Right, a sovereign entity sets all laws within its borders. They can determine what parts of a licence agreement can be valid and which ones are against the laws of that country, therefore, if MS did try to withdraw their licence by saying "users in countries X, Y and Z are not allowed to use the software" then the government of X, Y and Z can decide that is illegal, and can therefore be ignored.
Much like the "no reverse engineering" clause is not legal in the UK.
Shouldn't feed the troll, who has lost the argument already, however....
1. ~10 years ago the US determined that, under US law, it was illegally using it's monopoly in one section of a market to dominate another. The fact your government did nothing about it is not our fault. Look closer to home first before complaining.
2. The Vichy government was put in place under threat of arms - you have absolutely no understanding of history; the Vichy government did everything it could to resist, just in other ways. You really think the Normandy landings would have been half so succesful without the intelligence gained by la resistance?
3. Stop being a troll - MS knowingly and repeatedly broke laws, and not due to any morality issue. They did it to continue what has been a succesful model for them, using their monopoly position to extend their hold into other markets, and thought they'd get away with it - after all, the US never enforced a judgement, so they thought they could carry on as usual.
Now, stop before you look even more stupid, please
Options - Security - "warn on when sving documents with changes" - or something like that. We have to use word and everyone has this turned on, to make sure....
I shouldn't really respond to such blatant paranoia (after all, this only came about because the US DIDNT uphold global commitments...), but.....
No, they can just say that countries can withdraw their obligations to US IP and not be held accountable for the actions by the WTO. The EU is now the biggest single market (500m people compareed to what, 300m in the US?) for IP anywhere, and if the US without getting permission decided to ignore IP from other countries then that would be ANOTHER Breach of treary obligations.
You need the WTO more than anyone else; the US makes most of it's external money from IP, and the only thing protecitng your IP is the WTO and various other international treaties; start breaking them, and then watch the pain.
Want to see US exports crumble? Don/t pay, and watch the 50% tax levied on anything imported from the US to make up for it. The US dollar has devalued enough already,just watch it tumble further....
Wow, you have no idea how international trade relations work, do you? Are you 12, or have no idea about how the world is organised?
How do you enforce it? Easy. If US doesnt pay up, WTO can impose a ban on the export of all US goods, just for starters. Individual governments can be given the power to co-opt all American owned goods, to pay the compensation.
They can also declare US IP invalid outside the US. That is the best option, as it will bring about changes the soonest..nothing like loss of copyright on that latest film to make things interesting;)
Model releases are not required in Australian law - you've done the classic thing of assuming US law is what happens everywhere...
The rules governing LLCs means that you also cannot sue an American company for the actions of a non-US entity. Being part of an LLP we know all about this;)
The DMCA notification talks about "under penalty of perjury"
You do not need to agree to a licence in order to use software; that part is bogus. Once you have paid money for an item in a normal, over the counter type transaction, you have all rights to use the product explicitly given within the sale - that is enshrined as a basis for law. While you may agree to the licence, it does not deprive you of the goods you have purchased and cannot be used to deprive you of certain items - i.e. your right to sell goods you have bought without restriction.
In the UK we used to have shops saying "no returns or refunds" - this was illegial, always was, howevr shops tried it and some got away by pretending they have more rights than they do. This is a similar case, and should eventually lead to the same result - simply putting the sign up (i.e. including the no resell clause) is in itself an illegial act.
Standard negotiating tactics - ask for everything and work down, as it's much harder to ask for nothing and then work upwards.
The suggestion is, without the key internal software, there IS no product and as such a % of profits should go, maybe not 100% but as I said, standard bargaining...
And you are rather pompous and sound like an ass, and could probably do with a few points knocked off your ego. I'm not proposing to do that, just making an observation.
THe GPL is a licence, just not an end user one - it only comes into play with distribution, as stated in the text. If you download material covered under the GPL then you can entirely ignore the GPL - again, as stated in the licence - unless you want to then distribute the works further.
At that point you must comply, or you have no right to distribute the works under copyright, and any distribution would be a breach of copyright not of contract.
All from Eben, a well known subject matter expert, compared to someone on Slashdot. I guess I know who i trust more....
First Sale Doctrine: If you buy something, you can resell it. Licences are not applicable here - the licence is something only mentioned after the sale, and is not enforceable, and certainly not to prevent you from reselling.
Ethically they should not presume guilt over inocence, and should also not potentially commit perjury....
In the UK we have a "Notice of Intention to Prosecute", whereby the police do prosecute the registered owner unless they a) name another responsible party, or b) can reasonably show they cannot reliably determine who was driving at the time.
This could be due to the number of people with access to the car (your "secure" location could have 8 eligible drivers, all insured on the same car) such that you cannot say FOR CERTAIN who it was, or that enough time has passed that you cannot reliably recall (i.e. only 2 people could have had the car, however it was 3 months ago and noone can remember who drove)
This is the only instance in the UK where duress can legally be used, as it was determined that the public good outweighed the individuals loss of rights. (a position i am against)
However, i believ in the US you cannot compel testimony - unless the cops can, without you saying so, prove it was you driving beyond reasonable doubt, you cannot be found guilty. I personnaly believe thayt, unless you want to give up an important basic tenet in US legal system, you should think more about what you are saying....
In this case it was considered that the item was so unique (1 of 5 in the world) that the only true compensation was the actual item - and yes, the government can (and does) sieze property!
In this case the damage in not having the item was higher than the usual resort of a financial penalty.
The above comment about not being allowed to use unpainted miniatures / non-GW converted miniatures* is certainly NOT true of all GW stores; I regularly visit about 4 (I know people in each of the areas and it's a handy gaming place) and I play with unpainted, converted, and painted to my standard (poor) miniatures to NO comments, and I have never seen anyone else have negative comments about their work.
Yes, certain items are expensive (obliterators at £12 each!) however the detail on the latest models, for example the Forest sets, is stunning
*the MAJOR exception is Golden Demon, where you must have a majority (51% or better) of GW components in any model you submit. This is a reasonable stipulation - after all its a painting competition for their models!
Slashdot Mirror
Erm, they are impersonating other users in order to shut the connections....
Right, a sovereign entity sets all laws within its borders. They can determine what parts of a licence agreement can be valid and which ones are against the laws of that country, therefore, if MS did try to withdraw their licence by saying "users in countries X, Y and Z are not allowed to use the software" then the government of X, Y and Z can decide that is illegal, and can therefore be ignored.
Much like the "no reverse engineering" clause is not legal in the UK.
It is not "succesful business practice" to use your monopoly in one area to force dominance in another, it is illegial for a damn good reason.
Do you really think that having a world dominated by one or two corporations would be a good thing? Really?
Shouldn't feed the troll, who has lost the argument already, however....
1. ~10 years ago the US determined that, under US law, it was illegally using it's monopoly in one section of a market to dominate another. The fact your government did nothing about it is not our fault. Look closer to home first before complaining.
2. The Vichy government was put in place under threat of arms - you have absolutely no understanding of history; the Vichy government did everything it could to resist, just in other ways. You really think the Normandy landings would have been half so succesful without the intelligence gained by la resistance?
3. Stop being a troll - MS knowingly and repeatedly broke laws, and not due to any morality issue. They did it to continue what has been a succesful model for them, using their monopoly position to extend their hold into other markets, and thought they'd get away with it - after all, the US never enforced a judgement, so they thought they could carry on as usual.
Now, stop before you look even more stupid, please
Then that part of the license agreement can be determined as illegial, and thus, not applicable or enforceable.
You have no idea how soveriegnty works do you?
Because they have a larger slice to take it out fro - in this case, $8 instead of $2
so they make $6 not $0....surely that's not difficult to see?
Way to ignore the actual argument he was making - that it was a frivolous and baseless legal threat....
Options - Security - "warn on when sving documents with changes" - or something like that. We have to use word and everyone has this turned on, to make sure....
I shouldn't really respond to such blatant paranoia (after all, this only came about because the US DIDNT uphold global commitments...), but.....
No, they can just say that countries can withdraw their obligations to US IP and not be held accountable for the actions by the WTO. The EU is now the biggest single market (500m people compareed to what, 300m in the US?) for IP anywhere, and if the US without getting permission decided to ignore IP from other countries then that would be ANOTHER Breach of treary obligations.
You need the WTO more than anyone else; the US makes most of it's external money from IP, and the only thing protecitng your IP is the WTO and various other international treaties; start breaking them, and then watch the pain.
Want to see US exports crumble? Don/t pay, and watch the 50% tax levied on anything imported from the US to make up for it. The US dollar has devalued enough already,just watch it tumble further....
No worries, it happens.....glad to see I'm no longer "troll", only 40% troll now....
I didn't reply to your post, I replied to someone elses who was saying the WTO can't do anything.
Not sure why I'v been moderated as troll, probably someone in the US getting pissy cos they're being told what to do for a change....
However, they may have to give in some way - either banning it ALL internally or allowing external gambling.
,and potentially US IP can be ignored. Now wouldn't that be fun!
If they don't, the ifnes will mount up, trade bans will be put in place
Wow, you have no idea how international trade relations work, do you? Are you 12, or have no idea about how the world is organised?
;)
How do you enforce it? Easy. If US doesnt pay up, WTO can impose a ban on the export of all US goods, just for starters. Individual governments can be given the power to co-opt all American owned goods, to pay the compensation.
They can also declare US IP invalid outside the US. That is the best option, as it will bring about changes the soonest..nothing like loss of copyright on that latest film to make things interesting
Model releases are not required in Australian law - you've done the classic thing of assuming US law is what happens everywhere...
;)
The rules governing LLCs means that you also cannot sue an American company for the actions of a non-US entity. Being part of an LLP we know all about this
VAT registered companies can claim VAT back in VAT submissions, so only the final end user pays VAT on the whole amount..
The DMCA notification talks about "under penalty of perjury"
You do not need to agree to a licence in order to use software; that part is bogus. Once you have paid money for an item in a normal, over the counter type transaction, you have all rights to use the product explicitly given within the sale - that is enshrined as a basis for law. While you may agree to the licence, it does not deprive you of the goods you have purchased and cannot be used to deprive you of certain items - i.e. your right to sell goods you have bought without restriction.
In the UK we used to have shops saying "no returns or refunds" - this was illegial, always was, howevr shops tried it and some got away by pretending they have more rights than they do. This is a similar case, and should eventually lead to the same result - simply putting the sign up (i.e. including the no resell clause) is in itself an illegial act.
Standard negotiating tactics - ask for everything and work down, as it's much harder to ask for nothing and then work upwards.
The suggestion is, without the key internal software, there IS no product and as such a % of profits should go, maybe not 100% but as I said, standard bargaining...
And you are rather pompous and sound like an ass, and could probably do with a few points knocked off your ego. I'm not proposing to do that, just making an observation.
THe GPL is a licence, just not an end user one - it only comes into play with distribution, as stated in the text. If you download material covered under the GPL then you can entirely ignore the GPL - again, as stated in the licence - unless you want to then distribute the works further.
At that point you must comply, or you have no right to distribute the works under copyright, and any distribution would be a breach of copyright not of contract.
All from Eben, a well known subject matter expert, compared to someone on Slashdot. I guess I know who i trust more....
First Sale Doctrine: If you buy something, you can resell it. Licences are not applicable here - the licence is something only mentioned after the sale, and is not enforceable, and certainly not to prevent you from reselling.
Ethically they should not presume guilt over inocence, and should also not potentially commit perjury....
Hey, no fair, I'm offering first.
now form an orderly queue, tickets can be obtained at the front door...
Wrong, fair use does NOT require you to own the entire work to begin with, otherwise no research papers could be written.
think about what you write first, please.....
Use Occams razor:
Everything came about by chance, due to a near infinite number of universes, or:
A special creator dreamed it all up. On a whim. Somehow. And you aren't allowed to ask where the creator came from, as thats blasphemy.
Now which seems more likely?
How long does it take for the tickets to arrive?
In the UK we have a "Notice of Intention to Prosecute", whereby the police do prosecute the registered owner unless they
a) name another responsible party, or
b) can reasonably show they cannot reliably determine who was driving at the time.
This could be due to the number of people with access to the car (your "secure" location could have 8 eligible drivers, all insured on the same car) such that you cannot say FOR CERTAIN who it was, or that enough time has passed that you cannot reliably recall (i.e. only 2 people could have had the car, however it was 3 months ago and noone can remember who drove)
This is the only instance in the UK where duress can legally be used, as it was determined that the public good outweighed the individuals loss of rights. (a position i am against)
However, i believ in the US you cannot compel testimony - unless the cops can, without you saying so, prove it was you driving beyond reasonable doubt, you cannot be found guilty. I personnaly believe thayt, unless you want to give up an important basic tenet in US legal system, you should think more about what you are saying....
In this case it was considered that the item was so unique (1 of 5 in the world) that the only true compensation was the actual item - and yes, the government can (and does) sieze property!
In this case the damage in not having the item was higher than the usual resort of a financial penalty.
The above comment about not being allowed to use unpainted miniatures / non-GW converted miniatures* is certainly NOT true of all GW stores; I regularly visit about 4 (I know people in each of the areas and it's a handy gaming place) and I play with unpainted, converted, and painted to my standard (poor) miniatures to NO comments, and I have never seen anyone else have negative comments about their work.
Yes, certain items are expensive (obliterators at £12 each!) however the detail on the latest models, for example the Forest sets, is stunning
*the MAJOR exception is Golden Demon, where you must have a majority (51% or better) of GW components in any model you submit. This is a reasonable stipulation - after all its a painting competition for their models!