If the consumer knows ahead of time that a software oackage uses UCITA, and buys it anyway, how does that violate the rights of the consumer?
You are neglicting the fact that it is not possible to read the EULA without first buying the package, opening the package, and reading the EULA. And, every software retail store I have seen has a no-refund policy if the software package has been opened. The software manufactorers will tell you to take it back to the store even though the manufactorers know the store's refund policy. Seems to border on fraud to me.
Sine it is the Tort and Insurance Practice Section that is objecting, I have to agree. Although Insurance companies had objections to UCITA when it was up for vote in Maryland, they withdrew their objctions when the legislature carved out an exception specifically for them.
I think for something commonly referred to as "Law of Supply and Demand" it is distinctly undertested by anything except the most rudimentary thought experiments
My old econ book is packed away so I can't check it for any specific studies done to support it. However, it is used in the real world every day. Stores hold sales to increase traffic or get rid of inventory. People jump jobs for higher pay. etc.
Using "supply and demand" to justify corporate gouging is a bit like using Darwin's theory of evolution to justify killing short, skinny people for fun.
Aha! I now realize what your objection to "supply and demand" is. I will leave it to others to debate whether "maximizing profits" is morally correct. But, I will point out that even if people did kill short, skinny people for fun and justified it by using Darwin's Theory of Evolution, it would not invalidate Darwin's Theory.
people buying PCs now will pay $1800 for a PC if that's what it's sold for. They will pay $1500 as well, but if they can't find a $1500 computer that they want, they'll pay $1800.
That assumes that the choice is between paying $1800 or not having a computer. However, there are other areas where a $300 difference will affect sales. People who want to upgrade their three year old machine. Families thinking about purchasing a second computer because the kids want to play Doom while Dad wants to surf the net. The $300 may be the difference between a buy and don't buy decision.
I am not saying you are wrong. The CEOs of Dell, IBM, Compaq, etc will have to decide that on their own. And, they will have to answer to the stockholders if they guess wrong.
Of course, the above ignores the question of how to make sure that your competitors will also raise their price by $300.
I don't see anything wrong with what they were doing. But it looked bad, so they stopped.
From a moral or legal prespective, you are correct, there was nothing wrong with it. From a business prespective, it was wrong because, as you said, "it looked bad".
My point wasn't that what Amazon did was unethical. I was just trying to point out that the IBM implementation is different from Amazon's so we can't use Amazon's experiment as a prediction for the outcome of this experiment.
But if the web has no boundaries (as I've seen it said here), does the practice of differential pricing based on geographical area really make sense?
From a consumer acceptance standpoint, it might if the web site can articulate a rational reason for the diffentiation, e.g., shipping costs, taxes, higher liability risks in a given geographic region, etc. From a practical standpoint, probably not.
The real problem I see is that it was differential pricing by individual computer, not by individual consumer.
Agreed. Under certain circumstances, consumers accept and/or expect price differentiation, e.g. Ladies Night, Happy Hour, Car dealers, etc. In others, In others, they will not accept it especially if it appears to be for arbitrary reasons.
I'm trying to ask if dynamic pricing for each individual consumer is unethical if geographic boundaries for all intents and purposes do not exist as a factor in the transaction.
Ethically? Depends on what set of ethics you are using. Practically, consumers will accept price differentiation if they can see a rational reason for the differentiation: volumn disconts, increase customers in off peak hours, etc. They will not accept it if they precieve it to be based on irrational factors, e.g. the color of shirt you are wearing.
If you're going to quote evidence, quote something relevant.
From the article:
On Sunday, online shoppers logged on to the DVD Talk Forum, a chat room dedicated to discussions about DVDs, and noted that Amazon's price for a limited-edition copy of the Men in Black DVD could differ depending on a number of factors. Included among the determining factors, they said, was which browser was being used, whether a consumer was a repeat or first-time customer and which Internet service provider address a customer was using.
It sounds like a bunch of Amazon customers got together one day in a chat room, checked prices, and compared notes to see what factors affected the quoted price. They concluded that pricing wasn't a random 50/50 proposition.
Even the quote from the Amazon spokesman doesn't support your 50/50 interpetation.
We've learned that certain aspects of our site resonate with customers in different ways, and we are continually fine-tuning our site presentation to see how these variables affect customers' purchasing decisions," Smith said. Currently, she added, Amazon is testing the prices on select merchandise in its DVD store for a limited time, so different shoppers could indeed be charged different prices for the same product.
However, Smith declined to say how long these tests will last or what the criteria are for determining which customers will be charged higher prices than others. "Some customers will pay the same for a certain item as customers paid last week, some will pay more and some will pay less," she said.
I completely disagree that "supply and demand" are the basis for anything that has happened.
Then you disagree with a fundemental tenet of economics. "Supply and demand" states that, all other things being equal, there is a direct relationship between the quantity of goods offered for sale and the price of those goods while there is an inverse relationship between the quantity of goods bought and the price of those goods.
There are several well known excepts to the "supply and demand" curves.
Snob appeal: The sale of some goods, e.g. perfumes and designer clothes, may drop if the price is dropped. This is because the buyers are buying more then functional clothes. They are buying cachet by owning goods others can't afford. Dropping the price will drop this value.
Labor: The supply of labor will follow the normal supply curve until it reaches a certain point. At that point, the supply of labor will start to drop as the price increases. This is because the workers start to place a higher value on leisure time as their wealth increases.
The money supply is tinkered with frequently,. ..Supply is frequently altered through subsidies and tax breaks. ..Prices are often highly regulated for many of the most serious needs. ..Finally, the government assists and prohibits businesses rather often.
These fall in the "all other things being equal" category. In fact, some of them demonstrate the validity of the supply and demand curve becaue they are using "supply and demand" to obtain the desired effect.
Federal Reserve lowering interest rates: Credit is a "product". Increase the cost of borrowing money, and less people will borrow. Decrease the cost and more people will borrow.
Tax breaks and subsidies: This is an attempt to increase the supply by decreasing the cost of the item.
I agree that "supply and demand" is not the total story. However, I disagree that it has nothing to do with "reality".
please don't let reality get in the way of your ideology.
Ideology has nothing to do with it. Even Kensians agree that "supply and demand" exist.
Actually, Amazon was doing a random 50/50 assignment of prices to sessions. The browser and customer history had no effect.
Not according to the article in Computerworld. I don't use Amazon so I do not have any firsthand experience. Do you have a link that shows it was 50/50?
The whole point was to directly measure the demand curve by testing two prices simultaneously, and that requires that the experiment and control groups be as demographically identical as possible.
Even if they did it by assigning prices to customers on a random basis, it still left a bad taste in the consumer's mouth since it was easily verified that different customers got different prices. When stores try these experiments in the brick and mortar world, they usually do it by geographic locations. Customer's are accustomed to the fact that the same product will be priced differently in different parts of the country.
Maximising profit is not the same as getting the highest profit margins.
A simplistic example: You are a carpenter that can make 5 custom cabinets a week and materials cost $100 per cabinet. Experience has shown you that if you price your cabinets at $500, you have a profit margin of $400 per cabinet and will only sell one a week for a net profit of $400 per week.
However, if you drop your price to $250 you can sell 5 a week. This drops your profit margin to $150 yet increases your total profits to $750. With the first pricing, you maximized your profit margins. In the second, you maximixed your profits.
There is a difference between what these computer manufactorers are doing and what Amazon did.
IBM will adjust its pricing "in real time based on metrics such as customer demand and product life cycle." They are using the same parameters to determine price as brick & mortar stores. The only difference is that it is done in "real time".
Amazon's scheme used a differenct set of parameters: which browser was being used, whether a consumer was a repeat or first-time customer and which Internet service provider address a customer was using. All of this was done without informing the customer. It would the equivelent as going into a store and getting a different price quote depending on the color of your shirt, your height and weight, etc.
The customer's experience will be different. Under Amazon's implementation, a customer would get one price will surfing at work, get a second price when he goes to place the order at home, and gets the first price again when he double checks it later at work again.
Under this implemtation, the changes in pricing would tend to follow a trend. Check at work and get one price. Order at home and get a higher (or lower) price. If the customer double checks the price again at work, he will either get the same price as the price he ordered it at home, or it will follow the trend of going higher (or lower) as the last time.
I don't see the customer's having the same reaction to this scheme as amazons as long as the web sites explain the factors that will effect the price and give the customer of getting a firm, fixed price quote.
The first isn't a copyright violation because you didn't COPY anything. You merely pointed the user to it.
I haven't read the court papers. But, I am sure they filed under some law other than copyright. My guess would be misrepresentation or fraud since it might appear to a user that Ford sanctioned the fuckgeneralmotors.com domain name.
Read the decision of the 5th circuit court http://regionalweb.texoma.net/CR/ then make your comments.
Maybe you should have read my reply before responding to it. I said that I read the opinion and the dissent. (Plus, I read the lawyers exchanges over the law at the cni-mailing list.
Now, will you specifically point out where I am "way off base".
The impression I had after reading the opinion was the the majority were determined to rule in favor of the SBBCI and were using any pretext to do it.
For example, they talked a lot about how Banks (the SC ruling that said court reporters do not own copyright on judge's opinions) did not apply because the reasoning in that case was that the opinions were created by paid government employees (judges).
However, the disent pointed out that there was a second reason why the SC ruled the way it did: the public's interest in knowing and reading the opinions. The majority totally ignored that question.
Well, you are all free to write an open source building code
Totally misses the point of the case and the dissent. Copyright protects expressions of an idea, not the idea itself. It does not protect facts.
In law, the changing of a single word may mean the difference between winning or losing a case. Therefore, the wording of a law is a fact that should not be protected by copyright.
I am personally happy that people are being paid to think about these things
Fine, then charge the state or township a one time fee when the law is adopted. Don't give a government enforced monopoly to someone so that they can control who has access to the letter of the law.
Found this buried in the footnotes of the opinion:
When Veeck
received the 1994 codes from SBCCI, he realized that Denison had adopted the 1988 version of the building codes.
Now for the importent question: Does SBCCI still sell the 1988 version of their code? If not, then it is impossible to get a copy of the law as enacted.
I have read the opinion, but not the dissent (yet). It appears that the judges placed a lot of weight to the following facts:
1. the plaintiff did not try to obtain a copy from the local government. He only tried libraries and book stores.
2. He obtained a copy of the law directly from SBCII, not his local government.
I wonder if the outcome would have been different if the plaintiff had gotten a photocopy from his local government and scanned it into his computer to put on his web site.
Bullshit. They didn't let OEMs uninstall IE and install Netscape. However, an OEM could install Netscape at will, as long as IE was still there.
Read the court documents. OEMs were prohibited from changing the desktop. Translation: They could not add any icons to the desktop, including Netscape.
It's called free-enterprise. Capitalism.
It's called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Ohh, right. You need a B.CS. to even install it
The majority of users have never installed Windows. It came preinstalled on their computer. Using a preinstalled Linux is no more difficult then using a preinstalled Windows.
Netscape whined about Microsoft pushing them out of the browser business by giving away free software.
No, they complained , among other things, that MS tied it to the OS and refused to allow OEMs to add Netscape to the desktop. Not only did MS ensure that every new purchaser of Windows had a copy of IE, they also guarenteed that the purchaser would not have a copy of Netscape no matter what inticements Netscape offered the OEMs.
But that is exactly the way the Netscape pushed Spyglass out of the same market.
I agree that Netscape was trying to do the same thing MS was: use their domination of the browser market as leverage to gain greater market share in the server market.
However, Netscape was on an equal footing with Spyglass in that they could only offer inducements to OEMs and ISPs to distribute their browser, trial programs, etc. MS had one advantage none of the other sellers of browsers had: the OS. The could (and did) use their control of the desktop to make sure every user had a copy of their software which could not be deleted and that none of their competitor's browsers would show up on the desktop "out of the box".
Yes, I can. I own the copy and can do with it whatever is allowed under copyright law.
If I buy a video, it is most likely licensed for home viewing only.
DVDs do not have a license. You purchase the copy and the only restriction on what you do with that copy come from copyright law.
You are assuming that DVDs have something similar to the EULAs in software. This is not the case.
Pick up any software that has an EULA and you will see something on the side that says: "You must agree to the enclosed license before you can use the software." There is no similar verbiage on a DVD.
Can I play this in a public place
This is covered under copyright law. I can not charge admission for my dramatic reading of a novel I have purchased. This is considered a performance and not allowed without express permission of the author. The same is true with a DVD. Making money off a public showing of the movie is prohibited by copyright law. It has nothing to do with licenses.
Did I have to sign something?
I think the legal phrasing is "give consent". And, yes you must if it is to be considered a contract.
Software gets around this with the click-wrap license. If you click on "I agree", you have given consent.
A copyright license does not have to be signed by the purchaser to be valid. And DVD's are most definitely not sold with the same restrictions that come with the purchase of a book - the license is completely different.
The act of purchasing a DVD does not imply consent to a license you have not seen. When you buy a DVD, is there a piece of paper that has the words "Licensing Agreement"?
Remember - you own the medium, but the artist (or whomever he sold out to) owns the work.
The artist owns the work; but, I own the copy I have purchased.
He can license it to you in any
way that he wishes, with any restrictions, in a binding contract, without a signature.
He can license it only if he gets my consent. There is no mechenism with DVDs for getting my consent. If they came with "click-wrap" licenses, I would agree with you. But, they do not. Buying a DVD does not have any such mechenism.
you did not sign or agree to any contract when you purchased the software.
I may agree with you; but, not all the courts do. This arguement has been tried in court; and, it has failed. The judge ruled that because the purchaser can read the EULA at home and return it for a refund (at least in theory), it is a binding contract.
Plus, UCITA removes any legal ambiguity and makes click-wrap licenses binding contracts.
A) DeCSS is only used for accessing to video once it is changed is it still the same movie. Is the new video protected by the same copyright?
yes
B) The copy can be made by the os so does this make OS's illegal under DMCA?
This has already been addressed by the courts. The case dealt with reverse engineering. The Plaintiff argued that because the defendent had to make unauthorized copies in RAM in order to run and reverse engineer the progrm, the defendant violated copyright law. The court did not buy the arguement. They ruled that incidental copies made while making fair use of a program do not infringe on copyright.
C) A gun only has malicious intentions and they are legal. What sort world is this when DeCSS is considered more dangerous than a gun?
Bad analogy because guns are specifically protected by the Second Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
You are neglicting the fact that it is not possible to read the EULA without first buying the package, opening the package, and reading the EULA. And, every software retail store I have seen has a no-refund policy if the software package has been opened. The software manufactorers will tell you to take it back to the store even though the manufactorers know the store's refund policy. Seems to border on fraud to me.
Sine it is the Tort and Insurance Practice Section that is objecting, I have to agree. Although Insurance companies had objections to UCITA when it was up for vote in Maryland, they withdrew their objctions when the legislature carved out an exception specifically for them.
My old econ book is packed away so I can't check it for any specific studies done to support it. However, it is used in the real world every day. Stores hold sales to increase traffic or get rid of inventory. People jump jobs for higher pay. etc.
Using "supply and demand" to justify corporate gouging is a bit like using Darwin's theory of evolution to justify killing short, skinny people for fun.
Aha! I now realize what your objection to "supply and demand" is. I will leave it to others to debate whether "maximizing profits" is morally correct. But, I will point out that even if people did kill short, skinny people for fun and justified it by using Darwin's Theory of Evolution, it would not invalidate Darwin's Theory.
How did you handle it when the price went down?
That assumes that the choice is between paying $1800 or not having a computer. However, there are other areas where a $300 difference will affect sales. People who want to upgrade their three year old machine. Families thinking about purchasing a second computer because the kids want to play Doom while Dad wants to surf the net. The $300 may be the difference between a buy and don't buy decision.
I am not saying you are wrong. The CEOs of Dell, IBM, Compaq, etc will have to decide that on their own. And, they will have to answer to the stockholders if they guess wrong.
Of course, the above ignores the question of how to make sure that your competitors will also raise their price by $300.
From a moral or legal prespective, you are correct, there was nothing wrong with it. From a business prespective, it was wrong because, as you said, "it looked bad".
My point wasn't that what Amazon did was unethical. I was just trying to point out that the IBM implementation is different from Amazon's so we can't use Amazon's experiment as a prediction for the outcome of this experiment.
From a consumer acceptance standpoint, it might if the web site can articulate a rational reason for the diffentiation, e.g., shipping costs, taxes, higher liability risks in a given geographic region, etc. From a practical standpoint, probably not.
The real problem I see is that it was differential pricing by individual computer, not by individual consumer.
Agreed. Under certain circumstances, consumers accept and/or expect price differentiation, e.g. Ladies Night, Happy Hour, Car dealers, etc. In others, In others, they will not accept it especially if it appears to be for arbitrary reasons.
I'm trying to ask if dynamic pricing for each individual consumer is unethical if geographic boundaries for all intents and purposes do not exist as a factor in the transaction.
Ethically? Depends on what set of ethics you are using. Practically, consumers will accept price differentiation if they can see a rational reason for the differentiation: volumn disconts, increase customers in off peak hours, etc. They will not accept it if they precieve it to be based on irrational factors, e.g. the color of shirt you are wearing.
From the article:
It sounds like a bunch of Amazon customers got together one day in a chat room, checked prices, and compared notes to see what factors affected the quoted price. They concluded that pricing wasn't a random 50/50 proposition.
Even the quote from the Amazon spokesman doesn't support your 50/50 interpetation.
Exactly what in the above implies a 50/50 split?
Then you disagree with a fundemental tenet of economics. "Supply and demand" states that, all other things being equal, there is a direct relationship between the quantity of goods offered for sale and the price of those goods while there is an inverse relationship between the quantity of goods bought and the price of those goods.
There are several well known excepts to the "supply and demand" curves.
Snob appeal: The sale of some goods, e.g. perfumes and designer clothes, may drop if the price is dropped. This is because the buyers are buying more then functional clothes. They are buying cachet by owning goods others can't afford. Dropping the price will drop this value.
Labor: The supply of labor will follow the normal supply curve until it reaches a certain point. At that point, the supply of labor will start to drop as the price increases. This is because the workers start to place a higher value on leisure time as their wealth increases.
The money supply is tinkered with frequently ,. . .Supply is frequently altered through subsidies and tax breaks. . .Prices are often highly regulated for many of the most serious needs. . .Finally, the government assists and prohibits businesses rather often.
These fall in the "all other things being equal" category. In fact, some of them demonstrate the validity of the supply and demand curve becaue they are using "supply and demand" to obtain the desired effect.
Federal Reserve lowering interest rates: Credit is a "product". Increase the cost of borrowing money, and less people will borrow. Decrease the cost and more people will borrow.
Tax breaks and subsidies: This is an attempt to increase the supply by decreasing the cost of the item.
I agree that "supply and demand" is not the total story. However, I disagree that it has nothing to do with "reality".
please don't let reality get in the way of your ideology.
Ideology has nothing to do with it. Even Kensians agree that "supply and demand" exist.
Not according to the article in Computerworld. I don't use Amazon so I do not have any firsthand experience. Do you have a link that shows it was 50/50?
The whole point was to directly measure the demand curve by testing two prices simultaneously, and that requires that the experiment and control groups be as demographically identical as possible.
Even if they did it by assigning prices to customers on a random basis, it still left a bad taste in the consumer's mouth since it was easily verified that different customers got different prices. When stores try these experiments in the brick and mortar world, they usually do it by geographic locations. Customer's are accustomed to the fact that the same product will be priced differently in different parts of the country.
Maximising profit is not the same as getting the highest profit margins.
A simplistic example: You are a carpenter that can make 5 custom cabinets a week and materials cost $100 per cabinet. Experience has shown you that if you price your cabinets at $500, you have a profit margin of $400 per cabinet and will only sell one a week for a net profit of $400 per week.
However, if you drop your price to $250 you can sell 5 a week. This drops your profit margin to $150 yet increases your total profits to $750. With the first pricing, you maximized your profit margins. In the second, you maximixed your profits.
There is a difference between what these computer manufactorers are doing and what Amazon did.
IBM will adjust its pricing "in real time based on metrics such as customer demand and product life cycle." They are using the same parameters to determine price as brick & mortar stores. The only difference is that it is done in "real time".
Amazon's scheme used a differenct set of parameters: which browser was being used, whether a consumer was a repeat or first-time customer and which Internet service provider address a customer was using. All of this was done without informing the customer. It would the equivelent as going into a store and getting a different price quote depending on the color of your shirt, your height and weight, etc.
The customer's experience will be different. Under Amazon's implementation, a customer would get one price will surfing at work, get a second price when he goes to place the order at home, and gets the first price again when he double checks it later at work again.
Under this implemtation, the changes in pricing would tend to follow a trend. Check at work and get one price. Order at home and get a higher (or lower) price. If the customer double checks the price again at work, he will either get the same price as the price he ordered it at home, or it will follow the trend of going higher (or lower) as the last time.
I don't see the customer's having the same reaction to this scheme as amazons as long as the web sites explain the factors that will effect the price and give the customer of getting a firm, fixed price quote.
The first isn't a copyright violation because you didn't COPY anything. You merely pointed the user to it.
I haven't read the court papers. But, I am sure they filed under some law other than copyright. My guess would be misrepresentation or fraud since it might appear to a user that Ford sanctioned the fuckgeneralmotors.com domain name.
Maybe you should have read my reply before responding to it. I said that I read the opinion and the dissent. (Plus, I read the lawyers exchanges over the law at the cni-mailing list.
Now, will you specifically point out where I am "way off base".
What about filabusters? It is a common practice to read from books when they run out of original things to say.
The impression I had after reading the opinion was the the majority were determined to rule in favor of the SBBCI and were using any pretext to do it.
For example, they talked a lot about how Banks (the SC ruling that said court reporters do not own copyright on judge's opinions) did not apply because the reasoning in that case was that the opinions were created by paid government employees (judges).
However, the disent pointed out that there was a second reason why the SC ruled the way it did: the public's interest in knowing and reading the opinions. The majority totally ignored that question.
Totally misses the point of the case and the dissent. Copyright protects expressions of an idea, not the idea itself. It does not protect facts.
In law, the changing of a single word may mean the difference between winning or losing a case. Therefore, the wording of a law is a fact that should not be protected by copyright.
I am personally happy that people are being paid to think about these things
Fine, then charge the state or township a one time fee when the law is adopted. Don't give a government enforced monopoly to someone so that they can control who has access to the letter of the law.
When Veeck received the 1994 codes from SBCCI, he realized that Denison had adopted the 1988 version of the building codes.
Now for the importent question: Does SBCCI still sell the 1988 version of their code? If not, then it is impossible to get a copy of the law as enacted.
I have read the opinion, but not the dissent (yet). It appears that the judges placed a lot of weight to the following facts:
1. the plaintiff did not try to obtain a copy from the local government. He only tried libraries and book stores.
2. He obtained a copy of the law directly from SBCII, not his local government.
I wonder if the outcome would have been different if the plaintiff had gotten a photocopy from his local government and scanned it into his computer to put on his web site.
Isn't that a violation of copyright law? Are city officials supposed to aide and abet these kind of violations?
Read the court documents. OEMs were prohibited from changing the desktop. Translation: They could not add any icons to the desktop, including Netscape.
It's called free-enterprise. Capitalism.
It's called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Ohh, right. You need a B.CS. to even install it
The majority of users have never installed Windows. It came preinstalled on their computer. Using a preinstalled Linux is no more difficult then using a preinstalled Windows.
No, they complained , among other things, that MS tied it to the OS and refused to allow OEMs to add Netscape to the desktop. Not only did MS ensure that every new purchaser of Windows had a copy of IE, they also guarenteed that the purchaser would not have a copy of Netscape no matter what inticements Netscape offered the OEMs.
But that is exactly the way the Netscape pushed Spyglass out of the same market.
I agree that Netscape was trying to do the same thing MS was: use their domination of the browser market as leverage to gain greater market share in the server market.
However, Netscape was on an equal footing with Spyglass in that they could only offer inducements to OEMs and ISPs to distribute their browser, trial programs, etc. MS had one advantage none of the other sellers of browsers had: the OS. The could (and did) use their control of the desktop to make sure every user had a copy of their software which could not be deleted and that none of their competitor's browsers would show up on the desktop "out of the box".
Well, then you can't watch it.
Yes, I can. I own the copy and can do with it whatever is allowed under copyright law.
If I buy a video, it is most likely licensed for home viewing only.
DVDs do not have a license. You purchase the copy and the only restriction on what you do with that copy come from copyright law.
You are assuming that DVDs have something similar to the EULAs in software. This is not the case.
Pick up any software that has an EULA and you will see something on the side that says: "You must agree to the enclosed license before you can use the software." There is no similar verbiage on a DVD.
Can I play this in a public place
This is covered under copyright law. I can not charge admission for my dramatic reading of a novel I have purchased. This is considered a performance and not allowed without express permission of the author. The same is true with a DVD. Making money off a public showing of the movie is prohibited by copyright law. It has nothing to do with licenses.
Did I have to sign something?
I think the legal phrasing is "give consent". And, yes you must if it is to be considered a contract.
Software gets around this with the click-wrap license. If you click on "I agree", you have given consent.
A copyright license does not have to be signed by the purchaser to be valid. And DVD's are most definitely not sold with the same restrictions that come with the purchase of a book - the license is completely different.
The act of purchasing a DVD does not imply consent to a license you have not seen. When you buy a DVD, is there a piece of paper that has the words "Licensing Agreement"?
Remember - you own the medium, but the artist (or whomever he sold out to) owns the work.
The artist owns the work; but, I own the copy I have purchased.
He can license it to you in any way that he wishes, with any restrictions, in a binding contract, without a signature.
He can license it only if he gets my consent. There is no mechenism with DVDs for getting my consent. If they came with "click-wrap" licenses, I would agree with you. But, they do not. Buying a DVD does not have any such mechenism.
I may agree with you; but, not all the courts do. This arguement has been tried in court; and, it has failed. The judge ruled that because the purchaser can read the EULA at home and return it for a refund (at least in theory), it is a binding contract.
Plus, UCITA removes any legal ambiguity and makes click-wrap licenses binding contracts.
yes
B) The copy can be made by the os so does this make OS's illegal under DMCA?
This has already been addressed by the courts. The case dealt with reverse engineering. The Plaintiff argued that because the defendent had to make unauthorized copies in RAM in order to run and reverse engineer the progrm, the defendant violated copyright law. The court did not buy the arguement. They ruled that incidental copies made while making fair use of a program do not infringe on copyright.
C) A gun only has malicious intentions and they are legal. What sort world is this when DeCSS is considered more dangerous than a gun?
Bad analogy because guns are specifically protected by the Second Amendment.