was a god he would have to be a sadistic bastard, the thought of a heaven where one could met the departed sounds good. In fact so good its clear why humans needed to invent the belief.
"From a religious point of view, if there is anything inspired, it would be the first version in its original language. So the closer you get to the original ones, theoretically would be the better. "
No no, that's not a religious view - that's a scientific point of view - something which is the enemy of all religion.
"That way it'd serve Blizzard right for making such idiotic legal challenges that have massive repercussions for the rest of the tech community as a whole."
"Twice now Blizzard has managed to push through the BS argument that simply running code on a computer is an infringement on copyright and thus only possible under their strict license."
It can be a violation of copyright just as much as if you had downloaded a program from the internet - when you don't have the license you break the law, that's the way it is - if you didn't like it perhaps you should have started fighting it earlier.
"Assuming that it's a precedent that stands"
It's not a precedent, its based on existing case law.
"it means that ANYTHING you do on a computer is subject to that. Want to listen to that CD you bought? "
Now you are slowly getting it. Copyright means you don't own anything - you license it.
"And no, I am aware that this ridiculous definition of 'copying' wasn't put in place by Blizzard,"
"This ruling is stupid, because it could lead to all sorts of infringements based on technicalities - and "technical" belongs in that word."
The law is about technicalities.
"This "convict you of copyright infringement using some nuance about how computers work" is insane."
It's also completely irrelevant for the ruling which says if you don't follow the rules of license then you have broken the license, and you are no longer legally allowed use the program.
"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
The plain meaning of this text is that you're allowed to copy it into RAM if "
IF you OWN it - you don't OWN world of warcraft - you are paying for a license. And that license (EULA/TOS) clearly states what you are allowed to do. You are not allowed to use bots. So if you use bots you have broken the contract, you are no longer a legal licensee and as such copying the program becomes a copyright violation because you don't have the right to do so any longer.
"Which requires copying it to RAM, which according to the text of 117(a) is not an infringing act."
IF you are the owner, and reading blizzard's license agreement its quite clear you are not an owner, you are paying for a license.
"This decision is wrong because the judge interpreted 117(a) incorrectly "
No, you just don't understand the case.
"Simply because Blizzard includes a unilateral contract in the box with the software they sell, this other guy (who they haven't sold it to) is now guilty of copyright infringement."
No, they are guilty of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement - because they are making money of helping people break the copyright law.
"It's a very dangerous precedent, and hopefully those decisions will both be overturned before they cause too much trouble."
It is not a precedent, it is upholding existing law. So don't hold your breath.
The individual user get a license to use the program UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS - if these conditions aren't met, he doesn't have the right. If he starts a bot first and then the program he has committed a violation, if he doesn't start the bot first but just the program there is no violation.
If they appeal this, they are going to die screaming (or at least loose - assuming they don't send a Death Knight after him)
Every time one has to upgrade its more bloatware, usually a lot of junk you don't want. A lot of new stuff which prevents you from doing what you have to do, and now have to spent time to see if you can switch of. It's usually slower in spite of what marketing promises you.
Upgrading is a bother, something most people would rather avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
"To this date, with medication I still am hazy on if computer viruses can infect human beings"
They can not. Science fiction writers have written stories about such possibilities in the future - but such a future is still many decades off. Don't worry about that.
Are they nuts?
That android:
http://arxivblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/nao.jpg
Is not nearly hot enough for that price!
This is what we want:
http://www.universeguide.com/Pictures/RommieFace.jpg
"A EULA is a contract. "
I don't agree. Not in any meaningful way, since nothing is negotiated, you don't get to have a say about anything. It's a take it or leave it proposition.
"To say that something that comes with a EULA has no contract is to say that the court declared all EULAs illegal. "
That sentence sounds like utter nonsense to me. They held that you pay for a license to use some software under certain rules and restrictions, the EULA are those restrictions. As has always been the case for all things with EULA's, I fail to see how anything should have changed.
"...but your statement that licenses aren't a contract..."
The law papers are long and filled with text, that is needed for the complete picture - the problem is when you to reduce it you end up being imprecise and people end up fighting about that. Maybe you can call it a contract, maybe not, I don't now (and frankly don't care) - but Court finds, based on previous laws, that Blizzards OWNS this - according to copyright law they have all the rights and can determine what others are allowed to do. If you pay money you pay for a limited license, assuming you follow the rules - if you don't follow the rules the license is void - neither the court nor I care about what you have done in the past or copy etc, clearly they don't know what you do right now - but a crime is a crime even if others don't see it.
But the court specifically said (and I read the damn thing) if you don't follow the rules the license is revoked, so if you copy the program or use it, it is now a copyright violation (you violate their rights, since they have no longer given you permission to use their software) and since the glider people sell a program specifically designed to break the rules, they are guilty of contributory copyright impingement.
nt
"The biggest problem with discussing religion on Slashdot is the sheer amount of repetitive noise that doesn't get modded to oblivion because the (oversimplified, inane) statement is one shared by the majority."
It has the virtue of being true.
"Seriously, grow up."
I'm old, and haven't got long left - what does "grow up" mean in your fantasy world? That I must believe in fantasy beings? I wish I could. Even if there was a god he would have to be a sadistic bastard, the thought of a heaven where one could met the departed sounds good. In fact so good its clear why humans needed to invent the belief.
"Really? Then why do so many Christian scholars take that very view?"
You want me guess? Well, I assume there is hope for them yet, that they may give up the nonsense try rationality instead.
Because science is about fact - religion is about belief.
The voices in your head frighten me.
"From a religious point of view, if there is anything inspired, it would be the first version in its original language. So the closer you get to the original ones, theoretically would be the better. "
No no, that's not a religious view - that's a scientific point of view - something which is the enemy of all religion.
"I really wish people would get a clue"
Indeed, especially those worshiping unprovable supernatural beings.
Or are you trolling.
The court found you do not have a contract with Blizzard, you pay for a license on their terms.
"That way it'd serve Blizzard right for making such idiotic legal challenges that have massive repercussions for the rest of the tech community as a whole."
What repercussions?
"Blizzard has historically misused the law for their own purposes. "
I don't know that they have, but this time they have just asked the law be upheld.
"Twice now Blizzard has managed to push through the BS argument that simply running code on a computer is an infringement on copyright and thus only possible under their strict license."
It can be a violation of copyright just as much as if you had downloaded a program from the internet - when you don't have the license you break the law, that's the way it is - if you didn't like it perhaps you should have started fighting it earlier.
"Assuming that it's a precedent that stands"
It's not a precedent, its based on existing case law.
"it means that ANYTHING you do on a computer is subject to that. Want to listen to that CD you bought? "
Now you are slowly getting it. Copyright means you don't own anything - you license it.
"And no, I am aware that this ridiculous definition of 'copying' wasn't put in place by Blizzard,"
Nor is it particularly relevant.
"This ruling is stupid, because it could lead to all sorts of infringements based on technicalities - and "technical" belongs in that word."
The law is about technicalities.
"This "convict you of copyright infringement using some nuance about how computers work" is insane."
It's also completely irrelevant for the ruling which says if you don't follow the rules of license then you have broken the license, and you are no longer legally allowed use the program.
And the moment you start glider you are no longer legally allowed to keep wow running.
You could follow the link in the article!
"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
The plain meaning of this text is that you're allowed to copy it into RAM if "
IF you OWN it - you don't OWN world of warcraft - you are paying for a license. And that license (EULA/TOS) clearly states what you are allowed to do. You are not allowed to use bots. So if you use bots you have broken the contract, you are no longer a legal licensee and as such copying the program becomes a copyright violation because you don't have the right to do so any longer.
"Which requires copying it to RAM, which according to the text of 117(a) is not an infringing act."
IF you are the owner, and reading blizzard's license agreement its quite clear you are not an owner, you are paying for a license.
"This decision is wrong because the judge interpreted 117(a) incorrectly "
No, you just don't understand the case.
"Simply because Blizzard includes a unilateral contract in the box with the software they sell, this other guy (who they haven't sold it to) is now guilty of copyright infringement."
No, they are guilty of contributory and vicarious copyright
infringement - because they are making money of helping people break the copyright law.
"It's a very dangerous precedent, and hopefully those decisions will both be overturned before they cause too much trouble."
It is not a precedent, it is upholding existing law. So don't hold your breath.
The individual user get a license to use the program UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS - if these conditions aren't met, he doesn't have the right. If he starts a bot first and then the program he has committed a violation, if he doesn't start the bot first but just the program there is no violation.
If they appeal this, they are going to die screaming (or at least loose - assuming they don't send a Death Knight after him)
"Except that it specified unauthorized copy."
And if you don't follow the rules you "agreed to" in the license agreement then you are using an authorized copy.
Tell him if he does it right he'll make tons of money and then all the women will want him.
... where are the drinks?
What? Is Jake Gyllenhaal in it as well? :)
Well, since i was commenting something else, it wasn't very constructive of you to reply was it? ;)
It works (for what they want, not what you want)
Every time one has to upgrade its more bloatware, usually a lot of junk you don't want. A lot of new stuff which prevents you from doing what you have to do, and now have to spent time to see if you can switch of. It's usually slower in spite of what marketing promises you.
Upgrading is a bother, something most people would rather avoid.