>Steal, n: (1) To take (the property of another) without right or >permission.
Your statement is wrong and pointless in many ways. First of, copyright has very little to do with property. Copyright does not mean ownership of anything, holding the copyright doesn't mean you "own" the work, it means that you simply has the copyright which only means you have a few exclusive rights, that are not related to what applies to ownership. So no, there is no property involved here.
Second, it is irrellevant what kind of definition you find in dictionaries. What is important is how the LAW defines things and what it judge as illegal or not. Things does not turn illegal just because your dictionary feels so when the law does not.
Finally, even applying that, there is a false logic here. You try to say that stealing means to take someones property (A->B). That does not however means that if you takes someones property, that it is stealing (B->A). It might be in some cases, but not nessecarilly in others. Finally, you seems to miss the step of comming from stealing to copyright infringement A->C. That is, you feel that copyright infringement is stealing(C->A) and is now firther making th assumption that if B->A (which was false though) B->A. You should take a class in logics befaure you get too lost.
>So, in countries where someones works (eg, music) is owned by them >(ie, is their property), it fits the description.
Since owning doesn't apply to the "work" but to copies of the work (and the copyright holder does not usually own those after distribution or if someone else created them) there is no ownership of the work. There is an ownership of the copyright to the work but as said above, that is not the same as owning the work, so this statement of yours will never be true.
>I am not understanding your argument here at all, for Windows does not need any copies made in order to run the program
As mentioned in another reply, you would make copies when you install the software (Windows in this case) onto your hard disc. You will similary make copies in your computers memory when you start it up. Depending on country, some, all or none of these might qualify as "copies" by the copyright. However, that type of copy usually has excpetions so that even if they DO quality as copies, they are still not infringing and allowed- Thus there is no need for any license to make them, nor the need, in for exmaple the USA, to claim Fair USe or other such things. Instead they are specificaly allowed. Here is the link to the US copyright law that details it:
>That clause in copyright law is that you can make a copy if you need to in order to use the item in question, in the case of >Windows it is unneeded, so that clause is irrelevant.
How woould you ever NOT need to make copies on your hard disc or in your memory? The point made is that you don't NEED the license to start with. It is poinltess and unneeded since even without it you can make your copies needed.
The Post I replied to, which was written by you, claimed that one need such a license, you wrote "but you do need a licence to run it" which was false since the law allows it.
>>Actually almost every store SELLS it. So it is an erroneous statment.
> Common misperception.
Not at all. What makes you believe so?
> You're not buying the software, you're buying the media it's on and a license to use it.
THIS is the common missconception which there is not even any basis for by law or otherwise. Sales are well regulated through laws and is a conception that has been in use for ages really. When you buy something, you buy it all, not only part of it. Try finding a law for example that says that for software you only buy part of it. besides, there is no difference in "the CD" and "the media" it is the same thing really and in most cases it is a copy of some sort of work (that usually has copyright invovled).
As for licenses, it is only relevant, if there is some right one need, using software doesn't need any such things. Neither would the copyright holder be able to grant you such licenses either, since the copyright holder doesn't not hold such an exclusive right to start with.
>That CD is yours and you can do whatever you want with it, but the contents are property of Microsoft.
No idea were you come up with such strange ideas. No, the copy of the softwqre belongs for example to me if I am the one who bought the copy. Other copies belongs to other people who have bought them. Microsoft would hold the copyright on the work though, but that is something different and not realted to the ownership of individual copies at all. If you want to learn about the difference about owning a copyright to a work and owning individual copies, here is a starting link to the US copyright law dealing with it:
> I completely disagree with it, but that's how the laws are right now.
What law? Feel free to quote or link to any such law in whatever country you like that specifies that one can't buy software and that copies of software is always owned by whoever has the copyright to it.
>If you can execute the software on your hardware without taking >the action of copying the software into your computer's memory >(and remember, copying is the basic right granted to the creator >of a work by copyright, hence the name), you might have a point there.
You miss the important part about the right to copy, it is not completely exclusive to the copyright holder. There are many cases when you can copy without needed a license from the copyright holder. One such is those copies required to use and run software you have. Those copies are NOT infringing and does NOT rewuire licenses.
> As it is, Microsoft grants permission through a license to do the >copying that's required to run the software.
Thus not needed as it is specifically allowed and permited by the copyright law itself allready.
> It's their position that you own a single copy of the software > on the physical media it was sold on. The fact that you need to > copy it for it to be of any use to you is the whole basis for the EULA.
Which is a very bad "basis" since the law specificaly says you don't need it. That makes much of the basis the EULA stands on completely void.
>Now, you may argue that the copying needed to execute software >once you've paid for it is noninfringing under Fair Use,
No, see above. If you want to talk about specifically the US laws, it is in 117, Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs, which says you need no such license. Fair use is not an issue or needed at all. Other countries has similar provisions in their copyright laws.
>Well, then how can you be bound to a contract with someone who you have no dealing with, then?
You can't. Of course, that is one of the many problems with EULAs.
>So MS EULA is an agreement between the vendor and MS.
No it is not. They MIGHT have some sort of agreement between them of course, but then, that would not affect you.
>If you can be bound then you do have a contractual relationship with MS, so they are, for the terms of the EULA, your vendor.
No, they are not your vendor. Your purchase is with the shop which is the vendor of that purchase. What you can of course do is completely apart from the purchase, make contracts with whoever you want, for example Microsoft. That can however not affect any contracts you have with the vendor, that would be completely void.
Note, I am not arguing FOR EULAs, it is actually against them and I basically agree with what you initially said, just not the part about the vendor changing part of the sale. neither can anyone else of course.
Actually almost every store SELLS it. So it is an erroneous statment.
In addition, one might of course wonder what means "licensing software". Rights, permisions and actions are licensed, a physical product in iitself is not "licensed". Furthermore, licenses has nothing to do with ownership, which selling has. Consdiering the contract that wants to to agree to the fact that you did not buy the software is not even related to the sale (which is between you and a shop normally) doesn't help out much. One may also wonder how one ever get in posession of the software if it is never yours, is there some leasing contract for it? Do you borrow it from them? Or is there some other (legal) set up for you to have it? As a side not, you can also ponder over the legal status of ownership for example at a point after the purchase but before you install and is presented with the contract and the shops role in it all.
>I fail to understand how EULAs can possibly be legal, where the vendor has the >right to change the terms of the license at any time after the sale.
Ehh, the vendor doesn't change it at all. It is the copyright owner that wants to change it. The vendor is the shop you got it from and that is tpyically never Microsoft. The sale is conducted between the consumer and the shop and the EULA is in fact not at all part of that (making it even more strange to claim their validity). Futher more a contract between two parties, for example you and Microsoft, can normally never bind a third part, for example the shop and any contracts you many with the shop.
>You're granted the license to use the program. You don't own the license. The >license may be removed by the copyright owner if you violate the EULA, which is >akin to land in a fiefdom that can be removed if you cross the rules of the >owning lord.
Copyright owner can only grant you licenses (and remove only such licenses) to rights which they have. Those rights are specifically mentioned in copyright law and only those rights apply. They can't make up their own additional rights they want to license away. "Use" is not such a right hence they can neither licnese that right nor remove that right. Copying is such a right although not all types of copying. COpies needed specifically for running sofware are NOT infriging and reserved to the copyright holder, hence they can't license it nor remove it. Another example is the making of archival copies. There are other examples as well. Look at the copyright law.
>You don't need a license to copy windows for archival purposes, but you do need >a licence to run it, since you don't actually own the program (you own the >licence to use the program, which almost always comes with a copy of the >program).
Your logic is fantasitc. You claim one need a license because one doesn't own the program but only a licens to use it. So because one owns a license, one need a license?
You are aware that a license from a copyright holder is needed to do things that would otherwise be infringing, right? Neither making archival copies or "running" it are infringing (it is not the running that is the issue, it is the copies needed to be made for running it and those ar enot infringing). Hence there is no need for ANY license at all.
No idea were you got the idea that one doesn't own the program on buy. You are aware of sales laws and how ownership transfer works, right?
Restrictions on what? Copyright law allready contain many restrictions on what you can and can not do. In my opinion they are in many countries allready to far going when it comes to private cases. My own opinion is that private use should be as allowed as possible while comercial use can be completely restricted. There are of course uses inbetween I am sure and one has to look more carefull into it.
>I'd guess that just about every model of toaster has been >registered as a design in its major markets to prevent >(Chinese) cloning.
Such registration of design applies for comercial use only and is not applicable to private use. This may vary between countries of course.
>Yes, under US law (but not in some other jurastictions) you >do not infringe copyright when making copies for fair non- >commercial use (their rights to try to make any copying, or more than a >certain amount of copying, difficult. It's just that it's >legal to, if possible, break these restrictions to make >copies up to the extent of fair use.
Of course they don't have to make it easy. I was just sayinbg that there is no way by the copyright law for them to legally prevent you to do things not specifically allready mentioned.
>Some would say that "interacting" with another work is "incorporating" the content of the >work.
Some says the world is flat too. Doesn't make it flat. The important thing is what the law considers. SImply interacting would make for example Windows a derivative work of every file it "touches" by those "some people".
>One company, Blizzard, has been quite successful in shutting down the emulator community.
But that was not done by arguing anything related to derivative work. It was based on contract law, that is they claimed sucessfully that they had a contract (EULA) with the persons making the servers to not reverse engineer the games. In addition, it was about the DMCA provision of circumventing copy protection since the claimed the absense of a CD-key check was circumvention. Both thse arguments was accepted by the court.
>If it's not infringing, why does there need to be a tax? >It's allowed by definition, why does it need to be paid for?
It is tied together, it is made allowed because one have tax added. The option could be to not allow such private copying instead for example. Look at it as a sort of compromise, it is allowed to make private copies at will, but there is a tax placed on the media. I am not saying it is a good thing, but that is the reasoning for it to exist in most countries that has it.
>In many European countries' postal systems, sending >packages or letters abroad is not much more expensive than >domestic delivery. In some cases, sending a package from >another country may even be cheaper.
Of course, I never said it would be very expensive. Just that it would cost some and many would compare it to the "zero cost" of going firectly to a store and buy instead.
>1. It is very difficult to allow free private use while >simultaneously preventing unrestricted copying. Good DRM >schemes attempt to maximize one while minimizing the other.
Yes, but from that doesn't follow that the only solution is to either allow both or dissallow both.
>2. Copying of toasters is protected by either copyright or >design patents, depending on jurastiction.
COpyright would most certainly not apply and as for patents, I would say that most toasters are not that high tech so that they are covered by patents.
>3. The copyright holder can licence their work to (only) >authorize copying in certain circumstances: exclusive >deals, restricted distribution regions, limited time >periods, use of a particular DRM (that say limits burning a >song to CD to no more than five times).
Ehh, they can license rights to make copies that would otherwise be infringing so that they are not. Copying that are not infirnging can still be made and not prevented, at least not based on copyright law).
Hence, for example, based on copyright law there is no way for them to dissalow copying for private use if that is allowed by copyright law. SO if you are allowed by the copyright law to make unlimited copies for private use, the copyright holder can't limit that to 5 based on copyright law.
If you are not allowed to make copies for private use, then yes, since you must get permission from the copyright holder to make such coppies, they can allow you to do so but only make for example 5 copies.
Copyright laws are very specific in what they give as exclusive rights to the copyright holder. The copyright holder can license THOSE rights to others to do. There is no mandate in copyright law however for the copyright holder to create no exlcusive rights for itself on top of what the law says.
>The aim of DRM technologies is to help enforce copyright >licences. They only impinge on use because free use and >free copying are strongly entangled.
No, since in most cases what DRM regulate is NOT something that is an exlcusive right of the copyright holder, hence it does NOT control any copyright licensing at all but control added rights the copyright holder would like to obtain. However, copyright law doesn't give that option. Other laws might, but that would be non copyright related and have nothing to do with copyrights.
>If it's true that simply using another workd does not turn >your own work into a derivative work, do you believe that >the GPL's position on dynamic linking to a GPL'd shared >library (which involves using the functionality there) >makes the software doing the linking also GPL'ed?
I have basically no idea what the GPL says nor do I really have much knowlede about how various forms of linking accors. What I tried to say is that just because your have your own work that interacts with another work, does not make it a derivative work.
>You're right about "many countries" having lax definitions, >but I believe that all of the Berne Convention countries >are fairly strict.
No, it doesn't deal with derivative works in such a way as for example USA. Raed it and you shall see that it doesn't really deals with what would be considered "derivative wroks" such as it is defined in US copyright law but deals with things such as translation and adaptions. The many countries I was refering to would include for example many countries in EU. Note that most such treaties about copyright tends to set minimum standards and countries are (obviously) free to go further. You can thus not take the existing law in a country and based on that judge how it must be in other countries that have also signed the Berne convention.
>However, there's all sorts of precedents. For example, one >cannot write a novel containing the characters Gandalf, >Frodo, and so forth, without the law regarding such a work >as a clearly derivative work belonging to the Tolkein >estate. This is a thin line here, and as I say: murky.
Ehh, you are right in that you can't write a novell if you use the characters with all their characteristics and so . However, there is nothing wrong with writing a story with a wizzard named Gandalf in it. It would not be so much an issue of derivative work as a palin copyright infringment, at least in countries that doesn't have as far reaching copyright laws on derivative work as for example USA seems to have which was my point in the original post.
>Won't this simply kill manufacturing of blank media in >Spain, if there even is any?
Perhaps. Now I don't really know if there is any, or how big sich production is. I would guess most such production exists in other parts of the world. Note that importers would similary have to pay the tax when they import.
>I mean, if I'm a Spaniard, why shouldn't I just order my >media shipped to me from another EU country?
Yes you can of course do that, however, would the extra shipping be less than the tax?
>If I'm paying for it when I buy blank media, shouldn't I be >able to download or copy anything I want since I've already >paid for it.
No, since such taxes are not there for compensating for infringing copying but to compensate for NON infringing copying. Many countries has for examples exceptions for copying so that when done for private use for example, it is not infringment. It is for this type of copying such "taxes" are meant to compensate. Not for any illegal activities.
Microsoft would most likely have daughter companies set up and located in each and every country in EU including with emplyed personal and so on. Were the headquarter is located is in that aspect quite irellevant. Sure, Microsoft can theoretically completely extinct itself from EU and not have any legal precense at all, the chance for that would be zero I would say.
>Nope, I am assuming I am offered a product with certain >attributes (I can play it on a certain way) for a certain >price.
The problem is that you can't make something only work in a certain way since there is always ways to work (or play) in completely different ways and after you sell something, that is out of your control. Of course you can make it hard, but never impossible and you can't prevent however DO find another way to play or use it, at least not based on copyright or copyright laws.
>Apparently you are assuming that buying a copyrighted work >means you alwais buy certain rights,
No, but you seems to assuming that when selling a copyrighted work, the seller has some extra rights to control the use which there isn't, check the copyright law yourself. The only such "control" would be that, by law, one is not allowed to perform the work in public and other such similar restrictions. There is nothing beyoned the copyright law the seller can add due to the copyright. The whole concept of selling is that you will no longer be the woner and thus have no control while the buyer turns into the owner and now control that item (copy in case of copyrights).
>while DRM introduces a different way of offering content, >which you may or may not like, but then again noone is >forcing you to buy the copyrighted work in the first place.
BU the DRM has nothing to do with the copyright, you could do the same with a bicycle you sell. It can have a restriction so that you can't use it in a certain way. However, the buyer might simply remove that part or simply use it anyway in whatever way you did not desire, after the sale, that is out of your control and, again, it has nothing to do with copyright, nor does the situation turns different by the fact that there is copyright invovled.
>A file containing a song is different to a toaster because >the file is significantly more easily copied than the >toaster;
So? What does creating NEW copies of something has to do with use? We were talking about using a product, not creating new ones. Creating new copies is regulated by copyright law which typically does not allow creating new copies freely.That is indeed why you can typically make a a copy of your toaster (typically without puting the original brand or name on your copy though due to trademarks) while you can't do the same with music CDs for example. That is however regulated in the law. We were discussing additional control and decisions on use by the seller and in this case a copyright owner.
> so much so that in recent years there has been >widespread violation of the conditions imposed by those who >hold copyrights on digital music.
No, the conditions to not make additional copies is imposed by the law itself, not by the copyright holder. The copyright holder doesn't have to do ANYTHING for you to not be allowed to make additional copies.
>DRM is a natural solution >to the practical concern of how to enforce music licencing >agreements for file-based music.
DRM controls ordinary use, which copyright law does NOT control. That has nothing to do with copyright. No idea were you got your "licensing". Unless you want to start making new copies yourself, there is no need for any licensis form the copyright holder and we were not discussing creation of new copies, we were discussing use of existing copies sold.
>I still don't see why a copyright owner could not release >his/her contant in such a way it will only play in a >certain manner (if this is technically feasible is a >seperate matter).
Of course he can release it in a way that would "Only" work in a certain way. However, if someone happens to find a adiffertent way to use it, no matter how hard it would be, you can't shout "foul"! In the same way, someone making whatever other product the way, for example, their toaster doesn't work with slices any more, it works by specialy shaped loafers only, that is fine, buf it someone else then figures out how to bake bread so that it fits into that toaster, that is fine, you can't complain or prevent that either.
SO yes, feel free to sell whatever you want, making it how hard or easy to use in whatever desired way you want, but be prepeared that people might use it in other ways they can figure out and there is little you can do to prevent it. A music CD for example is intended to be played, yet, someone might start using it to put their beer bottles on or as frisbies in a competition of some sort. That is all fine and if you sell CDs you have to accept that. Otherwise you should either not sell it to start with, or alternatively rent it in some way so that you can control its use better.
So there is your option, if you like more control, don't sell it to start with because then you have no longer any control (beyoned what the law says) since you are no longer the owner.
>If the copyright holder has a way of limiting the usage, >well then it is up to the buyer to see if it is an >acceptable deal.
ANd if the buyer works arround that to use it in another way, tough luck, you have to evaluate if it is a good sale for you (probably is since you sold it after all).
>The owner actually has more choice than if it is released, >if a copyright owner does not like releasing on CD, then it >is totally up to the copyright owner.
Of course, no one is arguing about that. That has nothing to do with how one use it though, it is in the design of the product, that is completely up to the seller.
>It is alwais funny to see people "explain" this issue while >there is nothing to explain, if, how and when content is >released is a choice of the copyright owner. If the owner >of the copyright wants to include DRM that is up to >him/her. The buyer can decide if he wants to buy it.
And nothing says the buyer has to use the DRM and work with it in the way the seller intended or wanted. The seller can only constrol the creation, not the use (at least not after selling it).
>But then again, it is the owner of the copyright that can chose the manner in which >copyrighted material is released (or do I get this wring and is a copyright owner forced to >release in a certain manner?).
Yes, b ut not because he is the copyright owner, but because he is, typically also the owner of the created copies. It is as the seller (or whatever way he distributes the copies) that he could to some extent control the distribution, not due to being the copyright owner or not. Actually, it is not necesarilly the copyright owner that would always be the (re)distributor. For example, you are typically free to resell copies and can similarry at that time set whatever condistions otherwise allowed by the law on that sale and the copyright holder is not even invovled.
>A copyright owner has (and IMHO should have) the right to release his/her content in any way >he/she choses, even if this means keeping control over the content's use, since the user has >the freedom to buy the content or not, it's all just a matter of choice.
And the seller has the freedom to sell or not to sell. The concept of selling is that you are no longer the owner and hence has no longer any control. You can move into making people hire your stuff instead, then you have larger control of course. This all apply to a book or music CD just as much as anything else you can sell (like, for example, toasters, cars, toothpaste and so on). One can argue that the buyer should not have any control even after buying the product (for example, that the toothpaste should only be allowed to be used together with toothbrushes of the same brand) but that is not really the case.
>Which is essentially my point in my original post. It really makes >little difference if the emulator is 100% legitimately reverse >engineered, they still violate other aspects of the intellectual >property such as trademark. Kinda hard to advertise a "Star Wars >Galaxies" emulator without violating at least 2 trademarks that I can >count.
How so? And based on what countries law? (I can't find any information on were they are based by the way). Simply USING a trademarked word is not infringement. If I sell my car (which is a SAAB), it is of course not infringement for example to state in the add that it is a SAAB, despite it being a trademark. The issue with trademarks is mainly to avoid confusion for the consumer and customers thus as long as you don't try to name or market your own product as a STar Wars game or ahetever, then it is fine. Nothing prevents you from, for exmaple, saying that your servers works with the Star Wars Galaxy game/clients. SImply adding "emulator" itself to the name would be an indication that it is not trying to pretend to be tyhe real thing and can hardly confuse cutsomers into believeing it is the real thing. It is like selling spare parts that works with xxxxx (insert your favorite car brand here).
As I said, it also depends a lot on what country they are based in. In many countries trademark violation basically only exists for comercial purposes, thus as long as they stay out of it comercially, there is virtually no problem from a trademark point of view (depending on what country they are in). I believe USA is not one of those "good" countries though but can't find information on were they are based.
>There most certainly is intellectual property. Once something is defined >in the dictionary, I think it is time to take your fingers out of your >ears and stop screaming, "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
As the very link you mention, it is typically used for grouping together a bunch of, quite different, concepts of law. SInce they all work quite different it is usually, especially if one talk about it from the legal perspective, bad to group it up. In addition, many tend to put far more into "intellectual property" than what is normally considered copyright, patent, trademarks and so on and hence mudding the discussion a lot. That is why it is such a bad thing to simply toss out "intellectual property" left and right.
>Intellectual property is a description for a variety of laws covering >copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. It's a convenient >shorthand in common use, even if it is not specifically defined in U.S. >laws.
And it is not at all convenient when you star talking specifics that would for example only apply to trademarks and not copyright yet lump in things that are clearly patents and ends up with a mess and completely wrong consuclusions and statements. For a discussion about, for example, what is and is not allowed by the law, it is thus very inappropriate to use the term "intellectual property" instead of for example trademark if that is what you mean.
>Does the server emulator's dependency on the base maps make it a >derivative work of the UO client?
No, simply using another work does not turn your own work into a derivative work.
Also note that in many countries, the concept of derivative work does not exist in the same way or is much more lax in its definition and use, hence it is not such a big problem as in for example USA:
Slashdot Mirror
>Steal, n: (1) To take (the property of another) without right or
>permission.
Your statement is wrong and pointless in many ways. First of, copyright has very little to do with property. Copyright does not mean ownership of anything, holding the copyright doesn't mean you "own" the work, it means that you simply has the copyright which only means you have a few exclusive rights, that are not related to what applies to ownership. So no, there is no property involved here.
Second, it is irrellevant what kind of definition you find in dictionaries. What is important is how the LAW defines things and what it judge as illegal or not. Things does not turn illegal just because your dictionary feels so when the law does not.
Finally, even applying that, there is a false logic here. You try to say that stealing means to take someones property (A->B). That does not however means that if you takes someones property, that it is stealing (B->A). It might be in some cases, but not nessecarilly in others. Finally, you seems to miss the step of comming from stealing to copyright infringement A->C. That is, you feel that copyright infringement is stealing(C->A) and is now firther making th assumption that if B->A (which was false though) B->A. You should take a class in logics befaure you get too lost.
>So, in countries where someones works (eg, music) is owned by them
>(ie, is their property), it fits the description.
Since owning doesn't apply to the "work" but to copies of the work (and the copyright holder does not usually own those after distribution or if someone else created them) there is no ownership of the work. There is an ownership of the copyright to the work but as said above, that is not the same as owning the work, so this statement of yours will never be true.
>I am not understanding your argument here at all, for Windows does not need any copies made in order to run the program
s c_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
As mentioned in another reply, you would make copies when you install the software (Windows in this case) onto your hard disc. You will similary make copies in your computers memory when you start it up. Depending on country, some, all or none of these might qualify as "copies" by the copyright. However, that type of copy usually has excpetions so that even if they DO quality as copies, they are still not infringing and allowed- Thus there is no need for any license to make them, nor the need, in for exmaple the USA, to claim Fair USe or other such things. Instead they are specificaly allowed. Here is the link to the US copyright law that details it:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
>That clause in copyright law is that you can make a copy if you need to in order to use the item in question, in the case of
>Windows it is unneeded, so that clause is irrelevant.
How woould you ever NOT need to make copies on your hard disc or in your memory? The point made is that you don't NEED the license to start with. It is poinltess and unneeded since even without it you can make your copies needed.
The Post I replied to, which was written by you, claimed that one need such a license, you wrote "but you do need a licence to run it" which was false since the law allows it.
>>>The Software is licensed, not sold. >
s c_sec_17_00000202----000-.html
s c_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
>>Actually almost every store SELLS it. So it is an erroneous statment.
> Common misperception.
Not at all. What makes you believe so?
> You're not buying the software, you're buying the media it's on and a license to use it.
THIS is the common missconception which there is not even any basis for by law or otherwise. Sales are well regulated through laws and is a conception that has been in use for ages really. When you buy something, you buy it all, not only part of it. Try finding a law for example that says that for software you only buy part of it. besides, there is no difference in "the CD" and "the media" it is the same thing really and in most cases it is a copy of some sort of work (that usually has copyright invovled).
As for licenses, it is only relevant, if there is some right one need, using software doesn't need any such things. Neither would the copyright holder be able to grant you such licenses either, since the copyright holder doesn't not hold such an exclusive right to start with.
>That CD is yours and you can do whatever you want with it, but the contents are property of Microsoft.
No idea were you come up with such strange ideas. No, the copy of the softwqre belongs for example to me if I am the one who bought the copy. Other copies belongs to other people who have bought them. Microsoft would hold the copyright on the work though, but that is something different and not realted to the ownership of individual copies at all. If you want to learn about the difference about owning a copyright to a work and owning individual copies, here is a starting link to the US copyright law dealing with it:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
And by the way, here is the link to the same law's definition of for example the material object in question, copy and so on:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
> I completely disagree with it, but that's how the laws are right now.
What law? Feel free to quote or link to any such law in whatever country you like that specifies that one can't buy software and that copies of software is always owned by whoever has the copyright to it.
>If you can execute the software on your hardware without taking
>the action of copying the software into your computer's memory
>(and remember, copying is the basic right granted to the creator
>of a work by copyright, hence the name), you might have a point there.
You miss the important part about the right to copy, it is not completely exclusive to the copyright holder. There are many cases when you can copy without needed a license from the copyright holder. One such is those copies required to use and run software you have. Those copies are NOT infringing and does NOT rewuire licenses.
> As it is, Microsoft grants permission through a license to do the
>copying that's required to run the software.
Thus not needed as it is specifically allowed and permited by the copyright law itself allready.
> It's their position that you own a single copy of the software
> on the physical media it was sold on. The fact that you need to
> copy it for it to be of any use to you is the whole basis for the EULA.
Which is a very bad "basis" since the law specificaly says you don't need it. That makes much of the basis the EULA stands on completely void.
>Now, you may argue that the copying needed to execute software
>once you've paid for it is noninfringing under Fair Use,
No, see above. If you want to talk about specifically the US laws, it is in 117, Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs, which says you need no such license. Fair use is not an issue or needed at all. Other countries has similar provisions in their copyright laws.
>Well, then how can you be bound to a contract with someone who you have no dealing with, then?
You can't. Of course, that is one of the many problems with EULAs.
>So MS EULA is an agreement between the vendor and MS.
No it is not. They MIGHT have some sort of agreement between them of course, but then, that would not affect you.
>If you can be bound then you do have a contractual relationship with MS, so they are, for the terms of the EULA, your vendor.
No, they are not your vendor. Your purchase is with the shop which is the vendor of that purchase. What you can of course do is completely apart from the purchase, make contracts with whoever you want, for example Microsoft. That can however not affect any contracts you have with the vendor, that would be completely void.
Note, I am not arguing FOR EULAs, it is actually against them and I basically agree with what you initially said, just not the part about the vendor changing part of the sale. neither can anyone else of course.
>The Software is licensed, not sold.
Actually almost every store SELLS it. So it is an erroneous statment.
In addition, one might of course wonder what means "licensing software". Rights, permisions and actions are licensed, a physical product in iitself is not "licensed". Furthermore, licenses has nothing to do with ownership, which selling has. Consdiering the contract that wants to to agree to the fact that you did not buy the software is not even related to the sale (which is between you and a shop normally) doesn't help out much. One may also wonder how one ever get in posession of the software if it is never yours, is there some leasing contract for it? Do you borrow it from them? Or is there some other (legal) set up for you to have it? As a side not, you can also ponder over the legal status of ownership for example at a point after the purchase but before you install and is presented with the contract and the shops role in it all.
>Microsoft never guarantees that Windows is fit for any particular purpose.
The law requires Microsoft to do so though. That applies to basically anything sold and most countries in the wlrd has such laws.
>I fail to understand how EULAs can possibly be legal, where the vendor has the
>right to change the terms of the license at any time after the sale.
Ehh, the vendor doesn't change it at all. It is the copyright owner that wants to change it. The vendor is the shop you got it from and that is tpyically never Microsoft. The sale is conducted between the consumer and the shop and the EULA is in fact not at all part of that (making it even more strange to claim their validity). Futher more a contract between two parties, for example you and Microsoft, can normally never bind a third part, for example the shop and any contracts you many with the shop.
>You're granted the license to use the program. You don't own the license. The
>license may be removed by the copyright owner if you violate the EULA, which is
>akin to land in a fiefdom that can be removed if you cross the rules of the
>owning lord.
Copyright owner can only grant you licenses (and remove only such licenses) to rights which they have. Those rights are specifically mentioned in copyright law and only those rights apply. They can't make up their own additional rights they want to license away. "Use" is not such a right hence they can neither licnese that right nor remove that right. Copying is such a right although not all types of copying. COpies needed specifically for running sofware are NOT infriging and reserved to the copyright holder, hence they can't license it nor remove it. Another example is the making of archival copies. There are other examples as well. Look at the copyright law.
>You don't need a license to copy windows for archival purposes, but you do need
>a licence to run it, since you don't actually own the program (you own the
>licence to use the program, which almost always comes with a copy of the
>program).
Your logic is fantasitc. You claim one need a license because one doesn't own the program but only a licens to use it. So because one owns a license, one need a license?
You are aware that a license from a copyright holder is needed to do things that would otherwise be infringing, right? Neither making archival copies or "running" it are infringing (it is not the running that is the issue, it is the copies needed to be made for running it and those ar enot infringing). Hence there is no need for ANY license at all.
No idea were you got the idea that one doesn't own the program on buy. You are aware of sales laws and how ownership transfer works, right?
>What restrictions would you support?
Restrictions on what? Copyright law allready contain many restrictions on what you can and can not do. In my opinion they are in many countries allready to far going when it comes to private cases. My own opinion is that private use should be as allowed as possible while comercial use can be completely restricted. There are of course uses inbetween I am sure and one has to look more carefull into it.
>I'd guess that just about every model of toaster has been
>registered as a design in its major markets to prevent
>(Chinese) cloning.
Such registration of design applies for comercial use only and is not applicable to private use. This may vary between countries of course.
>Yes, under US law (but not in some other jurastictions) you
>do not infringe copyright when making copies for fair non-
>commercial use (their rights to try to make any copying, or more than a
>certain amount of copying, difficult. It's just that it's
>legal to, if possible, break these restrictions to make
>copies up to the extent of fair use.
Of course they don't have to make it easy. I was just sayinbg that there is no way by the copyright law for them to legally prevent you to do things not specifically allready mentioned.
>Some would say that "interacting" with another work is "incorporating" the content of the
>work.
Some says the world is flat too. Doesn't make it flat. The important thing is what the law considers. SImply interacting would make for example Windows a derivative work of every file it "touches" by those "some people".
>One company, Blizzard, has been quite successful in shutting down the emulator community.
But that was not done by arguing anything related to derivative work. It was based on contract law, that is they claimed sucessfully that they had a contract (EULA) with the persons making the servers to not reverse engineer the games. In addition, it was about the DMCA provision of circumventing copy protection since the claimed the absense of a CD-key check was circumvention. Both thse arguments was accepted by the court.
>If it's not infringing, why does there need to be a tax?
>It's allowed by definition, why does it need to be paid for?
It is tied together, it is made allowed because one have tax added. The option could be to not allow such private copying instead for example. Look at it as a sort of compromise, it is allowed to make private copies at will, but there is a tax placed on the media. I am not saying it is a good thing, but that is the reasoning for it to exist in most countries that has it.
>In many European countries' postal systems, sending
>packages or letters abroad is not much more expensive than
>domestic delivery. In some cases, sending a package from
>another country may even be cheaper.
Of course, I never said it would be very expensive. Just that it would cost some and many would compare it to the "zero cost" of going firectly to a store and buy instead.
>1. It is very difficult to allow free private use while
>simultaneously preventing unrestricted copying. Good DRM
>schemes attempt to maximize one while minimizing the other.
Yes, but from that doesn't follow that the only solution is to either allow both or dissallow both.
>2. Copying of toasters is protected by either copyright or
>design patents, depending on jurastiction.
COpyright would most certainly not apply and as for patents, I would say that most toasters are not that high tech so that they are covered by patents.
>3. The copyright holder can licence their work to (only)
>authorize copying in certain circumstances: exclusive
>deals, restricted distribution regions, limited time
>periods, use of a particular DRM (that say limits burning a
>song to CD to no more than five times).
Ehh, they can license rights to make copies that would otherwise be infringing so that they are not. Copying that are not infirnging can still be made and not prevented, at least not based on copyright law).
Hence, for example, based on copyright law there is no way for them to dissalow copying for private use if that is allowed by copyright law. SO if you are allowed by the copyright law to make unlimited copies for private use, the copyright holder can't limit that to 5 based on copyright law.
If you are not allowed to make copies for private use, then yes, since you must get permission from the copyright holder to make such coppies, they can allow you to do so but only make for example 5 copies.
Copyright laws are very specific in what they give as exclusive rights to the copyright holder. The copyright holder can license THOSE rights to others to do. There is no mandate in copyright law however for the copyright holder to create no exlcusive rights for itself on top of what the law says.
>The aim of DRM technologies is to help enforce copyright
>licences. They only impinge on use because free use and
>free copying are strongly entangled.
No, since in most cases what DRM regulate is NOT something that is an exlcusive right of the copyright holder, hence it does NOT control any copyright licensing at all but control added rights the copyright holder would like to obtain. However, copyright law doesn't give that option. Other laws might, but that would be non copyright related and have nothing to do with copyrights.
>If it's true that simply using another workd does not turn >your own work into a derivative work, do you believe that
>the GPL's position on dynamic linking to a GPL'd shared
>library (which involves using the functionality there)
>makes the software doing the linking also GPL'ed?
I have basically no idea what the GPL says nor do I really have much knowlede about how various forms of linking accors. What I tried to say is that just because your have your own work that interacts with another work, does not make it a derivative work.
>You're right about "many countries" having lax definitions,
>but I believe that all of the Berne Convention countries
>are fairly strict.
No, it doesn't deal with derivative works in such a way as for example USA. Raed it and you shall see that it doesn't really deals with what would be considered "derivative wroks" such as it is defined in US copyright law but deals with things such as translation and adaptions. The many countries I was refering to would include for example many countries in EU. Note that most such treaties about copyright tends to set minimum standards and countries are (obviously) free to go further. You can thus not take the existing law in a country and based on that judge how it must be in other countries that have also signed the Berne convention.
>However, there's all sorts of precedents. For example, one
>cannot write a novel containing the characters Gandalf,
>Frodo, and so forth, without the law regarding such a work
>as a clearly derivative work belonging to the Tolkein
>estate. This is a thin line here, and as I say: murky.
Ehh, you are right in that you can't write a novell if you use the characters with all their characteristics and so . However, there is nothing wrong with writing a story with a wizzard named Gandalf in it. It would not be so much an issue of derivative work as a palin copyright infringment, at least in countries that doesn't have as far reaching copyright laws on derivative work as for example USA seems to have which was my point in the original post.
>Won't this simply kill manufacturing of blank media in
>Spain, if there even is any?
Perhaps. Now I don't really know if there is any, or how big sich production is. I would guess most such production exists in other parts of the world. Note that importers would similary have to pay the tax when they import.
>I mean, if I'm a Spaniard, why shouldn't I just order my
>media shipped to me from another EU country?
Yes you can of course do that, however, would the extra shipping be less than the tax?
>If I'm paying for it when I buy blank media, shouldn't I be
>able to download or copy anything I want since I've already
>paid for it.
No, since such taxes are not there for compensating for infringing copying but to compensate for NON infringing copying. Many countries has for examples exceptions for copying so that when done for private use for example, it is not infringment. It is for this type of copying such "taxes" are meant to compensate. Not for any illegal activities.
Microsoft would most likely have daughter companies set up and located in each and every country in EU including with emplyed personal and so on. Were the headquarter is located is in that aspect quite irellevant. Sure, Microsoft can theoretically completely extinct itself from EU and not have any legal precense at all, the chance for that would be zero I would say.
>Nope, I am assuming I am offered a product with certain
>attributes (I can play it on a certain way) for a certain
>price.
The problem is that you can't make something only work in a certain way since there is always ways to work (or play) in completely different ways and after you sell something, that is out of your control. Of course you can make it hard, but never impossible and you can't prevent however DO find another way to play or use it, at least not based on copyright or copyright laws.
>Apparently you are assuming that buying a copyrighted work
>means you alwais buy certain rights,
No, but you seems to assuming that when selling a copyrighted work, the seller has some extra rights to control the use which there isn't, check the copyright law yourself. The only such "control" would be that, by law, one is not allowed to perform the work in public and other such similar restrictions. There is nothing beyoned the copyright law the seller can add due to the copyright. The whole concept of selling is that you will no longer be the woner and thus have no control while the buyer turns into the owner and now control that item (copy in case of copyrights).
>while DRM introduces a different way of offering content,
>which you may or may not like, but then again noone is
>forcing you to buy the copyrighted work in the first place.
BU the DRM has nothing to do with the copyright, you could do the same with a bicycle you sell. It can have a restriction so that you can't use it in a certain way. However, the buyer might simply remove that part or simply use it anyway in whatever way you did not desire, after the sale, that is out of your control and, again, it has nothing to do with copyright, nor does the situation turns different by the fact that there is copyright invovled.
>A file containing a song is different to a toaster because
>the file is significantly more easily copied than the
>toaster;
So? What does creating NEW copies of something has to do with use? We were talking about using a product, not creating new ones. Creating new copies is regulated by copyright law which typically does not allow creating new copies freely.That is indeed why you can typically make a a copy of your toaster (typically without puting the original brand or name on your copy though due to trademarks) while you can't do the same with music CDs for example. That is however regulated in the law. We were discussing additional control and decisions on use by the seller and in this case a copyright owner.
> so much so that in recent years there has been
>widespread violation of the conditions imposed by those who
>hold copyrights on digital music.
No, the conditions to not make additional copies is imposed by the law itself, not by the copyright holder. The copyright holder doesn't have to do ANYTHING for you to not be allowed to make additional copies.
>DRM is a natural solution
>to the practical concern of how to enforce music licencing
>agreements for file-based music.
DRM controls ordinary use, which copyright law does NOT control. That has nothing to do with copyright. No idea were you got your "licensing". Unless you want to start making new copies yourself, there is no need for any licensis form the copyright holder and we were not discussing creation of new copies, we were discussing use of existing copies sold.
>I still don't see why a copyright owner could not release
>his/her contant in such a way it will only play in a
>certain manner (if this is technically feasible is a
>seperate matter).
Of course he can release it in a way that would "Only" work in a certain way. However, if someone happens to find a adiffertent way to use it, no matter how hard it would be, you can't shout "foul"! In the same way, someone making whatever other product the way, for example, their toaster doesn't work with slices any more, it works by specialy shaped loafers only, that is fine, buf it someone else then figures out how to bake bread so that it fits into that toaster, that is fine, you can't complain or prevent that either.
SO yes, feel free to sell whatever you want, making it how hard or easy to use in whatever desired way you want, but be prepeared that people might use it in other ways they can figure out and there is little you can do to prevent it. A music CD for example is intended to be played, yet, someone might start using it to put their beer bottles on or as frisbies in a competition of some sort. That is all fine and if you sell CDs you have to accept that. Otherwise you should either not sell it to start with, or alternatively rent it in some way so that you can control its use better.
So there is your option, if you like more control, don't sell it to start with because then you have no longer any control (beyoned what the law says) since you are no longer the owner.
>If the copyright holder has a way of limiting the usage,
>well then it is up to the buyer to see if it is an
>acceptable deal.
ANd if the buyer works arround that to use it in another way, tough luck, you have to evaluate if it is a good sale for you (probably is since you sold it after all).
>The owner actually has more choice than if it is released,
>if a copyright owner does not like releasing on CD, then it
>is totally up to the copyright owner.
Of course, no one is arguing about that. That has nothing to do with how one use it though, it is in the design of the product, that is completely up to the seller.
>It is alwais funny to see people "explain" this issue while
>there is nothing to explain, if, how and when content is
>released is a choice of the copyright owner. If the owner
>of the copyright wants to include DRM that is up to
>him/her. The buyer can decide if he wants to buy it.
And nothing says the buyer has to use the DRM and work with it in the way the seller intended or wanted. The seller can only constrol the creation, not the use (at least not after selling it).
>But then again, it is the owner of the copyright that can chose the manner in which
>copyrighted material is released (or do I get this wring and is a copyright owner forced to
>release in a certain manner?).
Yes, b ut not because he is the copyright owner, but because he is, typically also the owner of the created copies. It is as the seller (or whatever way he distributes the copies) that he could to some extent control the distribution, not due to being the copyright owner or not. Actually, it is not necesarilly the copyright owner that would always be the (re)distributor. For example, you are typically free to resell copies and can similarry at that time set whatever condistions otherwise allowed by the law on that sale and the copyright holder is not even invovled.
>A copyright owner has (and IMHO should have) the right to release his/her content in any way
>he/she choses, even if this means keeping control over the content's use, since the user has
>the freedom to buy the content or not, it's all just a matter of choice.
And the seller has the freedom to sell or not to sell. The concept of selling is that you are no longer the owner and hence has no longer any control. You can move into making people hire your stuff instead, then you have larger control of course. This all apply to a book or music CD just as much as anything else you can sell (like, for example, toasters, cars, toothpaste and so on). One can argue that the buyer should not have any control even after buying the product (for example, that the toothpaste should only be allowed to be used together with toothbrushes of the same brand) but that is not really the case.
>Which is essentially my point in my original post. It really makes
>little difference if the emulator is 100% legitimately reverse
>engineered, they still violate other aspects of the intellectual
>property such as trademark. Kinda hard to advertise a "Star Wars
>Galaxies" emulator without violating at least 2 trademarks that I can
>count.
How so? And based on what countries law? (I can't find any information on were they are based by the way). Simply USING a trademarked word is not infringement. If I sell my car (which is a SAAB), it is of course not infringement for example to state in the add that it is a SAAB, despite it being a trademark. The issue with trademarks is mainly to avoid confusion for the consumer and customers thus as long as you don't try to name or market your own product as a STar Wars game or ahetever, then it is fine. Nothing prevents you from, for exmaple, saying that your servers works with the Star Wars Galaxy game/clients. SImply adding "emulator" itself to the name would be an indication that it is not trying to pretend to be tyhe real thing and can hardly confuse cutsomers into believeing it is the real thing. It is like selling spare parts that works with xxxxx (insert your favorite car brand here).
As I said, it also depends a lot on what country they are based in. In many countries trademark violation basically only exists for comercial purposes, thus as long as they stay out of it comercially, there is virtually no problem from a trademark point of view (depending on what country they are in). I believe USA is not one of those "good" countries though but can't find information on were they are based.
>There most certainly is intellectual property. Once something is defined
>in the dictionary, I think it is time to take your fingers out of your
>ears and stop screaming, "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
As the very link you mention, it is typically used for grouping together a bunch of, quite different, concepts of law. SInce they all work quite different it is usually, especially if one talk about it from the legal perspective, bad to group it up. In addition, many tend to put far more into "intellectual property" than what is normally considered copyright, patent, trademarks and so on and hence mudding the discussion a lot. That is why it is such a bad thing to simply toss out "intellectual property" left and right.
>Intellectual property is a description for a variety of laws covering
>copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. It's a convenient
>shorthand in common use, even if it is not specifically defined in U.S.
>laws.
And it is not at all convenient when you star talking specifics that would for example only apply to trademarks and not copyright yet lump in things that are clearly patents and ends up with a mess and completely wrong consuclusions and statements. For a discussion about, for example, what is and is not allowed by the law, it is thus very inappropriate to use the term "intellectual property" instead of for example trademark if that is what you mean.
>Does the server emulator's dependency on the base maps make it a >derivative work of the UO client?
No, simply using another work does not turn your own work into a derivative work.
Also note that in many countries, the concept of derivative work does not exist in the same way or is much more lax in its definition and use, hence it is not such a big problem as in for example USA: