>In UK law, and generally across the common law world (as far as I know at >least), just showing a price tag or advertisement is an invitation to treat, >that is, an indication of willingness to negotiate for the item advertised.
Yes, but are you required and legally bound to sell it for that price if anyone wants to? What about if every person in your country (or indeed the world) shows up and wants it claiming they accept your offer and agree to it (thus forming a binding contract). You would thus have a legally binding contract/agreement to sell the item and for that price. If you fail, even if due to not having enough items to sell, you would in fact be in breach of the contract. Are you sure this is how it works in UK?
>But legal copying by its very nature is untaxable -
Huh? Why? You can tax basically anything you want. It is really just an issue of creating the law for it.
> if you in your country have such a concept as fair use (we don't, though, in >the UK), enabling you to legally copy then there is no justification to extract >a levy for exercising that right.
The fact that you DO allow private copying is the reason there is also a levy. It is supposed to compensate for the private copying. One can argue about the right or wrong of this, but that is the reason it exists. It is seen as a sort of trade off. Allow private copying but have levies.
>You paid for the original resource, so you >already have the right to do with it whatever is legal in your country. Why >donate further cash for no reason?
You can do whatever you want (if we look at private copying) because of the levy if you want to look at it that way. They go together.
For a country were there is no legal copying allowed for private use for example, like in UK, there is also no reason for such a levy which is the reason it doens't exist.
>It says "BPI requests ISP's Suspend Suspected Filesharers". "Requests", >not "orders". The decision will be taken by the ISP, who are party to the >contract.
Yes, and they can't determine that you commit an illegal activity any more than the BPI or anyone else EXCEPT police/courts. Those are the only ones to decide or determine if you commit an illegal activity. Hence, the ISP can't on their own decide you commited an illegal activity and shut you down. Which is exactly what I was saying.
>Well, yes. But that isn't the issue at question here. The issue at question is >whether you have breached the AUP.
Were were talking about the situation were you would commit a copyright infringement, which is a legal issue. For you to breach an agreement of not doing illegal acitvities, you must first have been determined to have done something illegal which only courts can do. Again, this is exactly my point.
So it has nothing to do with the AUP or agreement iwth your ISP, it would be a case of the IS acting contrary to their agreement. Basically the BPI is asking the ISP to ignore the contract with their customer of providing their serivce and terminate the agreement in a situation were there is no decision yet by any authority that you have acted illegally. Again, this was the point I made. It has nothing to do with folloinw their AUP or agreements, it is acting in direct opposite of it.
Yes, but they should go after the offenders the proper way, that is through the police and the courts. They should not turn the judge themselves and then go after ISP's and ask the ISP to carry out the judgement.
On the other hand, what lawsuit would the ISP lose and thus pay the costs for? If THEY were doing anything wrong, the BPI would obviously go after THEM, not the costumer. If the customer breaches an agreement with the ISP that is of no bussiness to anyone else than those two. A third party can't drag you to a court for not fullfilling an agreement between you and someone completely different.
>For those thinking (correctly) that no party can be forced to enter into a >contract against their will, recall that a general announcement of goods or of a >service (e.g. an advertisement, a price tag) is an offer, indicating willingness >to enter into a contract.
Are you talking about UK specific or in general? Because if you talk in general it is not true. In many countries such general announcements, advertising and such are not an offer for a contract but a more of a show of products or goods (don't know the correct english law terminology though). For it to be a binding offer for a contract, it has to be at leats somewhate targeted to more limited groups of people.
>The way this works, the BPI is asking the ISP's to enforce their Acceptable Use >Policies. Since the AUP's UK users agree to are pretty draconian in order to get >internet access, the ISP has the right to terminate our accounts at any time >based upon breach of them. Of course, the ISP's don't actually monitor the >traffic as such, because then they might be expected to catch all of the dodgy >traffic going across their wires.
And how would the ISP now if you breached the contract in this particular case? Because someone just tells them they think that is the case? Should an ISP (or any part that enters into a contract) just accept any notice of breach by anyone? Of course not. In this particular case, the relevant part is if you do something illegal, only the police or courts can decide if you have done so. Unless they say so, you have not commited an illegal activity and hence have not breached the contract no matter how many outsiders may say so.
>Of course, the customer could start a civil suit against the ISP for breach of >contract (good luck with that!),
Quite easy, they have a contract for an internet service and is not geting any at all. How hard is THAT?
>If you are in breach with their Acceptable Use Policy, which will likely state >that you should not spread illegal content, then they have all rights to end >your contract, both the provider and the user agreed with this at the start of >the contract.
And who decide if you have done that or not? Some third party entity just claiming so? Typically that (if you commit an illegal act or not) is decided by courts.
The other countries in EU that doesn't have any such tax or levy are Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg. On the other hand, in UK, Ireland and Malta there is really no allowance for private copies at all with the exception of things such as time shifting. Which means Luxembourg and Cyprus is about the only place in EU were you are both free to make various private copying and avoid paying such taxes or levys on media or equipments.
Here is a link to a document I found the information above, it holds quite a lot of information:
>So I've had prior art to begin with, since.. 1997?
You do realize that the patent protects the METHOD used, not the end result. You have been doing something that has the same end result, that is not prior art. Unless you used the same method as the patent describe, there is no prior art.
>I was able to do this before DHTML or PHP. It was called a dynamic CGI database >script, and it was used for "realtime" CGI/HTML-based chatrooms (I typed >something, unless you hit refresh after I typed it you'd have to hit refresh >again to get your information that I sent...)
So perhaps they patented yet another different method.
>Almost any website TO-FUCKING-DAY can do things like that in PHP, Perl, RPG >script, or even CGI script. Why are these idiots suing to begin with?!?!?
It is not WHAT they do, it is NOW they do it that would be a patent issue.
>Of course someone could make a map of the same area - they just have to collect >their own data instead of ripping off someone else's data (or licence the >existing data).
There is no "someone else's data". Data is not owned. That data is about how the erath looks (if we discuss maps), they can't be "owned". You can get copyright on the way you present those data though, which is what you get on a map. If you make your own map (in a non infringing way), were you got the data for that from is irellevant, it can be from someone elses data.
>Certainly not the case here in the UK - if you want to use the Ordinance >Survey's data then you have to pay them for it, you can't just rip it off and >use it for your own maps.
Depends on how you "rip" it. Data in it self is not protected by, for example copyright. A map is. It is similar to the facts in a book not holding copyright, while the presentatio of them, as a book, has a copyright. There is further copyright issues for databases and their collection of data. Again, it is not the data itself that is protected, but the collection of them into a database that is. Depending on how you get the data, how much and how you use it, there can or can not be infringement. Simply taking the full data and using it and presenting it in the same form would most likely not work. That is not what I was saying though, I was talking about making your own map but doing so based on data found in another map. Quite different.
>I'm surprised if this isn't the same in the US - someone has gone to a lot of >effort to collect the data, why should you automatically get it for free?
Because you can't own data? See above about database protection though. Collections of data IS protected, the individual data is not though.
>The timing signal and satellite ephemeris are creative content that can be protected
Yeah, don't you dare look at my watch with its creative time data 8no it doesn't follow the real time, it is a secret different time (sure happens to be 10 seconds later than normal but still).
>just like a map or satellite picture can be copyrighted,
Pictures and maps are specifically included in what copyright protects. Normal data including time is not included nad hence not covered by copyright. This is obvious by looking at the copyright law of about any country in the world.
>I think the cartographers would beg to differ on this count.
Not at all. It is not the geographically data itself that they get copyright on (or no one else could maka map of an area were you have copyright on your map). It is your expresion of that data into your specific map that you get copyright on. Anyone is free to make their own map (or whatever) based on the information on someone else map. They can't copy that specific map with its layouts and so on.
>DRM is not designed this way.. it is designed with the default >as "deny".
I have not discussed how DRM works or even discussed it at all. I was talking about the EU driective and the US DMCA and their differences. How DRM works is quite irellevant to that.
>no.. the us law explicitly stated that "rights controls" could be >bypassed for fair use, this was later overturned because you had to >circumvent access controls in order to access and disable the rights >controls.
The US copyright law doesn't mention that at all. Feel free to quote it. The parts about circumvention of protection, 1201 talks about:
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
and
"is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; "
There are repetition of those that are very similar. So the second part is about rights of the copyright holder while the firsdt is the "extra" access part that for example is not part of the EU directive.
>Either way.. it doesnt matter that the US has the same.. If your >friend jumped off a bridge would you do it too?
Huh? My comment was to your statement that "EU adpoted the DMCA" which is not true and I replied stating a big difference between them, namely the absence of "access" in the EU variant. That is all.
>By protecting DRM you allow copyright industries to take rights from >the public with said DRM, and it will have the force of law because it >is illegal to bypass said DRM for any reason.
There is no general protection of DRM, there is protection of specific things, such as rights of the copyright holder and access. Nothing else.
>All this can be done, thanks to the EUCD, without any judicial >oversight, without any public debate.. unilaterally.. by one side of a >3 sided overlap of the rights of conflicting parties.
This is most certainly wrong as I have allready stated. the EUCD does ONLY deal with protection of rights of the copyright holder, those specifically mentiond as being exclusive to the copyright holder which are basically copying, (initial) distribution and various public performace issues. That is it. No protection for anything else related to DRM.
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again.
on
Aussies Brace for DMCA
·
· Score: 2, Informative
>so they protect "rights" controls?
Yes, circumvention of protection of actions that the copyright holder has exclusive rights on. Or if you want to look at it in some other way. Protection of something that would otherwise have been an infringement and nothing else.
>that's even worse.
Even worse than what? The US has the exact same PLUS the added protection for "access".
>us courts have determined that there is no real difference between enforcing a rights >control and enforcing an access control.
Because in the US the DMCA covers both the "rights" control and the "access" control. My point was that this is NOT true for Europe were the access is not there in the directive.
>In order to disable rights controls you must gain access, and in order to disable access >controls you must control your rights.. you cant have one without the other with DRM.
The only "rights" (at least as far as the EU directive goes and actually for the US DMCA also I think but I don't have it at hand here to verify) are those the copyright law gives a copyright holder. NO other rights.
>Wow, how wrong you are is shocking. I said "It might be a seperate crime, that makes no >difference" - it makes no difference because I wasn't talking about the criminal aspect >of it.
So why are you bringing it up? And what do you suppose "other" mean? You drag out dictionary meanings of "stealing" and then claim that in the end you are just talking about your own ideas of moral? Are you basing that on what the dictionary defines as "stealing" and go along with that?
>Have you never created something?
Depending on what you mean by something, yeah, sure.
>Do you have no grasp of how somethings value can be that other than the media it's stored >on, or the bitstream that describes it?
I suppose you are talking about works that one get copyright on but yes, the value to me can be many different things, and to someone else it can be of value in various other ways. What is your point?
>Have you never created something that you've valued more than the disc you've written it >to, or the paper you've drawn it on?
Yes, again, what is your point? And how would the valuein any way be affected by what others create?
>What we're talking about is the work that goes into such a creation, which no, you >absolutely are not creating anew when you copy it.
Who claimed that?
>I would try and explain further, but I really can't see you understanding something when >you've failed to so far.
So why did you ever bother to reply in the first place? To be able to sling shots as this and feel good or something? Fine, if that is of "value" to you, do so, I don't really care, I try to stick to the discussion at hand.
>they caved to us based lobbyists and adopted the DMCA..
Not completely true. The EU directive doesn't have clauses about "access" to a work. The ponly protection included is those that control rights the copyright holder has. Acces is NOT such a one. The US DMCA on the other hand adds "access" as a sort of new right for circumvention.
Sure, some European countries has gone further than the directive and also added "access", but some has not.
>How does that differ from any other country's copyright law?
Agreed.
> You own the medium and a licence to use the content on it in certain limited ways.
Huh! That on the other hand I don't agree with nor do the copyright law. You own a copy of the work. There is no licenses involved and you can use it in whatever way you want with the exception being a few things that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to. All else is free ofr you to do and you do not need any license for it. Normal "use" is NOT included in the exclusive rights of the copyright holder by the way.
Wrong, downloading is actually perfectly legal in many countries, just as it is copyright infringement in many countries as well. THAT is the problem. The problem is not your use of the word theft, it is how you use it to justify or argue if some completely unrelated action sis OK or not.
>So shut up and deal with the term 'theft'. It's accurate enough.
No, it is very inaccurate since many of the situations or actions that would fit your "definition" of stealing is in fact perfectly legal. Thus it is a useless way to argue if something is right or wrong or legal or illegal. Using the wrong terminology will make people jude the action by that terminology and end up wrong. So if you want to discuss the legalities, why not use the terminology that is applicable to law issues? Otherwise you will for sure end up wrong, people will missunderstand you and you yourself will end up completely wrong.
>I wasn't talking about what's legal or not! My original post was regarding things that >people will do when the law isn't there to stop them... what they will do when they can >get away with it.
Not true. From your earlier post in this particular thread:
>It might be a seperate crime, that makes no difference, you're still taking >something "without right or permission".
That definately is talking about the legal issues and how the law is. Not a lawless situation since that would have no crime.
Further, you were talking about the definition of the word "steal":
>Despite what you believe the word should or shouldn't mean, this is what the work [sic] >actually means, as per its definition.
Which is as I have shown irellevant since the logic is wrong in your argumentation.
Finally, making a copy is NEVER stealing, since you are creating something new. No matter what dictionary you try to find or whatever definition you want to apply to "steal", it can never be applied to someone creating something, regardless of if it is similar or identical to something else.
>Are you really saying your moral >objections are totally inline with the law?
Ehh, we are discussing what is legal and what is not. Or rather, you were arguing that it was stealing and was pulling out dictionary definitions of it stating:
"So, in countries where someones works (eg, music) is owned by them (ie, is their property), it fits the description."
I was just saying that is a wrong statement. There is no moral issues in it. Neither you, nor me, were expressing any moral feelings. If you want to discuss moral, fine, but don't pull out dictionary quotes then, that has even less to do with moral.
>What you're doing is claiming that stealing isn't stealing when the >legal system has another name for it.
No, I was complaining about your use of logic which was faulty regardless of what you try to "prove" or say. But yes, stealing to me is about the same as the law defines it. Something might be morally wrong but I don't go arround trying to claim that it is stealing as well just because I feel it is not moral to do so.
>You're using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law.
If you discuss copyright, the spirit of the law has NOTHING to do with stealing. The spirit of the copyright law is to help progress or arts and science and to help creation of works.
>What I'm talking about is purely language, you know...
See my opther post above, your logic is false. Still, even if it is not, or if we disregard that. What do you gain by discussing what one can possibly call it in the "language"? That leads nowere since the language diesn't define what is illegal or not. Just because you can call something whatever you want, doesn't turn it illegal (or legal) so it is a quite pointless excersise. In addition, since most others use the language different, especially in legal contents, why not try to use the "correct" or "common" terminology?
>If you wanna keep hiding behind the fact that the law doesn't call it >stealing, fine, and probably a good thing it doesn't too, as it makes >it sound worse than I think it is, but that doesn't change the fact >that aquiring works (NOT copyright, NOT legal ownership, but the >created music/software/whatever) - with aquiring meaning you now have >in your posession (you can now play it, run it, whatever), without >permission, fits the definition of what theft is, UNLESS you consider >the works to be public domain, and not the creators.
Your logic is completely false and actually, your statement is also completely false. If I have a book but don't hold the copyright to it, someone else does, then if I give that book to someone, he got hold of the work without permision, yet it is neither stealing nor copyright infringement. Further, even if we consider cases were we make additional copies, it is STILL not nessecarilly copyright infringement nor illegal despite the copyright holder not wanting it or giving permision. So no matter HOW much you like it, trying to squeeze in some sort of stealing definition would not work since no matter what similarities you find, those exact actions would be perfectly legal. That is why we have copyright infringment defined to start with or we could just go along with stealing.....
Slashdot Mirror
>In UK law, and generally across the common law world (as far as I know at
>least), just showing a price tag or advertisement is an invitation to treat,
>that is, an indication of willingness to negotiate for the item advertised.
Yes, but are you required and legally bound to sell it for that price if anyone wants to? What about if every person in your country (or indeed the world) shows up and wants it claiming they accept your offer and agree to it (thus forming a binding contract). You would thus have a legally binding contract/agreement to sell the item and for that price. If you fail, even if due to not having enough items to sell, you would in fact be in breach of the contract. Are you sure this is how it works in UK?
>But legal copying by its very nature is untaxable -
Huh? Why? You can tax basically anything you want. It is really just an issue of creating the law for it.
> if you in your country have such a concept as fair use (we don't, though, in
>the UK), enabling you to legally copy then there is no justification to extract
>a levy for exercising that right.
The fact that you DO allow private copying is the reason there is also a levy. It is supposed to compensate for the private copying. One can argue about the right or wrong of this, but that is the reason it exists. It is seen as a sort of trade off. Allow private copying but have levies.
>You paid for the original resource, so you
>already have the right to do with it whatever is legal in your country. Why
>donate further cash for no reason?
You can do whatever you want (if we look at private copying) because of the levy if you want to look at it that way. They go together.
For a country were there is no legal copying allowed for private use for example, like in UK, there is also no reason for such a levy which is the reason it doens't exist.
>No. Have you RTFA? Have you even RTF headline?
Of course I have. Have you read my post?
>It says "BPI requests ISP's Suspend Suspected Filesharers". "Requests",
>not "orders". The decision will be taken by the ISP, who are party to the
>contract.
Yes, and they can't determine that you commit an illegal activity any more than the BPI or anyone else EXCEPT police/courts. Those are the only ones to decide or determine if you commit an illegal activity. Hence, the ISP can't on their own decide you commited an illegal activity and shut you down. Which is exactly what I was saying.
>Well, yes. But that isn't the issue at question here. The issue at question is
>whether you have breached the AUP.
Were were talking about the situation were you would commit a copyright infringement, which is a legal issue. For you to breach an agreement of not doing illegal acitvities, you must first have been determined to have done something illegal which only courts can do. Again, this is exactly my point.
So it has nothing to do with the AUP or agreement iwth your ISP, it would be a case of the IS acting contrary to their agreement. Basically the BPI is asking the ISP to ignore the contract with their customer of providing their serivce and terminate the agreement in a situation were there is no decision yet by any authority that you have acted illegally. Again, this was the point I made. It has nothing to do with folloinw their AUP or agreements, it is acting in direct opposite of it.
>And if so, since the article also suggests they're only after those who upload a lot....
Which makes one wonder how they know someone has uploaded "a lot".
Yes, but they should go after the offenders the proper way, that is through the police and the courts. They should not turn the judge themselves and then go after ISP's and ask the ISP to carry out the judgement.
On the other hand, what lawsuit would the ISP lose and thus pay the costs for? If THEY were doing anything wrong, the BPI would obviously go after THEM, not the costumer. If the customer breaches an agreement with the ISP that is of no bussiness to anyone else than those two. A third party can't drag you to a court for not fullfilling an agreement between you and someone completely different.
>For those thinking (correctly) that no party can be forced to enter into a
>contract against their will, recall that a general announcement of goods or of a
>service (e.g. an advertisement, a price tag) is an offer, indicating willingness
>to enter into a contract.
Are you talking about UK specific or in general? Because if you talk in general it is not true. In many countries such general announcements, advertising and such are not an offer for a contract but a more of a show of products or goods (don't know the correct english law terminology though). For it to be a binding offer for a contract, it has to be at leats somewhate targeted to more limited groups of people.
>The way this works, the BPI is asking the ISP's to enforce their Acceptable Use
>Policies. Since the AUP's UK users agree to are pretty draconian in order to get
>internet access, the ISP has the right to terminate our accounts at any time
>based upon breach of them. Of course, the ISP's don't actually monitor the
>traffic as such, because then they might be expected to catch all of the dodgy
>traffic going across their wires.
And how would the ISP now if you breached the contract in this particular case? Because someone just tells them they think that is the case? Should an ISP (or any part that enters into a contract) just accept any notice of breach by anyone? Of course not. In this particular case, the relevant part is if you do something illegal, only the police or courts can decide if you have done so. Unless they say so, you have not commited an illegal activity and hence have not breached the contract no matter how many outsiders may say so.
>Of course, the customer could start a civil suit against the ISP for breach of
>contract (good luck with that!),
Quite easy, they have a contract for an internet service and is not geting any at all. How hard is THAT?
>If you are in breach with their Acceptable Use Policy, which will likely state
>that you should not spread illegal content, then they have all rights to end
>your contract, both the provider and the user agreed with this at the start of
>the contract.
And who decide if you have done that or not? Some third party entity just claiming so? Typically that (if you commit an illegal act or not) is decided by courts.
The other countries in EU that doesn't have any such tax or levy are Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg. On the other hand, in UK, Ireland and Malta there is really no allowance for private copies at all with the exception of things such as time shifting. Which means Luxembourg and Cyprus is about the only place in EU were you are both free to make various private copying and avoid paying such taxes or levys on media or equipments.
/ docs/levy_reform/stakeholder_consultation_en.pdf
Here is a link to a document I found the information above, it holds quite a lot of information:
(Stakeholder Consultation on Copyright Levies in a Convergin World)
http://www.ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright
That tax is for legal copying though, not illegal one.
Yes, I was in a hurry and noticed to late I pressed the wrong button, but unfortunately one can't edit posts here on slashdot...
>So I've had prior art to begin with, since.. 1997?
You do realize that the patent protects the METHOD used, not the end result. You have been doing something that has the same end result, that is not prior art. Unless you used the same method as the patent describe, there is no prior art.
>I was able to do this before DHTML or PHP. It was called a dynamic CGI database
>script, and it was used for "realtime" CGI/HTML-based chatrooms (I typed
>something, unless you hit refresh after I typed it you'd have to hit refresh
>again to get your information that I sent...)
So perhaps they patented yet another different method.
>Almost any website TO-FUCKING-DAY can do things like that in PHP, Perl, RPG
>script, or even CGI script. Why are these idiots suing to begin with?!?!?
It is not WHAT they do, it is NOW they do it that would be a patent issue.
>Of course someone could make a map of the same area - they just have to collect
>their own data instead of ripping off someone else's data (or licence the
>existing data).
There is no "someone else's data". Data is not owned. That data is about how the erath looks (if we discuss maps), they can't be "owned". You can get copyright on the way you present those data though, which is what you get on a map. If you make your own map (in a non infringing way), were you got the data for that from is irellevant, it can be from someone elses data.
>Certainly not the case here in the UK - if you want to use the Ordinance
>Survey's data then you have to pay them for it, you can't just rip it off and
>use it for your own maps.
Depends on how you "rip" it. Data in it self is not protected by, for example copyright. A map is. It is similar to the facts in a book not holding copyright, while the presentatio of them, as a book, has a copyright. There is further copyright issues for databases and their collection of data. Again, it is not the data itself that is protected, but the collection of them into a database that is. Depending on how you get the data, how much and how you use it, there can or can not be infringement. Simply taking the full data and using it and presenting it in the same form would most likely not work. That is not what I was saying though, I was talking about making your own map but doing so based on data found in another map. Quite different.
>I'm surprised if this isn't the same in the US - someone has gone to a lot of
>effort to collect the data, why should you automatically get it for free?
Because you can't own data? See above about database protection though. Collections of data IS protected, the individual data is not though.
>The timing signal and satellite ephemeris are creative content that can be protected
Yeah, don't you dare look at my watch with its creative time data 8no it doesn't follow the real time, it is a secret different time (sure happens to be 10 seconds later than normal but still).
>just like a map or satellite picture can be copyrighted,
Pictures and maps are specifically included in what copyright protects. Normal data including time is not included nad hence not covered by copyright. This is obvious by looking at the copyright law of about any country in the world.
>I think the cartographers would beg to differ on this count.
Not at all. It is not the geographically data itself that they get copyright on (or no one else could maka map of an area were you have copyright on your map). It is your expresion of that data into your specific map that you get copyright on. Anyone is free to make their own map (or whatever) based on the information on someone else map. They can't copy that specific map with its layouts and so on.
>DRM is not designed this way.. it is designed with the default
>as "deny".
I have not discussed how DRM works or even discussed it at all. I was talking about the EU driective and the US DMCA and their differences. How DRM works is quite irellevant to that.
>no.. the us law explicitly stated that "rights controls" could be
>bypassed for fair use, this was later overturned because you had to
>circumvent access controls in order to access and disable the rights
>controls.
The US copyright law doesn't mention that at all. Feel free to quote it. The parts about circumvention of protection, 1201 talks about:
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
and
"is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; "
There are repetition of those that are very similar. So the second part is about rights of the copyright holder while the firsdt is the "extra" access part that for example is not part of the EU directive.
>Either way.. it doesnt matter that the US has the same.. If your
>friend jumped off a bridge would you do it too?
Huh? My comment was to your statement that "EU adpoted the DMCA" which is not true and I replied stating a big difference between them, namely the absence of "access" in the EU variant. That is all.
>By protecting DRM you allow copyright industries to take rights from
>the public with said DRM, and it will have the force of law because it
>is illegal to bypass said DRM for any reason.
There is no general protection of DRM, there is protection of specific things, such as rights of the copyright holder and access. Nothing else.
>All this can be done, thanks to the EUCD, without any judicial
>oversight, without any public debate.. unilaterally.. by one side of a
>3 sided overlap of the rights of conflicting parties.
This is most certainly wrong as I have allready stated. the EUCD does ONLY deal with protection of rights of the copyright holder, those specifically mentiond as being exclusive to the copyright holder which are basically copying, (initial) distribution and various public performace issues. That is it. No protection for anything else related to DRM.
>so they protect "rights" controls?
Yes, circumvention of protection of actions that the copyright holder has exclusive rights on. Or if you want to look at it in some other way. Protection of something that would otherwise have been an infringement and nothing else.
>that's even worse.
Even worse than what? The US has the exact same PLUS the added protection for "access".
>us courts have determined that there is no real difference between enforcing a rights
>control and enforcing an access control.
Because in the US the DMCA covers both the "rights" control and the "access" control. My point was that this is NOT true for Europe were the access is not there in the directive.
>In order to disable rights controls you must gain access, and in order to disable access
>controls you must control your rights.. you cant have one without the other with DRM.
The only "rights" (at least as far as the EU directive goes and actually for the US DMCA also I think but I don't have it at hand here to verify) are those the copyright law gives a copyright holder. NO other rights.
>Wow, how wrong you are is shocking. I said "It might be a seperate crime, that makes no
>difference" - it makes no difference because I wasn't talking about the criminal aspect
>of it.
So why are you bringing it up? And what do you suppose "other" mean? You drag out dictionary meanings of "stealing" and then claim that in the end you are just talking about your own ideas of moral? Are you basing that on what the dictionary defines as "stealing" and go along with that?
>Have you never created something?
Depending on what you mean by something, yeah, sure.
>Do you have no grasp of how somethings value can be that other than the media it's stored
>on, or the bitstream that describes it?
I suppose you are talking about works that one get copyright on but yes, the value to me can be many different things, and to someone else it can be of value in various other ways. What is your point?
>Have you never created something that you've valued more than the disc you've written it
>to, or the paper you've drawn it on?
Yes, again, what is your point? And how would the valuein any way be affected by what others create?
>What we're talking about is the work that goes into such a creation, which no, you
>absolutely are not creating anew when you copy it.
Who claimed that?
>I would try and explain further, but I really can't see you understanding something when
>you've failed to so far.
So why did you ever bother to reply in the first place? To be able to sling shots as this and feel good or something? Fine, if that is of "value" to you, do so, I don't really care, I try to stick to the discussion at hand.
>they caved to us based lobbyists and adopted the DMCA..
Not completely true. The EU directive doesn't have clauses about "access" to a work. The ponly protection included is those that control rights the copyright holder has. Acces is NOT such a one. The US DMCA on the other hand adds "access" as a sort of new right for circumvention.
Sure, some European countries has gone further than the directive and also added "access", but some has not.
>How does that differ from any other country's copyright law?
Agreed.
> You own the medium and a licence to use the content on it in certain limited ways.
Huh! That on the other hand I don't agree with nor do the copyright law. You own a copy of the work. There is no licenses involved and you can use it in whatever way you want with the exception being a few things that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to. All else is free ofr you to do and you do not need any license for it. Normal "use" is NOT included in the exclusive rights of the copyright holder by the way.
>FINE. What is it then? Perfectly legal? No.
Wrong, downloading is actually perfectly legal in many countries, just as it is copyright infringement in many countries as well. THAT is the problem. The problem is not your use of the word theft, it is how you use it to justify or argue if some completely unrelated action sis OK or not.
>So shut up and deal with the term 'theft'. It's accurate enough.
No, it is very inaccurate since many of the situations or actions that would fit your "definition" of stealing is in fact perfectly legal. Thus it is a useless way to argue if something is right or wrong or legal or illegal. Using the wrong terminology will make people jude the action by that terminology and end up wrong. So if you want to discuss the legalities, why not use the terminology that is applicable to law issues? Otherwise you will for sure end up wrong, people will missunderstand you and you yourself will end up completely wrong.
>I wasn't talking about what's legal or not! My original post was regarding things that
>people will do when the law isn't there to stop them... what they will do when they can
>get away with it.
Not true. From your earlier post in this particular thread:
>It might be a seperate crime, that makes no difference, you're still taking
>something "without right or permission".
That definately is talking about the legal issues and how the law is. Not a lawless situation since that would have no crime.
Further, you were talking about the definition of the word "steal":
>Despite what you believe the word should or shouldn't mean, this is what the work [sic]
>actually means, as per its definition.
Which is as I have shown irellevant since the logic is wrong in your argumentation.
Finally, making a copy is NEVER stealing, since you are creating something new. No matter what dictionary you try to find or whatever definition you want to apply to "steal", it can never be applied to someone creating something, regardless of if it is similar or identical to something else.
>Are you really saying your moral
>objections are totally inline with the law?
Ehh, we are discussing what is legal and what is not. Or rather, you were arguing that it was stealing and was pulling out dictionary definitions of it stating:
"So, in countries where someones works (eg, music) is owned by them (ie, is their property), it fits the description."
I was just saying that is a wrong statement. There is no moral issues in it. Neither you, nor me, were expressing any moral feelings. If you want to discuss moral, fine, but don't pull out dictionary quotes then, that has even less to do with moral.
>What you're doing is claiming that stealing isn't stealing when the
>legal system has another name for it.
No, I was complaining about your use of logic which was faulty regardless of what you try to "prove" or say. But yes, stealing to me is about the same as the law defines it. Something might be morally wrong but I don't go arround trying to claim that it is stealing as well just because I feel it is not moral to do so.
>You're using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law.
If you discuss copyright, the spirit of the law has NOTHING to do with stealing. The spirit of the copyright law is to help progress or arts and science and to help creation of works.
>What I'm talking about is purely language, you know...
See my opther post above, your logic is false. Still, even if it is not, or if we disregard that. What do you gain by discussing what one can possibly call it in the "language"? That leads nowere since the language diesn't define what is illegal or not. Just because you can call something whatever you want, doesn't turn it illegal (or legal) so it is a quite pointless excersise. In addition, since most others use the language different, especially in legal contents, why not try to use the "correct" or "common" terminology?
>If you wanna keep hiding behind the fact that the law doesn't call it
>stealing, fine, and probably a good thing it doesn't too, as it makes
>it sound worse than I think it is, but that doesn't change the fact
>that aquiring works (NOT copyright, NOT legal ownership, but the
>created music/software/whatever) - with aquiring meaning you now have
>in your posession (you can now play it, run it, whatever), without
>permission, fits the definition of what theft is, UNLESS you consider
>the works to be public domain, and not the creators.
Your logic is completely false and actually, your statement is also completely false. If I have a book but don't hold the copyright to it, someone else does, then if I give that book to someone, he got hold of the work without permision, yet it is neither stealing nor copyright infringement. Further, even if we consider cases were we make additional copies, it is STILL not nessecarilly copyright infringement nor illegal despite the copyright holder not wanting it or giving permision. So no matter HOW much you like it, trying to squeeze in some sort of stealing definition would not work since no matter what similarities you find, those exact actions would be perfectly legal. That is why we have copyright infringment defined to start with or we could just go along with stealing.....