Yes, you can notify us that you do not want us to use your information for Relevant Mobile Advertising by visiting www.vzw.com/myprivacy or by calling (866) 211-0874.
So the tracking was not at all an anonymous identifier since they obviously can link it to you when you contact them to "opt out".
Sadly, you do require the copyright holder's permission to create one...
No, not really, see, Swedish Copyright law 1 kap 4, you would even be the copyright holder of the translation. However, the exact same restrictions applies to your translation as to the original work. You are not allowed to make it publicly available (which the site did) but you can make it available for smaller groups and others can copy it and so on.
"There may be no DMCA outside the US as the DMCA is an American law, but the WIPO Copyright Treaty upon which it is based has been enacted in many other countries. "
Key phrase is "upon which it is based". This doesn't mean everything that is in the DMCA is in the WIPO treaty. For example the protection that controll access is not part of the WIP treaty (and not the EU directive either) but is something some countries, even in Europe has added. But many countries doesn't include protection that controll access to what is covered. Encryption doesn't in itself prevent copying and hence encrypting something doesn't really prevent copying and would thus not be covered. It can be covered when controling the access to the public, but not for copying.
So it in many countries, the HDCP is not a technical meassure that is covered since it doesn't prevent copying, just accessing whatever is encrypted.
"Just like Chinese, this is required by Apple too. They say it's so that you cannot buy multiple phones, but you still are required to give them your real name when you want to buy a phone."
That is a really stupid thing since names are not unique. Or are you saying that if Bill Johnson buys a phone from Apple, no other Bill Johnson can buy a phone from Apple?
"they were convicted because the court became convinced that they actively encouraged and profited by Piracy,"
The fact that they profited, or not, is completely irrellevant for the question if they did anything illegal or not. It is an issue when determining the ammount of money they would have to pay though.
Actually you don't have to own it. The only requirement (added in 2005) is that the original you make the copy from was not created in an infringing way and that it is not made available to the public in an infringing way. In addition, computer software is excluded completely as well as complete or substansial parts of books. You are also only allwed to make a few such copies of each work.
"People think they are buying a game (and rightly so)"
Most people DO buy a copy of the game as per normal sales laws. Such a sale has nothing to do with copyright and often the purchase is not from the copyright holder but from a store.
"and game producers think they are licensing you the rights to play the game (usually with lots of DRM to enforce these rights)"
Depending on country that is a nonsens sale since there is no need to purchase such a right, there is nothing forbidding you to play it to start with. Even if one do need such a license, and the sale is of a licnese, one still then needs to get hold of a copy of the game so that one can use the license. How would that be done? Well, as far as I can see, any license is typically sold together with a copy of the game. So one can in those cases argue that they sell BOTH a license and a copy of the game. In the end one to buy a copy of the game in either case.
"Why don't people want to pay for what they use anymore?"
Do you pay the writer som money when you for example borrows a book from someone to read? Or what about when you listen to some music at someone elses house? Or when you sit in a chair doing so. Or do you want to use it without paying for it?
>What if I already wasn't worried about being sued >because my country doesn't recognise software patents
What if one would live in a country that do not only recognize software patents but also makes it criminal to infringe them (something for example proposed in Europe not long ago)? Since one doesn't have a license one would still infringe the patent even if Microsoft agrees to not press charges.
Or what if the patent for some reason would end up in someone elses hand than Microsoft? Again since one doesn't have a license, one can be in trouble.
>BUT most countries have their own laws that regulate the same things as DMCA. >In Sweden we got the wording of most of those laws as directives from EU (EU >Copyright Directive, Electronic Commerce Directive and a myriad of in scope >more limited directives), mixed up with our own soup of old pre-EU laws.
There are in my opinion some huge differences though. If we look at the Swedish copyright law, it does not have "access" in its law the way the DMCA has. Thus it doesn't create a new indirect right to the copyright holder of accessing. It is stricly for copyright related actions of which access is not one. In addition it is very clear in that if you mix protection that DO fall under the law with protection that does NOT (for example acess, region coding), the law no longer covers the part that would otherwise have been covered.
>It's not YOUR PC though, the hardware is but >Microsoft own the copy of Windows running on it,
No, Microsoft owns the COPYRIGHT to Windows. The individual copies of Windows are owned by their cusotmers, the users, the ones who bought the individual copies.
>you only own a license to use Windows under >their terms and conditions.
No need for any license (in many countries at least) since copyright law doesn't have "use" as an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Further more, any copying needed during use are specifically allowed by the copyright law without permision needed by the copyright holder. As mentioned above, some countries might have it otherwise but in general, not.
In addition, many countries, for example those of the EU have additional laws regulating contractual terms with consumers forbiding unfair such terms, meaning even if one would in some way enter into a contract with a softwaremaker for some rerason, they could still not dictate their terms freely.
>Unless the Data Retention directive explicitly forbids that other laws >give other permissions to the data in question, the MAFIAA got it just >the way they want it. And that would be very, very unusual to put in law
And yet that is exactly what the law says. Or rather, it says the data stored according to this law can ONLY be accessed and required for by police and other govermental authorities in investigations of more serious crimes. Not eben the ISP and others who store data themselves are allowed to access this data.
Of course, they can store data IN ADDITION to this law according to other existing laws as well, which would be the exact same system as we have today. Actually the leaked "Lagrådsremiss" specifically comments a request by media companies that also wanted access to this data saying that they will not get access to it.
>This law itself, in it's current form, >nullifies the newly passed IPRED law.
No it doesn't, it doesn't affect the IPRED law at all.
>The law says that stored information can only be >requested by the police or prosecutors if a serious >crime has been committed (or the suspicion of a serious crime).
Yes, the data saved due to THIS law. It doesn't prevent, for example an ISP to save data IN ADDITION to this law, in accordance with old laws just as they can do today. They will probably do this, because just as this new law says only police can require it, not even the ISP, telecompanies or anyone else can access the data themselves stored according to this law. In effect there will thus be doubble savings of data. In the end, no effect on existing laws.
>Hence a third party like RIAA cannot request information >to file a suit according to the IPRED law.
Hence they can't request information from data stored by this law, but can do so from data stored according to other laws, including the data the ISP and others store for own personal use, just like before.
>I agree with most of what you are saying, but it is a fact that immaterial >things can literally be stolen from a person... for example, an electronic >money transfer involves no exchange of any physical goods.
So if someone copy my electronical money transfer (or electronic money) you argue someone stole from me despite I still having the money? Strange I would not see it that way.
The difference is in the creation of a NEW copy when you copy. In theft, no one creats a new copy, instead there is a change in ownership of an allready existing copy. Quite a big difference and also the laws governing them differs a lot. For example many countries has the concept of copying for privat use being perfectly legal while no country I am aware of have any laws of stealing for private use being OK.
>But what we have in the case of TPB is that they >state that they hate copyright, and perform an >infringing act.
But they have many times stated that they are of opinion that what they do is perfectly legal based on previous cases in Sweden. Read for example the replies that they have posted on their site. Sure, the language is not the best but they DO tell that they are acting according to the law and based on previous court cases.
>Those questions were asked in order to help establish intent.
But having an opiion or a view is not in it self an intent. I can be ov the view that a certain action should not be ilegal, that does not mean that should I happen to do such a thing I also had intent to that specific act.
>As a result, copying by private individuals is fully legal in >the Netherlands (despite attempts by BREIN to have it otherwise). >The only tricky part is this: > >Can TPB successfully argue that not they, but their users make the copies?
First, the part of the charges dealing with making coppies was droped from the trial. They got convicted on the uploading part, for helping out. This is part of the various forms of making a work available to the public for example public performance but also as in this case transmission (överföring) to the public. Basiclaly making it available by wire or wireless for people at other places who can get access to it in places and at times of their chosing (bad translation of the law but that is more or less what it is about). This has NOTHING to do with the copying (for private use).
Also note that in Sweden, I have no idea about the dutch copyright laws, there is a requirement for copying for private use that requires the original (of the copying) to not have been created or made available to the public against the law.
>Also, they're both in the European Union, so the same >directive that got TPB in Sweden can be re-used in the Netherlands.
It is not any "directive" that got TBP, it is the Swedish laws that did it (do note that it has been appealed and thus it is not yet a final judgment yet). Laws in the Netherlands can differ despite both being members of the EU.
Slashdot Mirror
That makes zero sense. The start of the school day should be based on the sunrise time of that day? Only on slashdot.
So it should change over the year? On a monthly basis? Or weekly even? What about ending, based on sunset? So very short days in winter?
Yes, you can notify us that you do not want us to use your information for Relevant Mobile Advertising by visiting www.vzw.com/myprivacy or by calling (866) 211-0874.
So the tracking was not at all an anonymous identifier since they obviously can link it to you when you contact them to "opt out".
Sadly, you do require the copyright holder's permission to create one...
No, not really, see, Swedish Copyright law 1 kap 4, you would even be the copyright holder of the translation. However, the exact same restrictions applies to your translation as to the original work. You are not allowed to make it publicly available (which the site did) but you can make it available for smaller groups and others can copy it and so on.
"There may be no DMCA outside the US as the DMCA is an American law, but the WIPO Copyright Treaty upon which it is based has been enacted in many other countries. "
Key phrase is "upon which it is based". This doesn't mean everything that is in the DMCA is in the WIPO treaty. For example the protection that controll access is not part of the WIP treaty (and not the EU directive either) but is something some countries, even in Europe has added. But many countries doesn't include protection that controll access to what is covered. Encryption doesn't in itself prevent copying and hence encrypting something doesn't really prevent copying and would thus not be covered. It can be covered when controling the access to the public, but not for copying.
So it in many countries, the HDCP is not a technical meassure that is covered since it doesn't prevent copying, just accessing whatever is encrypted.
"Just like Chinese, this is required by Apple too. They say it's so that you cannot buy multiple phones, but you still are required to give them your real name when you want to buy a phone."
That is a really stupid thing since names are not unique. Or are you saying that if Bill Johnson buys a phone from Apple, no other Bill Johnson can buy a phone from Apple?
"How does it benefit anyone except the guy selling it?"
You mean it is not a benefit to the public to be able to get it?
"they were convicted because the court became convinced that they actively encouraged and profited by Piracy,"
The fact that they profited, or not, is completely irrellevant for the question if they did anything illegal or not. It is an issue when determining the ammount of money they would have to pay though.
"you can make copies of anything you own"
Actually you don't have to own it. The only requirement (added in 2005) is that the original you make the copy from was not created in an infringing way and that it is not made available to the public in an infringing way. In addition, computer software is excluded completely as well as complete or substansial parts of books. You are also only allwed to make a few such copies of each work.
"People think they are buying a game (and rightly so)"
Most people DO buy a copy of the game as per normal sales laws. Such a sale has nothing to do with copyright and often the purchase is not from the copyright holder but from a store.
"and game producers think they are licensing you the rights to play the game (usually with lots of DRM to enforce these rights)"
Depending on country that is a nonsens sale since there is no need to purchase such a right, there is nothing forbidding you to play it to start with. Even if one do need such a license, and the sale is of a licnese, one still then needs to get hold of a copy of the game so that one can use the license. How would that be done? Well, as far as I can see, any license is typically sold together with a copy of the game. So one can in those cases argue that they sell BOTH a license and a copy of the game. In the end one to buy a copy of the game in either case.
"They are digitizing works and make them available for search. "
So they are creating a copy of the work! Creating copies are covered by copyright. So are creating copies of basically anything now OK?
"Why don't people want to pay for what they use anymore?"
Do you pay the writer som money when you for example borrows a book from someone to read? Or what about when you listen to some music at someone elses house? Or when you sit in a chair doing so. Or do you want to use it without paying for it?
"Didn't the BNetD ruling mean that these servers are vulnerable to lawsuits?"
Are they all in the US? At least the list seems to be in Germany.
>Until it's put up front on the outside of the box,
>an EULA is not a legally-binding contract.
Are you suggesting that anything printed on the outside of something you buy forms a contract with the buyer?
>What if I already wasn't worried about being sued
>because my country doesn't recognise software patents
What if one would live in a country that do not only recognize software patents but also makes it criminal to infringe them (something for example proposed in Europe not long ago)? Since one doesn't have a license one would still infringe the patent even if Microsoft agrees to not press charges.
Or what if the patent for some reason would end up in someone elses hand than Microsoft? Again since one doesn't have a license, one can be in trouble.
>BUT most countries have their own laws that regulate the same things as DMCA.
>In Sweden we got the wording of most of those laws as directives from EU (EU
>Copyright Directive, Electronic Commerce Directive and a myriad of in scope
>more limited directives), mixed up with our own soup of old pre-EU laws.
There are in my opinion some huge differences though. If we look at the Swedish copyright law, it does not have "access" in its law the way the DMCA has. Thus it doesn't create a new indirect right to the copyright holder of accessing. It is stricly for copyright related actions of which access is not one. In addition it is very clear in that if you mix protection that DO fall under the law with protection that does NOT (for example acess, region coding), the law no longer covers the part that would otherwise have been covered.
No, not really, only one of them voted for the Pirate Party, the others did not. If he is also a member of the Pirate Party I have no idea.
>It's not YOUR PC though, the hardware is but
>Microsoft own the copy of Windows running on it,
No, Microsoft owns the COPYRIGHT to Windows. The individual copies of Windows are owned by their cusotmers, the users, the ones who bought the individual copies.
>you only own a license to use Windows under
>their terms and conditions.
No need for any license (in many countries at least) since copyright law doesn't have "use" as an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Further more, any copying needed during use are specifically allowed by the copyright law without permision needed by the copyright holder. As mentioned above, some countries might have it otherwise but in general, not.
In addition, many countries, for example those of the EU have additional laws regulating contractual terms with consumers forbiding unfair such terms, meaning even if one would in some way enter into a contract with a softwaremaker for some rerason, they could still not dictate their terms freely.
>Unless the Data Retention directive explicitly forbids that other laws
>give other permissions to the data in question, the MAFIAA got it just
>the way they want it. And that would be very, very unusual to put in law
And yet that is exactly what the law says. Or rather, it says the data stored according to this law can ONLY be accessed and required for by police and other govermental authorities in investigations of more serious crimes. Not eben the ISP and others who store data themselves are allowed to access this data.
Of course, they can store data IN ADDITION to this law according to other existing laws as well, which would be the exact same system as we have today. Actually the leaked "Lagrådsremiss" specifically comments a request by media companies that also wanted access to this data saying that they will not get access to it.
>This law itself, in it's current form,
>nullifies the newly passed IPRED law.
No it doesn't, it doesn't affect the IPRED law at all.
>The law says that stored information can only be
>requested by the police or prosecutors if a serious
>crime has been committed (or the suspicion of a serious crime).
Yes, the data saved due to THIS law. It doesn't prevent, for example an ISP to save data IN ADDITION to this law, in accordance with old laws just as they can do today. They will probably do this, because just as this new law says only police can require it, not even the ISP, telecompanies or anyone else can access the data themselves stored according to this law. In effect there will thus be doubble savings of data. In the end, no effect on existing laws.
>Hence a third party like RIAA cannot request information
>to file a suit according to the IPRED law.
Hence they can't request information from data stored by this law, but can do so from data stored according to other laws, including the data the ISP and others store for own personal use, just like before.
>I agree with most of what you are saying, but it is a fact that immaterial
>things can literally be stolen from a person... for example, an electronic
>money transfer involves no exchange of any physical goods.
So if someone copy my electronical money transfer (or electronic money) you argue someone stole from me despite I still having the money? Strange I would not see it that way.
The difference is in the creation of a NEW copy when you copy. In theft, no one creats a new copy, instead there is a change in ownership of an allready existing copy. Quite a big difference and also the laws governing them differs a lot. For example many countries has the concept of copying for privat use being perfectly legal while no country I am aware of have any laws of stealing for private use being OK.
>It was also a large factor that they profited from it so much.
Actually the court didn't accept that claim. They didn't profit anything.
>But what we have in the case of TPB is that they
>state that they hate copyright, and perform an
>infringing act.
But they have many times stated that they are of opinion that what they do is perfectly legal based on previous cases in Sweden. Read for example the replies that they have posted on their site. Sure, the language is not the best but they DO tell that they are acting according to the law and based on previous court cases.
>Those questions were asked in order to help establish intent.
But having an opiion or a view is not in it self an intent. I can be ov the view that a certain action should not be ilegal, that does not mean that should I happen to do such a thing I also had intent to that specific act.
>As a result, copying by private individuals is fully legal in
>the Netherlands (despite attempts by BREIN to have it otherwise).
>The only tricky part is this:
>
>Can TPB successfully argue that not they, but their users make the copies?
First, the part of the charges dealing with making coppies was droped from the trial. They got convicted on the uploading part, for helping out. This is part of the various forms of making a work available to the public for example public performance but also as in this case transmission (överföring) to the public. Basiclaly making it available by wire or wireless for people at other places who can get access to it in places and at times of their chosing (bad translation of the law but that is more or less what it is about). This has NOTHING to do with the copying (for private use).
Also note that in Sweden, I have no idea about the dutch copyright laws, there is a requirement for copying for private use that requires the original (of the copying) to not have been created or made available to the public against the law.
>Also, they're both in the European Union, so the same
>directive that got TPB in Sweden can be re-used in the Netherlands.
It is not any "directive" that got TBP, it is the Swedish laws that did it (do note that it has been appealed and thus it is not yet a final judgment yet). Laws in the Netherlands can differ despite both being members of the EU.