>Certain portions of the EULAs are supposedly required to be emphasized.
Required by what? Is there a law stating so? And what makes everyone thing using all caps emphasizes anything? I would say it is the other way arround since it gets a lot harder to read.
>You do not have any right to use a product developed by someone >else or a company until they grant you the right to use it.
Actually you do in a whole bunch of countries all over the world. The same applies to most everything else. You don't need permision to read a book, sit in a chair and so on. Copyright would not restrict iut either since "use" is not a right of the copyright holder in most countries (if any?). The copying needed to "use" software is in most countries specifically allowed and not infringing. The exact nature of this exception to the copyright holders right to create copies vary. It can for example be that as long as you are a lawfull user or in a lawfull possession of the software, it is allowed. Check your own copyright law for your country what applies to you and realise it vary for others in details.
>You can't walk into my backyard and use my pool until >I grant you the right to do so.
You are confusing copyright with ownership. They are not related hence your example is quite irellevant.
>IANAL either, but I think that's called releasing your work to the public domain.
How would you do that technically though? What part of copyright law handles it? I have tried to look in various copyright laws but can't seem to find such provisions. Further, who keeps track of such things? Were can one go and find which works has had their copyright "released"?`If there is no place, what prevents the copyright holder later from actually reclaiming it? How would it apply to other countries? And so on... What I think happens in such situations is basically the copyright holder giving anyone a licnese for all the rights of a copyright holder thus anyone can do anything they want. However, the work is still under copyright and the author is still the copyright holder. It would be interesting to know about what different countries' laws actually says about this though, perhaps some has special provisions for "releaseing" the copyright.
>Does is say "Copyright Joe Johnson" or does is say "Copyright ABC Publishing"?
Most books I have at home actually says "Copyright Author". The publisher then has some sort of publishing deal. Sure, most books at my home aren't bought in USA, so it might be completely different there so that the authors don't have the copyright but the publishers. Seems do vary between countries when it comes to copyright.
>According to the terms of service of most ISPs, you ARE liable for your neighbors using your network.
Verus the ISP, yes. Not versus anyone else or by the law. So the ISP can hold you responsible for missues for example and perhaps terminate your service. No one else can hold you responsible for the action of others. Quite a big difference.
>I'd really like to here official comment from MS's lawyers about how >they intended this to be interpreted, and so far I haven't seen any.
Wouldn't it be more interesting to see how, for example, a court would interpret it?
>Even if the ambiguity is only small, it still seems to be there to me, >and the rule of contra proferentem should mean it is interpreted in the >consumer's favour.
Yes, many countries have consumer contract term laws that specifically says that any vague term should always be interpreted in the consumer's favour.
>Why should we let the Americans control our internal policy?
Ahh, but they were devious and put "International" in their name so as to be able to say it is not an US thing. For some strange reason you are not fooled about this...
>(downloading is not "distribution" and thus not a copyright violation.)
Although not being distribution, it is creation of a copy and thus might be a copyright violation depending on what country you are in and what other circumstances there might be.
>At which point, in some places, either you or you-on-behalf-of-your-kid >will be directly liable for copyright infringement.
In many countries this would not be true since normal use like running, installing and such does not require any special license, permision or anything and is thus not a compyright infringement. Actually, many countries has specific permisions written in the law that makes such use legal without any special permision. Typically the only requirement would be that you have a lawful copy of the program.
The obvious reply would be to tell them to contact the Police if they feel you in any way is violating the law. Unfotunately that seems to not be an option in many countries which is strange.
>>".....Considering that both RIAA and the DMCA are completely irellevant for Normway..." >Of course it is not irrelevent.
It is irrelevant as an excuse in Norway. They can't claim it is needed due to a law in US when selling in Norway. Apple can't claim they are forced to do something in Norway to comply by a law that doesn't apply there.
>Perhaps this does consumers more harm than iTunes?
One can of course discuss the laws in general and how they should be. The specific case of Apple though is that they do NOT follow the laws in Norway which is the reason iTunes music store is under investigation. They can't as an excuse to not following the law in Norway claim they are forced to by, for example, the DMCA.
>Isn't that a bit like how, if you want access to the music >available on Compact Discs, you have to buy a CD player?
No, they are not targeting the hardware. They are targeting the DRM that prevents you from moving the music to other players, computers and so on. So aart from you looking at harware issues while they don't, there is not even any DRM or contractual terms involved with the CD sales that prevents you from moving the music from your CD to a computer, phone, mp3-player and so on if you want to.
>Actually, they have several choices - my first thought was "Ok stop selling iPods in Norway."
Why sould they do that and how would that help? It is the iTunes music store that is doing the wrong. It is the store that would have to close. Considering this is done together with the consumer agencies of many EU countries and in much based on laws that exists in all of EU (through EU directives for example), it applies to all of EU as well.
>The biggest problem I see with this, is that is wasn't Apple who wanted >the DRM in the first place. It was the music industry.
So? It happens that the Apple is the one doing the selling and thus are required to fulfill the consumer sale laws. You can't get arround that by claiming that someone the shop buys from requires you to sell under illegal terms.
>Apple offered a solution that works, and it works on all platforms.
Appearantly, their iTunes music store is not doing it legally though.
>Suck it up Norway, if you don't like the business model, don't buy the damn thing.
If the business model is against the law, the seller has to suck it up and move to another business modell, not the other way arround.
>When will they outlaw razor blades that only fit one razor?
The issue is not that your product must fit everyone else. The issue is that you are not allowed to att protective DRM that prevents or restricts the consumer from moving, for example music he buys, to another player. There is no such things added to razor blades as far as I have ever seen. There is no contracts set up prventing you from moving the blades to whatever other razor out there if you wish or to make your own to hold them. There is no DRM added to the razor blade at all as far as I am aware. Perhaps it is different in your country.
>Norway is trying to force Apple to allow their product to be sold by competitors.
No they don't. What they are discussing is the iTunes music stgore and the music sold there. What they are doing is to tell that iTunes can't through DRm restrict and prevent the consumer from moving the music to, for example, other players. It is the addition of such DRM enforcing various rules (which they consider to be the same as contract terms regulating the sale) are consisered unfair and thus are against the law (which itself is based on a EU directive) on unfair terms in consumer contracts.
>Not to mention that it is trivial to burn the songs from iTunes and rip them to another player.
If you readt the actual correspondance between the Norwegian consumer council (or whatever the correct english wordd would be) and iTunes music store you would see that this was actually a point brought up by Apple but is rejected on several grounds which include (not clear from the contract temrs of the service if this is actually legal (the unclearness of the contract terms in themself are another issue) and it should be clearly stated that this is legal to do. That would remove the lega barrier. Even if it was stated so though, they consider the obstacle is to high since it requires you to have a CD burner, to buy CD-discs, it requires extra time and you might reduce quality depending compression of formats used when moving to a mp3 player. (note this is the norwegian councils view, not mine I honestly don't even know what format iTunes sell to start with). So they consider the concequences for the consumer is still to severe and thus the terms unfair and illegal. You might not agree or like it bu that is how they interpret the law.
>What have they done wrong, except become popular?
If we stick here to the DRM complains (there are several other complains that relate to other things such as changes of contract terms, claiming no responsability for the product, not honoring the right to revoke a purchase and so on.
In this specific case the wrong they have done is: Using unfair contract terms. The DRM is for this purpose considered to for many purposes to be part of the enforcement of contractual terms on the product one buy (music). The "wrong" is in the fact that they add DRM to music to prevent and restrict the buyers ability to move the music away to other players should they wish to do so.
But is music created and written specifically for iTunes? Of course not. Music by its nature is not tied to any specific hardware or player. What the Norwegian "forbrukerombudet" is against, is the addition of DRM that enforces contract like terms that forbids or hinder the music to be moved from to other players should the consumer wish to do so. There is no physical limitation or interoperability in the music like there can be in hardware components for a car for example.
>Shell starts making gas, but it only works properly in a Ford. NOW is it unfair?
No, but if they add protection to the gas that prevents you to move the gas you buy to another car, then yes, it could very well be illegal and unfair under Norwegian law (it is really a law based on a EU directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts).
>The reality of the situation is that the DRM is not there to prevent competition as its primary purpose.
That is in fact one of the arguments they put forwarddue to the "lock in" of the music to their own player by addition of DRM that makes this locking when the music itself doesn't have such a lock in.
>The RIAA is actually using the DMCA and is the one forcing Apple to use FairPlay
Considering that both RIAA and the DMCA are completely irellevant for Normway, that is hardly a valid excuse for Apple here, now is it?
But they are not discussing computer programs written for specific hardware here. They are discussing media (not sure if this is the correct word, but basically various forms of data or information), such as music and how it should be possible to move it away from the computer but more specifically that it should be possible to move it to other players. The music is itself not tied ro made for a specific sort of hardware or player and they oppose how Apple add that tie in the form of DRM.
>But you are only allowed to have a copy of a work with the copyright >holder's permission. Without their permission, the copy is infringing.
Ehh, which comes back to my initial question. In which country does that apply? Can you point to a law in some country which gives "posession" as an exclusive right to the copyright holder and thus requires permission for others? I can't think of any such country which is why I asked. All countries I am aware of lacks such a right give to a copyright holder. The only "rights" typically given is that of creation of new copies and making the available to the public in various ways. Some countries has added a new sort of semi right in that protection mechanisms regulating access and some use can be covered and can't be worked arround. But if you know of a a case of merer possession being infringement, please tell.
>You are suggesting that being in possession of a copyright work without >the copyright holder's permission is not copyright infringement.
Exactly. Copyright laws of most countries tend to list a few rights given to the copyright holder as exclusive and the ones I know about have not listed "possessing". Again, feel free to point to the law of any country with such rights. I am genuinly interested in knowing about it.
>Given that copyright _only_ protects data (or "information", >if you prefer), how can the offense of "copyright infringement" >civil or criminal) involve anything else ?
It protects "data" (well not really data, but a work that meets the reuirements which plain data typically don't) only in that there is certain actions you can't do with it. For example, create a new copy and various ways of performing or transfering it to the public. Those actions are, if not allowed, an infringement since they are given as an (almost) exclusive right to the copyright holder. Posession is not given as a right to a copyright holder (at least not in many countries) and can thus not be an infringement.
>I'm curious, where do you live where being in possession >of copyright-infringing data is legal [your own correction] ?
In what countries is *possession* considered a right of the copyright holder and thus possession without permision or licenese considered an infringement? Or perhaps more to your statement, in what country can data itself be infringing?
>The built-in fees are there just for the illegal copying that is occuring.
No, at least not in ever country. In Sweden, the leavy on media is to compensate for the PRIVATE copying that copyright law allows. It is a trade off, the copyright law allows you to make copies for private use and the leavy is to compensate for that. Perhaps it works differently in other countries though, no idea. The law actually specifically says that the leavy applies to media aimed at private use and copying, hence media used primarilly for non private use or if you can show that you will use it for commercial purposes, you don't have to pay the leavy. Here is a link (in Sweden unfortunately) to the organisation collecting the leavy explaining about it:
> In my opinion, they are a scam. But, THAT is the law.
Appearantly not in every country though.
>Better yet, are you so confidant that what you are doing is legal, that you would be >willing to publically announce you have a digital copy of the movie (without having any >physical copy).
Ehh, in what way would a digital copy not be considered a physical one? Or more important being considered as a copy for copyright purposes (and in whatever country you discuss)? On top of that, not many countries makes it an infringement to POSESS a copy, it is the creation of the copy and in some cases the use of it that might be an infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
>Certain portions of the EULAs are supposedly required to be emphasized.
Required by what? Is there a law stating so? And what makes everyone thing using all caps emphasizes anything? I would say it is the other way arround since it gets a lot harder to read.
>You do not have any right to use a product developed by someone
>else or a company until they grant you the right to use it.
Actually you do in a whole bunch of countries all over the world. The same applies to most everything else. You don't need permision to read a book, sit in a chair and so on. Copyright would not restrict iut either since "use" is not a right of the copyright holder in most countries (if any?). The copying needed to "use" software is in most countries specifically allowed and not infringing. The exact nature of this exception to the copyright holders right to create copies vary. It can for example be that as long as you are a lawfull user or in a lawfull possession of the software, it is allowed. Check your own copyright law for your country what applies to you and realise it vary for others in details.
>You can't walk into my backyard and use my pool until
>I grant you the right to do so.
You are confusing copyright with ownership. They are not related hence your example is quite irellevant.
>IANAL either, but I think that's called releasing your work to the public domain.
How would you do that technically though? What part of copyright law handles it? I have tried to look in various copyright laws but can't seem to find such provisions. Further, who keeps track of such things? Were can one go and find which works has had their copyright "released"?`If there is no place, what prevents the copyright holder later from actually reclaiming it? How would it apply to other countries? And so on... What I think happens in such situations is basically the copyright holder giving anyone a licnese for all the rights of a copyright holder thus anyone can do anything they want. However, the work is still under copyright and the author is still the copyright holder. It would be interesting to know about what different countries' laws actually says about this though, perhaps some has special provisions for "releaseing" the copyright.
>Does is say "Copyright Joe Johnson" or does is say "Copyright ABC Publishing"?
Most books I have at home actually says "Copyright Author". The publisher then has some sort of publishing deal. Sure, most books at my home aren't bought in USA, so it might be completely different there so that the authors don't have the copyright but the publishers. Seems do vary between countries when it comes to copyright.
>According to the terms of service of most ISPs, you ARE liable for your neighbors using your network.
Verus the ISP, yes. Not versus anyone else or by the law. So the ISP can hold you responsible for missues for example and perhaps terminate your service. No one else can hold you responsible for the action of others. Quite a big difference.
>I'd really like to here official comment from MS's lawyers about how
>they intended this to be interpreted, and so far I haven't seen any.
Wouldn't it be more interesting to see how, for example, a court would interpret it?
>Even if the ambiguity is only small, it still seems to be there to me,
>and the rule of contra proferentem should mean it is interpreted in the
>consumer's favour.
Yes, many countries have consumer contract term laws that specifically says that any vague term should always be interpreted in the consumer's favour.
>Why should we let the Americans control our internal policy?
Ahh, but they were devious and put "International" in their name so as to be able to say it is not an US thing. For some strange reason you are not fooled about this...
>All I have done is rearrange bits on my hard drive to emulate what others have done to theirs.
Yes, it is called creating a copy and is one of the things covered by copyright laws.
>(downloading is not "distribution" and thus not a copyright violation.)
Although not being distribution, it is creation of a copy and thus might be a copyright violation depending on what country you are in and what other circumstances there might be.
>At which point, in some places, either you or you-on-behalf-of-your-kid
>will be directly liable for copyright infringement.
In many countries this would not be true since normal use like running, installing and such does not require any special license, permision or anything and is thus not a compyright infringement. Actually, many countries has specific permisions written in the law that makes such use legal without any special permision. Typically the only requirement would be that you have a lawful copy of the program.
The obvious reply would be to tell them to contact the Police if they feel you in any way is violating the law. Unfotunately that seems to not be an option in many countries which is strange.
>>".....Considering that both RIAA and the DMCA are completely irellevant for Normway..."
>Of course it is not irrelevent.
It is irrelevant as an excuse in Norway. They can't claim it is needed due to a law in US when selling in Norway. Apple can't claim they are forced to do something in Norway to comply by a law that doesn't apply there.
>Perhaps this does consumers more harm than iTunes?
One can of course discuss the laws in general and how they should be. The specific case of Apple though is that they do NOT follow the laws in Norway which is the reason iTunes music store is under investigation. They can't as an excuse to not following the law in Norway claim they are forced to by, for example, the DMCA.
>Isn't that a bit like how, if you want access to the music
>available on Compact Discs, you have to buy a CD player?
No, they are not targeting the hardware. They are targeting the DRM that prevents you from moving the music to other players, computers and so on. So aart from you looking at harware issues while they don't, there is not even any DRM or contractual terms involved with the CD sales that prevents you from moving the music from your CD to a computer, phone, mp3-player and so on if you want to.
>Actually, they have several choices - my first thought was "Ok stop selling iPods in Norway."
Why sould they do that and how would that help? It is the iTunes music store that is doing the wrong. It is the store that would have to close. Considering this is done together with the consumer agencies of many EU countries and in much based on laws that exists in all of EU (through EU directives for example), it applies to all of EU as well.
>The biggest problem I see with this, is that is wasn't Apple who wanted
>the DRM in the first place. It was the music industry.
So? It happens that the Apple is the one doing the selling and thus are required to fulfill the consumer sale laws. You can't get arround that by claiming that someone the shop buys from requires you to sell under illegal terms.
>Apple offered a solution that works, and it works on all platforms.
Appearantly, their iTunes music store is not doing it legally though.
>Suck it up Norway, if you don't like the business model, don't buy the damn thing.
If the business model is against the law, the seller has to suck it up and move to another business modell, not the other way arround.
>When will they outlaw razor blades that only fit one razor?
The issue is not that your product must fit everyone else. The issue is that you are not allowed to att protective DRM that prevents or restricts the consumer from moving, for example music he buys, to another player. There is no such things added to razor blades as far as I have ever seen. There is no contracts set up prventing you from moving the blades to whatever other razor out there if you wish or to make your own to hold them. There is no DRM added to the razor blade at all as far as I am aware. Perhaps it is different in your country.
>Norway is trying to force Apple to allow their product to be sold by competitors.
No they don't. What they are discussing is the iTunes music stgore and the music sold there. What they are doing is to tell that iTunes can't through DRm restrict and prevent the consumer from moving the music to, for example, other players. It is the addition of such DRM enforcing various rules (which they consider to be the same as contract terms regulating the sale) are consisered unfair and thus are against the law (which itself is based on a EU directive) on unfair terms in consumer contracts.
>Not to mention that it is trivial to burn the songs from iTunes and rip them to another player.
If you readt the actual correspondance between the Norwegian consumer council (or whatever the correct english wordd would be) and iTunes music store you would see that this was actually a point brought up by Apple but is rejected on several grounds which include (not clear from the contract temrs of the service if this is actually legal (the unclearness of the contract terms in themself are another issue) and it should be clearly stated that this is legal to do. That would remove the lega barrier. Even if it was stated so though, they consider the obstacle is to high since it requires you to have a CD burner, to buy CD-discs, it requires extra time and you might reduce quality depending compression of formats used when moving to a mp3 player. (note this is the norwegian councils view, not mine I honestly don't even know what format iTunes sell to start with). So they consider the concequences for the consumer is still to severe and thus the terms unfair and illegal. You might not agree or like it bu that is how they interpret the law.
>What have they done wrong, except become popular?
If we stick here to the DRM complains (there are several other complains that relate to other things such as changes of contract terms, claiming no responsability for the product, not honoring the right to revoke a purchase and so on.
In this specific case the wrong they have done is: Using unfair contract terms. The DRM is for this purpose considered to for many purposes to be part of the enforcement of contractual terms on the product one buy (music). The "wrong" is in the fact that they add DRM to music to prevent and restrict the buyers ability to move the music away to other players should they wish to do so.
But is music created and written specifically for iTunes? Of course not. Music by its nature is not tied to any specific hardware or player. What the Norwegian "forbrukerombudet" is against, is the addition of DRM that enforces contract like terms that forbids or hinder the music to be moved from to other players should the consumer wish to do so. There is no physical limitation or interoperability in the music like there can be in hardware components for a car for example.
>Shell starts making gas, but it only works properly in a Ford. NOW is it unfair?
No, but if they add protection to the gas that prevents you to move the gas you buy to another car, then yes, it could very well be illegal and unfair under Norwegian law (it is really a law based on a EU directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts).
>The reality of the situation is that the DRM is not there to prevent competition as its primary purpose.
That is in fact one of the arguments they put forwarddue to the "lock in" of the music to their own player by addition of DRM that makes this locking when the music itself doesn't have such a lock in.
>The RIAA is actually using the DMCA and is the one forcing Apple to use FairPlay
Considering that both RIAA and the DMCA are completely irellevant for Normway, that is hardly a valid excuse for Apple here, now is it?
But they are not discussing computer programs written for specific hardware here. They are discussing media (not sure if this is the correct word, but basically various forms of data or information), such as music and how it should be possible to move it away from the computer but more specifically that it should be possible to move it to other players. The music is itself not tied ro made for a specific sort of hardware or player and they oppose how Apple add that tie in the form of DRM.
>All you had to do was call Microsoft and they would have validated you over the phone.
So what is the point of invalidating it in the first case if one can "just phone them" to fix it?
>But you are only allowed to have a copy of a work with the copyright
>holder's permission. Without their permission, the copy is infringing.
Ehh, which comes back to my initial question. In which country does that apply? Can you point to a law in some country which gives "posession" as an exclusive right to the copyright holder and thus requires permission for others? I can't think of any such country which is why I asked. All countries I am aware of lacks such a right give to a copyright holder. The only "rights" typically given is that of creation of new copies and making the available to the public in various ways. Some countries has added a new sort of semi right in that protection mechanisms regulating access and some use can be covered and can't be worked arround. But if you know of a a case of merer possession being infringement, please tell.
>You are suggesting that being in possession of a copyright work without
>the copyright holder's permission is not copyright infringement.
Exactly. Copyright laws of most countries tend to list a few rights given to the copyright holder as exclusive and the ones I know about have not listed "possessing". Again, feel free to point to the law of any country with such rights. I am genuinly interested in knowing about it.
>Given that copyright _only_ protects data (or "information",
>if you prefer), how can the offense of "copyright infringement"
>civil or criminal) involve anything else ?
It protects "data" (well not really data, but a work that meets the reuirements which plain data typically don't) only in that there is certain actions you can't do with it. For example, create a new copy and various ways of performing or transfering it to the public. Those actions are, if not allowed, an infringement since they are given as an (almost) exclusive right to the copyright holder. Posession is not given as a right to a copyright holder (at least not in many countries) and can thus not be an infringement.
>I'm curious, where do you live where being in possession
>of copyright-infringing data is legal [your own correction] ?
In what countries is *possession* considered a right of the copyright holder and thus possession without permision or licenese considered an infringement? Or perhaps more to your statement, in what country can data itself be infringing?
>The built-in fees are there just for the illegal copying that is occuring.
No, at least not in ever country. In Sweden, the leavy on media is to compensate for the PRIVATE copying that copyright law allows. It is a trade off, the copyright law allows you to make copies for private use and the leavy is to compensate for that. Perhaps it works differently in other countries though, no idea. The law actually specifically says that the leavy applies to media aimed at private use and copying, hence media used primarilly for non private use or if you can show that you will use it for commercial purposes, you don't have to pay the leavy. Here is a link (in Sweden unfortunately) to the organisation collecting the leavy explaining about it:
http://www.copyswede.se/default.asp?ML=2142
> In my opinion, they are a scam. But, THAT is the law.
Appearantly not in every country though.
>Better yet, are you so confidant that what you are doing is legal, that you would be
>willing to publically announce you have a digital copy of the movie (without having any
>physical copy).
Ehh, in what way would a digital copy not be considered a physical one? Or more important being considered as a copy for copyright purposes (and in whatever country you discuss)? On top of that, not many countries makes it an infringement to POSESS a copy, it is the creation of the copy and in some cases the use of it that might be an infringement.