>That is true, but RIAA's lawyers are not suing >people for downloading or sharing non-infringing >files. They are going after users after verifying >that one of their members' works is being copied.
This is not nessecarilly true since they can't verify, check or control that there HAS been a copying done. They typically go after people for making copies available to the public though.
Re:If I am the copyright owner
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1
>The goal of DRM is to make circumvention impossible.
Circumvention of what type?
> Eventually, that goal will become feasible. (It may already have: no one > ever cracked the triple-DES encryption on the original Divx DVDs, and AFAIK > there has never been a successful attack on the latest Videocipher implementation.)
Which, if you want to make a copy is relatively irrelevant since encryption doesn't prevent copying, only access. Access of content is sort of the whole point when you sell it and hence not a problem, not even for a copy since the copy will of course be an encrypted one (since it is a copy).
Re:Lack of case law can prove expensive
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1
But there must be some text, discussion and explanation on the law when it was put forward initially, no? That should give a hint to how the law makers saw it and their intent, no? Or is that of no importance in USA? I know that here in Sweden, that document is actually a very important one and should be seens as almost a part of the law or at least a guide on how to interpret it.
Not nessecarilly, since there is no such strict definition. There is added requirements of it having to be primarilly designed for it and so on. Hence if your device can also be used for other things, what you say is not nessecarilly true. Similary, anyone introducing a system for which there would allready exist decvices (thus for other purposes) that could circumvent it would not instantly ban all those in existance. If my new protection can be circumvented by, for example using Winzip (just an example, substitute for whatever other program you like if that feels better), it doesn't turn Winzip illegal.
>I gather, that if you are then asked by the court "Did you commit the crime", and you >say "No", then you are committing perjury (assuming you're later found guilty). You can >always refuse to answer the question under US law.
I admit I don't know much about US law in this case but it seems that if what you say is true, perjury applies to yourself on trial as well. Do you know were I can find the laws covering perjury by the way (US law) would be interested in looking at them?
>The law is very clear. In the United States, it is a violation of the DMCA to >circumvent DRM of any kind. Cracking DRM is a criminal act by the clear letter of the >law.
No, it is not, the law is quite clear that it has to protect a "work protected under this title". If there is no longer any copyright to the work, the DMCA doesn't apply any longer.
Re:If I am the copyright owner
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1
>In the US, copyright terms are limited to a specific duration. DRM that does not >include a sunset provision is, therefore, incompatible with US copyright law.
What makes you think that? Circumvention for example applies to a work protected under the copyright act. It doesn't apply to something not under copyright. Hence, when the copyright runs out, that no longer applies.
>As it stands now in the US, something could be out of copyright, yet it is (AFAIK) >still illegal to crack the DRM.
Ehh, the circumvention applies to works that are protected under the copyright act. If it is out of copyright, the circumvention part doesn't apply either.
However, domain names are not free for the one who pays the most but are restricted due to for example trademark issues. So in many cases, there is not nessecarilly anyone else to pay more to start with.
Since when is it a perjury when you are questioned about yourself? Are are you commiting a crime when you claim that you are not guilty and the court later still finds you ws guilty, after all, that must mean you lied. In most countries purjury would be when you witness about someone elses case. Perhaps the US syste is completel different though.
>They have every right to protect their work, since it's uniquely theirs.
According to what? IF they really want it protected, the solution is simple, keep it to themselves. If they want the public to have it, they have to accept they lose much of the control. You can't have it both ways.
>They can choose who they want to view it (e.g. give it away for free, or give it only >to people who pay).
That is not WHO, that is HOW. The thing is, after that, they lose some control, don't like it, don't give or sell it. Simple.
>It's not automatically everybody's right to own it just because they're too cheap to >pay for it.
No, but there are many ways to "own" things or get to own things that doesn't involve paying the original creator and they are not by default wrong or bad. This has applied for ages for most products so I don't see why it shouldn't apply to art as well.
>What happened to the "non obvious" requirement for a patent?
Do you have any idea on how complex todays software is? There is nothing obvious or simple about it. That is why adding "with a computer" to the patent claim always invalidate any "obvious" objections.
You are forgetting a fundamentl new trend in patents. As long as you add "with a computer" or "on the internet", you get instant patent no matter what. Sure, here it was a stretch since the internet is used to distribute the music for the product which applies the patent, but that is close enough, just have "internet" somewere in the application, instant patent!
>While the money doesn't vanish, litigation is a leach on the system.
Still, the money in that case still went to employ people, in this case lawyers. So no, the money did not vanish there either.
>Like the police: If everyone were law abiding we wouldn't need police and jails and >courts and all the other fine expenses that go along with enforcing the laws.
On the other hand, we would have a bunch of people that would need some other employment.
>For me, this is one of the things that is much overlooked in Intellectual Monopoly >law: what is the cost of running this system to society?
To society there is not any nessecary cost since the system is part of the society, it employs a lot of people for example.
>Even assuming that patents do increase innovation (I don't believe they do) they also >cause a drain of production resources in terms of legal costs, both to file and then >to protect. This cost (along with other social costs, like increased prices of drugs >etc) needs to be deducted from any gains that a patent system gives (and since I don't >believe there are any gains to begin with, I think we have an overall loss...but >that's just mho)
But you are selectively only counting some costs and applying it to the whole society without looking at the alternative. Just because the money takes other routs, doesn't mean the society loses (or wins) anything. As mentioned, for the society it has the benefit of new employment opportunities. And the infrastructure of courts and such that handle other cases that we might also want, might profit from large scale efficiency and so on. It is far more complex than you make it sound. I am not saying it is a better system with patents for the society, but it is not nessecarilly a worse system either. And your limited analys and restricted viewpoint can't be used to tell which it is.
In what way? For most things, the driver is responsible for his actions for example.
>The teen is legally the parents responsibility.
Ehh, if we disregard the fact that most countries (although not all) has the same age limit for driver license as for becoming adult (in a legal sense), there is still the case that in most countries parents are not legally responsible for all their children do.
>Kids expect so much privacy these days.
Parents trust their kids so little these days. I wonder if it can have anything to do with how one raises ones children...
>if I buy a computer game these days, chances are very good that it will play on a Windows >PC. If I buy a console game, I have a one in four shot of it playing on a popular console.
If I buy a bag for my vacum cleaner, I have a one in a gazillion chance of it working in my vacum cleaner (despite actually working in another vacum cleaner by the very same company. SO what? If you want to go out and buy products without having a clue how they work together with existing equipment you have, why should you expect that it awlays work perfectly? The only chance for that would be with a monopoly of course, but then, as seen in many markets, not even that seems to guarantee anything since the same company tends to restrict its own products as well.
They use it in World of Warcraft to provide patches and updates. Small patches are simply direct downloads from Blizzard's servers. When it is larger, like main updates with lots of new content, they distribute those by using torrents. They distributed the full beta (I believe one or several gigabytes) through torrents also.
>No, the argument goes, it only appears to be sold in a shop.
No, if it appears to be sold, it is sold, that is how sales work. Sale laws has a lowg tradition in human society and is well regulated. It is a a deal/contract between you and the shop were money and a product changes hand and ownership. End of story. A thir party can't change that fact.
>In fact, a proponent of this theory would say, it is being licened,
There is no such concept of a thing being licensed. Licenses is for actions, things you do, the right to do stuff. Further, as I have shown, llicensing has nothing to do with ownership, one does not exclude the other. It doesn't matter if I own a thing or not from the purpose of requiring licenses to do things that are otherwise reserved as exclusive to the coprygith holder. For example, it is completely irellevant if I own a music CD or not for the purpose of determining if it is copyright infringement to play it in the public. Regardless of which, I need a licenese from the copyright holder for that (that act of public playing, not for the CD itself).
>And yet, many courts have found that the seller is in fact the manufacturer. The store is an >intermediary, but not really part of the transaction, however much it might appear to be to >you.
Perhaps your country has a very different law than most countries but in most countries, the shop is the seller and the one responsible for the sale, no matter what, for example the recipie and all such are for the sale versus the shop with whom you basically form a contract of exchaning money for a product. If you want to work as a middle man, you need to set up that same contract between others first, typically requiering a sort of contract to be formed between the customer and whoever else it is, there is almost never any such thing done when buying software (the exception I can think of is various forms of deals for educational versions of some software) aand as far as I am aware, never for music for exmaple. It doesn't matter what someone else wants to call it or claim, what matters it what actually happens and how it is done. All that is reqgulated by law. But please, point to the cases were the manufacturer and not the shop is the seller, it would of course be good to know next time i buy a car for example so that I don't mistakenly thinks it is the one owning and selling the car but actually the original manufacturer.
>Again, I'd suggest reading the ProCD case, which is a key precedent and widely followed.
It has nothing to do with the issue of weather you can own or not something. It was about the situation of if one can add extra terms, change existsing terms and form new terms with a third party after a sale. Obviously it is at most valid in the country (or even states) were it was handled, until some other case overtunes it. Still, the main issue here is your statement that ownership is impossible if there is licenses involved. and that case does not in any way state you can't own, for example music (which was the main topic of this slashdot thread I believe.
>And the pro-EULA argument is that you don't own it.
I have a reciet showing I do and a contract with the shop. Further, acording to WHAT would I not own it? According to the EULA, so if I don't agree ot the EULA, it is in valid and void, at which time I do own it.
>When you paid money to the store and walked out with the software you were at step one of >agreeing to the EULA.
But I am the owner, if I disagree with your step 2 since then the EULA is void. Besides, contracts are quite well defined in most countries on how they are formed and entered, your description doesn't match. The same applies for ordinary slaes, of which ALL steps are completed when you levae the store.
>If you stop, and don't agree, then you need to return the software and get your money back.
Says what law or contract? Do note that at this point anything said in the EULA itself is void since there was
>So you're worried about breaking DRM being illegal, >but not so concerned about P2Ping music being illegal.
I think you posted this in reply to the wrong post. I have not even discussed or mentioned p2P. let alone have I ever claimed that I am not concerned about P2P and its legality. I have not touched the subject at all. I even speficically said so in the post you replied to. I have only commented on the fact that one can end up paying multiple times for the same work. In the first post I replied to of yours, you stated that this was not the case in a reply to another person. Your phrase was
"You don't. I've bought all my CDs exactly once. No "again and again" involved."
To which I simply have given examples. All examples I have given and all my discussion has been based on legal use and activites following the copyright law, which would mean you end up paying more than once for the same work. I have never argued about wether this is good or bad, I have just showed how you will end up doing that, especially if you follow the law. Were you have got the idea that I claimed anything of your statement above is beyoned me. I can only guess you might have posted in the wrong place.
>If a CD doesn't play in a car because of DRM then that's no reason to buy a new one
Please, tell me were I have EVER claimed so? YOu are either making up stuff just for fun or is replying to the wrong person. I have only claimed that one might end up paying more than once for the same work, something you said is not so and then game the example that you yourself has never done so.
Considering how wrong and completely false accusations you make in just this short start of your post, I really don't feel it is of much use commenting anything else in your post either. When you actually read and reply to what I have written, I can continue the discussion otherwise it is pointless.
ALthough you can object as you did on some of the examples, you still can't get away with the fact that they DO sell, and have sold many of the tracks as singles. In addition, they sell individual songs out of the "album work" in collection discs, either together with completly other artists songs or in their own collections of various sorts, like greatest hits and whatever. So obviousl the concept of "songs doesn't stand on their own but there is an album context" is not that important or even valid.
>Second,while I prefer to be able to pick and choose tracks, I can see how a band might >prefer that an album be sold as a complete "work" and not picked apart. I think the >album that should be viewed as such is probably rare, however.
Interestingly enough those very same band HAS sold their songs individually as singles (back in the vinyl day and perhaps on CD as well, depending on band). In addition, their songs appear alone on collection "albums", either together with songs from other artists, probably without any influence on the "album" thus created. But obviously, each song can appear without its original or later album content.
>Arguably, the third scenario is the equivalent to consumer software licensing.
No, software is sold in a shop. That is the exact same scenario as the first one. The fact that someone esle than the one selling the software in addition wants to make acontract about your use is another issue. Still, it does not change the fact that I own the software.
>The second scenario, however, is probably more along the lines of what's happening, yet not >appreciably better.
Again, no not at all, since the seller is not the same as the one making a contract about use. In all the examples above, you should have the manufacturer of the car deciding on the use of rules. So you would have:
2) I own a car and I sell it to you in exchange for money and the car manufacturer wants you to make a binding binding promise that you will not use drive it on the weekend, you can agree to it or not agree to it.
In no way does it require you to agree to it, but that does not make it forbidden to drive it on any day, including weekends.
>If a EULA sets out terms for use and reproduction of the pertinent software, and is >enforceable, then it doesn't matter whether 117 could apply or nominally applies.
But you don't need the EULA to use the software at all due to the fact that one have the 117. It is the very contract (EULA) that makes the claim that you don't own it and thus would need it. That is, the contract itself says a certain condition should apply which in thurn would require the same contract. Without it, you similary don't need it.
>Unless, of course, the owner won't sell it to you without your agreement,
They do. Or actually, someone else sells it to you without requiring any agreement at all.
>in which case failure to agree results in you not being the owner.
You do realize that selling means changing ownership. Claiming they sell it to you on the premisises that you don't own it is a contractiction in itself. Either you sell it or you don't.
>While agreement to EULAs comes after the exchange of money for the software, most courts >have been enforcing EULAs as being a part of the same, unitary sales transaction. They're >just terms that are put forward after the money changes hands.
And that is according to the consumer sale law in most every country not permited. In addition, the sale, in itself a contract, is concluded and finnished when you exchange money and goods. A third party, and even the two parties that made and finnished a sale, can't come afterwards and demand a change or additional terms to an allready finnished sale. Similary a car manufacturer can't nock on your door or leave a note in your trunk claiming you have to agree to new terms later on.
>You can reject them, but then you need to return the software and get your money back.
Why would I have to retrun them if I doesn't agree to new additional terms? I have made no such contract to start with for example. If I sell you a chair, I can't turn up with new terms or contracts and have you return the chair if you don't agree to them. The fact that the offered contract claims so is irellevant since it isn't in effect if I don't agree to it.
>If you don't, it's assumed you agreed based on your conduct. The ProCD case is the leading >pro-EULA case (and n.b. it dealt with public domain material).
And it is completely irellevant for example in most every palces in the world. Further, it doesn't deal with any situation were you would NOT agree to a "clickwrap" situation (although I have to go back and read it again for details). Finally, it was not a consumer situation situation since he had a company which was the user in question so normal consumer protection would not apply (unless consumer in USA has some very different meaning than in many other places in the world). For non consumers, there is far more freedom to negotiate any terms. You can of course also find many believing the ruling was not according t
There is well known cases of CDs not playing in various types of players, for example in cars due to DRM. In such a case that is not possible. The fact that you has to work arround it and do extra work, which in some countries might be illegal, doesn't change the original statement that you might have to pay more than once for the WORK. for the CD breaking, the issue was the work, not the CD, if the CD break, why should you have to buy the work again and not just the CD? Of course, if you make a backup (assuming no DRM or even law preventing), you have to pay extra, including possibly for the music again since you might have to pay a levy which is distributed to the right holder (which would be in part6 the one for your work in question). So you found another way to pay again I didn't even brought up.
And who have said any of this justifies piracy? I was commenting on your statement that one don't pay more than once for a work of music. or rather, claimed "you don't" when someone brought up the point. I have not touched or discussed if it justifies anything or not.
One can pay once for a CD, yet have payed before for an LP and again in other formats. If you want to listen to it in both your car and in your house, you might have to pay again if there is copy protection. If the CD breaks, you pay again (we are talking about the WORK there, you can't just a new CD without paying again for the exact same work). On top of that, you pay indirectly again through various forms of listening to it on say radio who has to pay for it to play it to you despite you allready having payed for it. The same applies to a cafe which has to increase prices for you to play iot again, despite you having paid for it. Now, YOU might not have done that, the person you replied with a "No you don't" to might though as well as many others. Just because you don't, doesn't imply anyone else doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
>That is true, but RIAA's lawyers are not suing
>people for downloading or sharing non-infringing
>files. They are going after users after verifying
>that one of their members' works is being copied.
This is not nessecarilly true since they can't verify, check or control that there HAS been a copying done. They typically go after people for making copies available to the public though.
>The goal of DRM is to make circumvention impossible.
Circumvention of what type?
> Eventually, that goal will become feasible. (It may already have: no one
> ever cracked the triple-DES encryption on the original Divx DVDs, and AFAIK
> there has never been a successful attack on the latest Videocipher implementation.)
Which, if you want to make a copy is relatively irrelevant since encryption doesn't prevent copying, only access. Access of content is sort of the whole point when you sell it and hence not a problem, not even for a copy since the copy will of course be an encrypted one (since it is a copy).
But there must be some text, discussion and explanation on the law when it was put forward initially, no? That should give a hint to how the law makers saw it and their intent, no? Or is that of no importance in USA? I know that here in Sweden, that document is actually a very important one and should be seens as almost a part of the law or at least a guide on how to interpret it.
Not nessecarilly, since there is no such strict definition. There is added requirements of it having to be primarilly designed for it and so on. Hence if your device can also be used for other things, what you say is not nessecarilly true. Similary, anyone introducing a system for which there would allready exist decvices (thus for other purposes) that could circumvent it would not instantly ban all those in existance. If my new protection can be circumvented by, for example using Winzip (just an example, substitute for whatever other program you like if that feels better), it doesn't turn Winzip illegal.
>I gather, that if you are then asked by the court "Did you commit the crime", and you
>say "No", then you are committing perjury (assuming you're later found guilty). You can
>always refuse to answer the question under US law.
I admit I don't know much about US law in this case but it seems that if what you say is true, perjury applies to yourself on trial as well. Do you know were I can find the laws covering perjury by the way (US law) would be interested in looking at them?
>When you make the act of circumventing DRM a crime, it doesn't matter what content it
>was protecting.
Yes it matters, it must be a "work protected under this title".
>The law is very clear. In the United States, it is a violation of the DMCA to
>circumvent DRM of any kind. Cracking DRM is a criminal act by the clear letter of the
>law.
No, it is not, the law is quite clear that it has to protect a "work protected under this title". If there is no longer any copyright to the work, the DMCA doesn't apply any longer.
>In the US, copyright terms are limited to a specific duration. DRM that does not
>include a sunset provision is, therefore, incompatible with US copyright law.
What makes you think that? Circumvention for example applies to a work protected under the copyright act. It doesn't apply to something not under copyright. Hence, when the copyright runs out, that no longer applies.
>As it stands now in the US, something could be out of copyright, yet it is (AFAIK)
>still illegal to crack the DRM.
Ehh, the circumvention applies to works that are protected under the copyright act. If it is out of copyright, the circumvention part doesn't apply either.
However, domain names are not free for the one who pays the most but are restricted due to for example trademark issues. So in many cases, there is not nessecarilly anyone else to pay more to start with.
Since when is it a perjury when you are questioned about yourself? Are are you commiting a crime when you claim that you are not guilty and the court later still finds you ws guilty, after all, that must mean you lied. In most countries purjury would be when you witness about someone elses case. Perhaps the US syste is completel different though.
>They have every right to protect their work, since it's uniquely theirs.
According to what? IF they really want it protected, the solution is simple, keep it to themselves. If they want the public to have it, they have to accept they lose much of the control. You can't have it both ways.
>They can choose who they want to view it (e.g. give it away for free, or give it only
>to people who pay).
That is not WHO, that is HOW. The thing is, after that, they lose some control, don't like it, don't give or sell it. Simple.
>It's not automatically everybody's right to own it just because they're too cheap to
>pay for it.
No, but there are many ways to "own" things or get to own things that doesn't involve paying the original creator and they are not by default wrong or bad. This has applied for ages for most products so I don't see why it shouldn't apply to art as well.
>What happened to the "non obvious" requirement for a patent?
Do you have any idea on how complex todays software is? There is nothing obvious or simple about it. That is why adding "with a computer" to the patent claim always invalidate any "obvious" objections.
>.. is that the idea was patentable.
You are forgetting a fundamentl new trend in patents. As long as you add "with a computer" or "on the internet", you get instant patent no matter what. Sure, here it was a stretch since the internet is used to distribute the music for the product which applies the patent, but that is close enough, just have "internet" somewere in the application, instant patent!
>While the money doesn't vanish, litigation is a leach on the system.
Still, the money in that case still went to employ people, in this case lawyers. So no, the money did not vanish there either.
>Like the police: If everyone were law abiding we wouldn't need police and jails and
>courts and all the other fine expenses that go along with enforcing the laws.
On the other hand, we would have a bunch of people that would need some other employment.
>For me, this is one of the things that is much overlooked in Intellectual Monopoly
>law: what is the cost of running this system to society?
To society there is not any nessecary cost since the system is part of the society, it employs a lot of people for example.
>Even assuming that patents do increase innovation (I don't believe they do) they also
>cause a drain of production resources in terms of legal costs, both to file and then
>to protect. This cost (along with other social costs, like increased prices of drugs
>etc) needs to be deducted from any gains that a patent system gives (and since I don't
>believe there are any gains to begin with, I think we have an overall loss...but
>that's just mho)
But you are selectively only counting some costs and applying it to the whole society without looking at the alternative. Just because the money takes other routs, doesn't mean the society loses (or wins) anything. As mentioned, for the society it has the benefit of new employment opportunities. And the infrastructure of courts and such that handle other cases that we might also want, might profit from large scale efficiency and so on. It is far more complex than you make it sound. I am not saying it is a better system with patents for the society, but it is not nessecarilly a worse system either. And your limited analys and restricted viewpoint can't be used to tell which it is.
>The car is legally the parents responsibility.
In what way? For most things, the driver is responsible for his actions for example.
>The teen is legally the parents responsibility.
Ehh, if we disregard the fact that most countries (although not all) has the same age limit for driver license as for becoming adult (in a legal sense), there is still the case that in most countries parents are not legally responsible for all their children do.
>Kids expect so much privacy these days.
Parents trust their kids so little these days. I wonder if it can have anything to do with how one raises ones children...
>if I buy a computer game these days, chances are very good that it will play on a Windows
>PC. If I buy a console game, I have a one in four shot of it playing on a popular console.
If I buy a bag for my vacum cleaner, I have a one in a gazillion chance of it working in my vacum cleaner (despite actually working in another vacum cleaner by the very same company. SO what? If you want to go out and buy products without having a clue how they work together with existing equipment you have, why should you expect that it awlays work perfectly? The only chance for that would be with a monopoly of course, but then, as seen in many markets, not even that seems to guarantee anything since the same company tends to restrict its own products as well.
They use it in World of Warcraft to provide patches and updates. Small patches are simply direct downloads from Blizzard's servers. When it is larger, like main updates with lots of new content, they distribute those by using torrents. They distributed the full beta (I believe one or several gigabytes) through torrents also.
>No, the argument goes, it only appears to be sold in a shop.
No, if it appears to be sold, it is sold, that is how sales work. Sale laws has a lowg tradition in human society and is well regulated. It is a a deal/contract between you and the shop were money and a product changes hand and ownership. End of story. A thir party can't change that fact.
>In fact, a proponent of this theory would say, it is being licened,
There is no such concept of a thing being licensed. Licenses is for actions, things you do, the right to do stuff. Further, as I have shown, llicensing has nothing to do with ownership, one does not exclude the other. It doesn't matter if I own a thing or not from the purpose of requiring licenses to do things that are otherwise reserved as exclusive to the coprygith holder. For example, it is completely irellevant if I own a music CD or not for the purpose of determining if it is copyright infringement to play it in the public. Regardless of which, I need a licenese from the copyright holder for that (that act of public playing, not for the CD itself).
>And yet, many courts have found that the seller is in fact the manufacturer. The store is an
>intermediary, but not really part of the transaction, however much it might appear to be to
>you.
Perhaps your country has a very different law than most countries but in most countries, the shop is the seller and the one responsible for the sale, no matter what, for example the recipie and all such are for the sale versus the shop with whom you basically form a contract of exchaning money for a product. If you want to work as a middle man, you need to set up that same contract between others first, typically requiering a sort of contract to be formed between the customer and whoever else it is, there is almost never any such thing done when buying software (the exception I can think of is various forms of deals for educational versions of some software) aand as far as I am aware, never for music for exmaple. It doesn't matter what someone else wants to call it or claim, what matters it what actually happens and how it is done. All that is reqgulated by law. But please, point to the cases were the manufacturer and not the shop is the seller, it would of course be good to know next time i buy a car for example so that I don't mistakenly thinks it is the one owning and selling the car but actually the original manufacturer.
>Again, I'd suggest reading the ProCD case, which is a key precedent and widely followed.
It has nothing to do with the issue of weather you can own or not something. It was about the situation of if one can add extra terms, change existsing terms and form new terms with a third party after a sale. Obviously it is at most valid in the country (or even states) were it was handled, until some other case overtunes it. Still, the main issue here is your statement that ownership is impossible if there is licenses involved. and that case does not in any way state you can't own, for example music (which was the main topic of this slashdot thread I believe.
>And the pro-EULA argument is that you don't own it.
I have a reciet showing I do and a contract with the shop. Further, acording to WHAT would I not own it? According to the EULA, so if I don't agree ot the EULA, it is in valid and void, at which time I do own it.
>When you paid money to the store and walked out with the software you were at step one of
>agreeing to the EULA.
But I am the owner, if I disagree with your step 2 since then the EULA is void. Besides, contracts are quite well defined in most countries on how they are formed and entered, your description doesn't match. The same applies for ordinary slaes, of which ALL steps are completed when you levae the store.
>If you stop, and don't agree, then you need to return the software and get your money back.
Says what law or contract? Do note that at this point anything said in the EULA itself is void since there was
>So you're worried about breaking DRM being illegal,
>but not so concerned about P2Ping music being illegal.
I think you posted this in reply to the wrong post. I have not even discussed or mentioned p2P. let alone have I ever claimed that I am not concerned about P2P and its legality. I have not touched the subject at all. I even speficically said so in the post you replied to. I have only commented on the fact that one can end up paying multiple times for the same work. In the first post I replied to of yours, you stated that this was not the case in a reply to another person. Your phrase was
"You don't. I've bought all my CDs exactly once. No "again and again" involved."
To which I simply have given examples. All examples I have given and all my discussion has been based on legal use and activites following the copyright law, which would mean you end up paying more than once for the same work. I have never argued about wether this is good or bad, I have just showed how you will end up doing that, especially if you follow the law. Were you have got the idea that I claimed anything of your statement above is beyoned me. I can only guess you might have posted in the wrong place.
>If a CD doesn't play in a car because of DRM then that's no reason to buy a new one
Please, tell me were I have EVER claimed so? YOu are either making up stuff just for fun or is replying to the wrong person. I have only claimed that one might end up paying more than once for the same work, something you said is not so and then game the example that you yourself has never done so.
Considering how wrong and completely false accusations you make in just this short start of your post, I really don't feel it is of much use commenting anything else in your post either. When you actually read and reply to what I have written, I can continue the discussion otherwise it is pointless.
ALthough you can object as you did on some of the examples, you still can't get away with the fact that they DO sell, and have sold many of the tracks as singles. In addition, they sell individual songs out of the "album work" in collection discs, either together with completly other artists songs or in their own collections of various sorts, like greatest hits and whatever. So obviousl the concept of "songs doesn't stand on their own but there is an album context" is not that important or even valid.
>Second,while I prefer to be able to pick and choose tracks, I can see how a band might
>prefer that an album be sold as a complete "work" and not picked apart. I think the
>album that should be viewed as such is probably rare, however.
Interestingly enough those very same band HAS sold their songs individually as singles (back in the vinyl day and perhaps on CD as well, depending on band). In addition, their songs appear alone on collection "albums", either together with songs from other artists, probably without any influence on the "album" thus created. But obviously, each song can appear without its original or later album content.
>Arguably, the third scenario is the equivalent to consumer software licensing.
No, software is sold in a shop. That is the exact same scenario as the first one. The fact that someone esle than the one selling the software in addition wants to make acontract about your use is another issue. Still, it does not change the fact that I own the software.
>The second scenario, however, is probably more along the lines of what's happening, yet not
>appreciably better.
Again, no not at all, since the seller is not the same as the one making a contract about use. In all the examples above, you should have the manufacturer of the car deciding on the use of rules. So you would have:
2) I own a car and I sell it to you in exchange for money and the car manufacturer wants you to make a binding binding promise that you will not use drive it on the weekend, you can agree to it or not agree to it.
In no way does it require you to agree to it, but that does not make it forbidden to drive it on any day, including weekends.
>If a EULA sets out terms for use and reproduction of the pertinent software, and is
>enforceable, then it doesn't matter whether 117 could apply or nominally applies.
But you don't need the EULA to use the software at all due to the fact that one have the 117. It is the very contract (EULA) that makes the claim that you don't own it and thus would need it. That is, the contract itself says a certain condition should apply which in thurn would require the same contract. Without it, you similary don't need it.
>Unless, of course, the owner won't sell it to you without your agreement,
They do. Or actually, someone else sells it to you without requiring any agreement at all.
>in which case failure to agree results in you not being the owner.
You do realize that selling means changing ownership. Claiming they sell it to you on the premisises that you don't own it is a contractiction in itself. Either you sell it or you don't.
>While agreement to EULAs comes after the exchange of money for the software, most courts
>have been enforcing EULAs as being a part of the same, unitary sales transaction. They're
>just terms that are put forward after the money changes hands.
And that is according to the consumer sale law in most every country not permited. In addition, the sale, in itself a contract, is concluded and finnished when you exchange money and goods. A third party, and even the two parties that made and finnished a sale, can't come afterwards and demand a change or additional terms to an allready finnished sale. Similary a car manufacturer can't nock on your door or leave a note in your trunk claiming you have to agree to new terms later on.
>You can reject them, but then you need to return the software and get your money back.
Why would I have to retrun them if I doesn't agree to new additional terms? I have made no such contract to start with for example. If I sell you a chair, I can't turn up with new terms or contracts and have you return the chair if you don't agree to them. The fact that the offered contract claims so is irellevant since it isn't in effect if I don't agree to it.
>If you don't, it's assumed you agreed based on your conduct. The ProCD case is the leading
>pro-EULA case (and n.b. it dealt with public domain material).
And it is completely irellevant for example in most every palces in the world. Further, it doesn't deal with any situation were you would NOT agree to a "clickwrap" situation (although I have to go back and read it again for details). Finally, it was not a consumer situation situation since he had a company which was the user in question so normal consumer protection would not apply (unless consumer in USA has some very different meaning than in many other places in the world). For non consumers, there is far more freedom to negotiate any terms. You can of course also find many believing the ruling was not according t
There is well known cases of CDs not playing in various types of players, for example in cars due to DRM. In such a case that is not possible. The fact that you has to work arround it and do extra work, which in some countries might be illegal, doesn't change the original statement that you might have to pay more than once for the WORK. for the CD breaking, the issue was the work, not the CD, if the CD break, why should you have to buy the work again and not just the CD? Of course, if you make a backup (assuming no DRM or even law preventing), you have to pay extra, including possibly for the music again since you might have to pay a levy which is distributed to the right holder (which would be in part6 the one for your work in question). So you found another way to pay again I didn't even brought up.
And who have said any of this justifies piracy? I was commenting on your statement that one don't pay more than once for a work of music. or rather, claimed "you don't" when someone brought up the point. I have not touched or discussed if it justifies anything or not.
One can pay once for a CD, yet have payed before for an LP and again in other formats. If you want to listen to it in both your car and in your house, you might have to pay again if there is copy protection. If the CD breaks, you pay again (we are talking about the WORK there, you can't just a new CD without paying again for the exact same work). On top of that, you pay indirectly again through various forms of listening to it on say radio who has to pay for it to play it to you despite you allready having payed for it. The same applies to a cafe which has to increase prices for you to play iot again, despite you having paid for it. Now, YOU might not have done that, the person you replied with a "No you don't" to might though as well as many others. Just because you don't, doesn't imply anyone else doesn't.