>As usual the comparison with a toaster/car or any other >item is made... (the question is if this is a valid one, >but IMHO a different dicussion).
Feel free to pick ANY other item you prefer then. The point I made was that it has nothing to do with copyright and hence, is applicable to any other product of which I mentioned one, that has very little or no connection to copyright.
>I don't see the real issue here, if you don't like the way >someone distributes his/her content, just do not buy it. If >a copyright holder manages to distribute his/her work in >such a manner that there are restrictions on how it is used >than this is the copright holder's freedom. Your freedom at >that point is if you want to buy it or not...
People tend to argue that because of copyright, there is some extra right of the copyright holder to control. This turned out in a discussion about copyright and copyright related issues. I simply pointed out that such decisions (how to release somehting one make) has nothing to do with copyright but relies on other laws and would be equally applicable to products were there is no copyright involved (and gave an example of such a product).
I am not arguing that one can't do it, but simply that there is nothing inherent in copyright laws that gives the copyright holder completel control after copies of the work is sold as many seems to think.
>I agree completely, the artist (or any other copyright >owner for that matter). Has the freedom to release his/her >content in anyway he/she wants to.
That has very little to do with copyright though. A maker of toasters can similary release his creation (toaster) in any way he wants to. The copyright law doesn't give much different control over what happens after the copyright holder sells copies of his work, except for those specific cases mentioned in copyright law, which are default. The only "extra" decision a copyright holder can make is if he does not want any of those exclusive rights retained. The exclusive rights are mainly the creaion of copies and various ways of making the work available to the public.
Other choises of control can of course be made but would not rely on copyright but contract law and would be equally available to anyone selling products were there is no copyright involved.
The exact rights a copyright holder has by the law may vary some between countries, but they are all in effect by default, that is, the copyright holder can chose to NOT have those rights, but adding new rights above and beyoned that has anothing to do with copyright.
>they're meant to give authors/artists/musicians etc an incentive to create works
Not completely, it is meant "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Just creation in itself does not nessecarilly fullfill that requirement if for example no one is able to take part of what is created. There is no point having a million books written if no one can ever read them, in such a case, one can argue that 100 books that everyone has access to and can read is better and more in line with promoting science and usefull arts.
Considering most people don't have an unlimited budget for entertainment, I would say that the number is indeed overestimated. It is not like people could pull that money out of thin air to hand to the entertainment industry. If they would have bought any of those works, they would either have to cut down on other entrtainement or cut down on other stuff that they can no longer buy.
Ahh, but you miss the new stuff in patents. As long as you have "with a computer" or "on the internet" or similar wordings, instant patent no matter how obvious.
No, that doesn't give them information on what drivers are used, nor does it give them information on how much or often drivers and the computers are used.
>I personally wish Blizzard would strongly enforce their Terms of Service >agreement that states that all virtual property in >World of Warcraft belongs to Blizzard and therefore cannot be sold.
Which is completely irellevant since you don't sell anything in the normal meaning of selling anyway, it is about transfering items in the game and possession of items in the game, something completely allowed by the game. Actually there are specific systems such as pop up windows, auction houses and mail systems for transfering items between players. Imagine playing a game of monopoly and paying someone some money for a street, are you claiming that whoever holds the copyright, trademark or whatever can object to such a thing? Could the owner of the game do so? No, of course not. It could be against the rules of the game in which case the players of the game could protest and even throw you out. It has NOTHING to do with "virtual" or real property at all, nor of ownership, it has at most to do with rules of the game. besdies, would you say that after such a "sale" of items or gold that Blizzard is no longer "in possession" or "owning" it any more? How bizzare idea if you feel so.
Consumer sales laws in many, and especially foe European countries are of the nature that you can't contract them away (or they would be pretty usless). Typically the only way to contract about them is if it is in the favor of the consumer. So basically they set a minimum standrd that applies and you are free to make additiona contract terms only if they are better for the consumer.
>No. The contract (that both parties agreed to) states the governing jurisdiction.
You missed the point, the LAW in Norway, and moany other countries says that such terms are voind and unenforcable, that is, you can't contract away the law or chose what laws to apply to such a consumer sale. Doesn't matter that you agree to it or now since it is not valid.
>Simple solution - no "local" presence. Use a.com address based in the USA and charge in US >Dollars. Forget about.se,.co.uk,.fr or any other nationality - if you buy from a US site you >buy on their terms or not at all. Other countries can do the same.
Sure, you can do that. It does not mean of course that you can enforce your contract on people in other countries though (unless they come visitng your country perhaps) since they are still governed by their own laws so you may actually end up with far LESS protection for yourself.
>That said, if Norway was part of the EU this would not be a problem for Apple as I think that >they would be able to choose any particular EU member states laws (in this case England) to >apply
Not completely true, you can't chose law at will inside EU, especially if both the seller and buyer is in the same country. Even if you are buying from another country than your own inside EU, the seller can't chose arbitrary laws of a country of choise, at most you can end up with the laws of the country in which the seller is doing his bussiness, however, there are still restrictions in the unfair terms used so that they can't be worse than in the buyers country. Here is a good link to an EU directive on the issue:
>Not at all true. Typically contracts between parties in different legal systems (even between >U.S. States) will explicitly state which laws govern disputes under the contract.
Yes, but if someone in, say, Norway buys from a shop in Norway, norwegian laws applies, period. In this case, it is about Apple's Norwegian store, not if someone from Norway goes to some site in another country and buys from there. Still, at most you will end up with the possibility of the country you buy from having its law apply.
Do note that we talk about consumer sales here, which in most cases are conducted in the country you also live in (or is visiting). For such cases, there is no room or need for specifying laws to govren the purchase. The fact that companies themselves buy and sell between them across boarders is a different bussiness and such sales are typically governed by far less laws and there is much more roof for contractual agreeements on most things, while for consumer sales, the laws are usually not possible to override by contracts, including spcifying another law.
>If you're rolling out a service to customers in many different countries, you don't want to >have to retain lawyers in each, and customize your product.
On the countrary, at least for consumer sales, if you want to be present in different countries, you MUST know the laws and adjust to them. With your proposal, each consumer would instead have to emply a laywer for each country when he goes shopping instead, obviously a horribly bad situation. It would basically be chaos, imagine going to your grocery and having 10 different laws apply to your purchase!
>No, no, no! Microsoft 0wns the software! You really just 0wn a copy...
I never said others own anything else than a copy of the work. What I said is that Microsoft, for example, doesn't "own" the software (if we by software means the work itself) but holds the copyright to it. One doesn't own works, one holds copyright to it. The work itself and copies of the work are two different things. Here a link for you on US copyright, specifically check out chapter 2 and perhaps 202.
>The pro-copyright side doesn't want to point out that both users' computers and every router in >between make copies of the data, because that would make their 'copying equals theft' position >look absurd. The anti-copyright side doesn't want to point out that the downloader initiates the >transfer, because that could bring a flood of new lawsuits against downloaders. So for the >moment the consensus that the uploader makes the copy seems to be holding...
Actually, it has been discussed and handled in previous cases here in Sweden. The downloader is the one copying and the one doing all the acts that create a copy. Whos coputer that physically might make the copy is in that respect irrelevant. The uploader on the other hand makes the work available to the public, which in itself is often an infringement. The loop hole in Swedish copyright laws up until last year was that copies made for personal use are not infrigning, hence, downloading for personal use was basically ok (it was never tried in court specifcally though). The new law from last year, makes coppies being made from an "original" (original of the copy, not nessecarilly the complete original from the copyright holder) must be made available in a non infringing way. That basically means that most such downloads became infringing.
As for copies along the way, those have never been considered infringing by Swedish copyright law and with the rewriting of the law, have specific exception of infringement (before they didn't have specific iexception but back then, such temporary (and other similar) copies was not considered copies to start with.
>In the United States, copyright law gives the >holder of the copyright great powers to say how >their work is distributed, how you may use that >work, and in what formats.
Not true, the copyright law gives a few specific rights as exclusive (but with exceptions) to the copyright holder. Ordinaru use is NOT one of those, nor is format decision. Please feel free to read the US copyright law below and if you find any reference to any exclusive rights that support what you say, feel free to quote or point it out.
>Can a company claim that recording their TV show >is breaking their copyright? Yes, if you >recorded it on a DVD. No, if you record it on a >VHS tape.
I believe this has allready been mentioned, but this is a complete lie and not at all supported or even touched on in the copyright law.
>Now, companies like Sony owns the content, the >distribution and the manufacturing sides.
Now, they don't own the content, they hold the copyright to it, which is a HUGE difference. Copyright only gives a few specific rights, and those are the ones given by copyright laws, in addition there is often exceptions to the exclusivness, one such being the fair use, but there are MANY others, see 107-122! Holding the copyright is quite different from owning something.
As for manufacturing, they hold control over creation of copies only as much as the copyright law gives and although it is a quite exclusive right, there are many exceptions when others can "manufacture" or create copies of a work that is not infringement, fair use is one such common exception.
As for distribution, they only control or "own" the initial distribution, after that, they have MUCH less control, I believe that in the US it goes under the "first sale doctrine". but basically after the initial distribution, that right is consumed for a particular copy of a work. That is why you can resell a book for example or borrow it from a friend and so on.
>Remember you don't "buy" copyrighted material (and you never could). Instead, you license it >from the copyright holder.
This is not at all true. Most copies of copyrighted works are sold, there is nothing wrong with buying, selling or owning copies of a copyrighted work and such ownership and transfer of ownership has nothing to do with and is distinct from ownership and transfer of the copyright itself. See the link below and specifically 202 which tells about this in detail.
>Any time consumers agree to rent music is bad for copyright* and fair use.
Huh? Just as people have rented books, renting music can be great for some. those who don't like it, can buy music instead, just as some people like to buy books over renting them. By the way, mu local library allready have music for rent as well as books, best of all, it is free, just as with books.
>In Scandinawia for example, there is a (by law) 2 years of indemnifications >from defects in materials or craftmanships on all items marketed to >consumers.
>Usage and distribution are essentially the same in this case. nVidia >and ATI make the drivers. IF they are derived works, they can't legally >distribute them without the source code which means that I can't >legally GET it and thereby can't possible even consider using it.
Using and (re)distribution (redistribution including making copies to distribute) are quite different since (re)distribution is regulated through copyrigh, while usage is not. You don't need any license or permission to use while you do need one to distribute. Hence simple using is not at all any illegal while distributing is, unless you got a leciense (for example though GPL) to do so.
>Ah, but have you not read the EULA? Or are those illegal, too?
Depends on whats in them. An EULA does not override the law, it is the otherway arround, the law override the EULA. This is especially true for consumer related cases since those laws tend to specifically say just that, that you can't contract away the law and hence in such cases it is irellevant what the EULA says.
>What do you mean international law doesn't exist? What do you call maritime law, the various treaties >that cover human rights abuses (regardless of how little they are enforced), and the litany of trade >agreements and other rules/regulations that the WTO promulgates?
They are treaties and agreement between states. That is not the same as laws. States can then honour them by changing or adding laws to follow the treaty or agreement. Then it will become a law in that country.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, an easy way to avoid EULA issues, is to never agree to it to start with. Then you avoid the whole problem.
>...which the courts found to have violated the DMCA and the
>EULA.
The first is most easilly avoided by being outside USA. The last one is most easilly avoided by never agreeing to it.
>As usual the comparison with a toaster/car or any other
>item is made... (the question is if this is a valid one,
>but IMHO a different dicussion).
Feel free to pick ANY other item you prefer then. The point I made was that it has nothing to do with copyright and hence, is applicable to any other product of which I mentioned one, that has very little or no connection to copyright.
>I don't see the real issue here, if you don't like the way
>someone distributes his/her content, just do not buy it. If
>a copyright holder manages to distribute his/her work in
>such a manner that there are restrictions on how it is used
>than this is the copright holder's freedom. Your freedom at
>that point is if you want to buy it or not...
People tend to argue that because of copyright, there is some extra right of the copyright holder to control. This turned out in a discussion about copyright and copyright related issues. I simply pointed out that such decisions (how to release somehting one make) has nothing to do with copyright but relies on other laws and would be equally applicable to products were there is no copyright involved (and gave an example of such a product).
I am not arguing that one can't do it, but simply that there is nothing inherent in copyright laws that gives the copyright holder completel control after copies of the work is sold as many seems to think.
>I agree completely, the artist (or any other copyright
>owner for that matter). Has the freedom to release his/her
>content in anyway he/she wants to.
That has very little to do with copyright though. A maker of toasters can similary release his creation (toaster) in any way he wants to. The copyright law doesn't give much different control over what happens after the copyright holder sells copies of his work, except for those specific cases mentioned in copyright law, which are default. The only "extra" decision a copyright holder can make is if he does not want any of those exclusive rights retained. The exclusive rights are mainly the creaion of copies and various ways of making the work available to the public.
Other choises of control can of course be made but would not rely on copyright but contract law and would be equally available to anyone selling products were there is no copyright involved.
The exact rights a copyright holder has by the law may vary some between countries, but they are all in effect by default, that is, the copyright holder can chose to NOT have those rights, but adding new rights above and beyoned that has anothing to do with copyright.
>they're meant to give authors/artists/musicians etc an incentive to create works
Not completely, it is meant "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Just creation in itself does not nessecarilly fullfill that requirement if for example no one is able to take part of what is created. There is no point having a million books written if no one can ever read them, in such a case, one can argue that 100 books that everyone has access to and can read is better and more in line with promoting science and usefull arts.
Considering most people don't have an unlimited budget for entertainment, I would say that the number is indeed overestimated. It is not like people could pull that money out of thin air to hand to the entertainment industry. If they would have bought any of those works, they would either have to cut down on other entrtainement or cut down on other stuff that they can no longer buy.
Ahh, but you miss the new stuff in patents. As long as you have "with a computer" or "on the internet" or similar wordings, instant patent no matter how obvious.
No, that doesn't give them information on what drivers are used, nor does it give them information on how much or often drivers and the computers are used.
>I personally wish Blizzard would strongly enforce their Terms of Service
>agreement that states that all virtual property in
>World of Warcraft belongs to Blizzard and therefore cannot be sold.
Which is completely irellevant since you don't sell anything in the normal meaning of selling anyway, it is about transfering items in the game and possession of items in the game, something completely allowed by the game. Actually there are specific systems such as pop up windows, auction houses and mail systems for transfering items between players. Imagine playing a game of monopoly and paying someone some money for a street, are you claiming that whoever holds the copyright, trademark or whatever can object to such a thing? Could the owner of the game do so? No, of course not. It could be against the rules of the game in which case the players of the game could protest and even throw you out. It has NOTHING to do with "virtual" or real property at all, nor of ownership, it has at most to do with rules of the game. besdies, would you say that after such a "sale" of items or gold that Blizzard is no longer "in possession" or "owning" it any more? How bizzare idea if you feel so.
Consumer sales laws in many, and especially foe European countries are of the nature that you can't contract them away (or they would be pretty usless). Typically the only way to contract about them is if it is in the favor of the consumer. So basically they set a minimum standrd that applies and you are free to make additiona contract terms only if they are better for the consumer.
>No. The contract (that both parties agreed to) states the governing jurisdiction.
You missed the point, the LAW in Norway, and moany other countries says that such terms are voind and unenforcable, that is, you can't contract away the law or chose what laws to apply to such a consumer sale. Doesn't matter that you agree to it or now since it is not valid.
>Simple solution - no "local" presence. Use a .com address based in the USA and charge in US .se, .co.uk, .fr or any other nationality - if you buy from a US site you
>Dollars. Forget about
>buy on their terms or not at all. Other countries can do the same.
Sure, you can do that. It does not mean of course that you can enforce your contract on people in other countries though (unless they come visitng your country perhaps) since they are still governed by their own laws so you may actually end up with far LESS protection for yourself.
>That said, if Norway was part of the EU this would not be a problem for Apple as I think that
u nf_cont_terms/index_en.htm
>they would be able to choose any particular EU member states laws (in this case England) to
>apply
Not completely true, you can't chose law at will inside EU, especially if both the seller and buyer is in the same country. Even if you are buying from another country than your own inside EU, the seller can't chose arbitrary laws of a country of choise, at most you can end up with the laws of the country in which the seller is doing his bussiness, however, there are still restrictions in the unfair terms used so that they can't be worse than in the buyers country. Here is a good link to an EU directive on the issue:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/
Click on link in second paragraph, or chose another language if you like.
>Not at all true. Typically contracts between parties in different legal systems (even between
>U.S. States) will explicitly state which laws govern disputes under the contract.
Yes, but if someone in, say, Norway buys from a shop in Norway, norwegian laws applies, period. In this case, it is about Apple's Norwegian store, not if someone from Norway goes to some site in another country and buys from there. Still, at most you will end up with the possibility of the country you buy from having its law apply.
Do note that we talk about consumer sales here, which in most cases are conducted in the country you also live in (or is visiting). For such cases, there is no room or need for specifying laws to govren the purchase. The fact that companies themselves buy and sell between them across boarders is a different bussiness and such sales are typically governed by far less laws and there is much more roof for contractual agreeements on most things, while for consumer sales, the laws are usually not possible to override by contracts, including spcifying another law.
>If you're rolling out a service to customers in many different countries, you don't want to
>have to retain lawyers in each, and customize your product.
On the countrary, at least for consumer sales, if you want to be present in different countries, you MUST know the laws and adjust to them. With your proposal, each consumer would instead have to emply a laywer for each country when he goes shopping instead, obviously a horribly bad situation. It would basically be chaos, imagine going to your grocery and having 10 different laws apply to your purchase!
>No, no, no! Microsoft 0wns the software! You really just 0wn a copy...
s c_sup_01_17.html
I never said others own anything else than a copy of the work. What I said is that Microsoft, for example, doesn't "own" the software (if we by software means the work itself) but holds the copyright to it. One doesn't own works, one holds copyright to it. The work itself and copies of the work are two different things. Here a link for you on US copyright, specifically check out chapter 2 and perhaps 202.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
>MS owns the software, and I own a copy.
No, they hold (or own) the COPYRIGHT to the software.
>And there HAS been legal precedence around
>commercial plagiarism involving summaries
Please link to the appropriate Swedish High court ruling (which is the one typically seting precendence in Sweden) you refer to.
>The pro-copyright side doesn't want to point out that both users' computers and every router in
>between make copies of the data, because that would make their 'copying equals theft' position
>look absurd. The anti-copyright side doesn't want to point out that the downloader initiates the
>transfer, because that could bring a flood of new lawsuits against downloaders. So for the
>moment the consensus that the uploader makes the copy seems to be holding...
Actually, it has been discussed and handled in previous cases here in Sweden. The downloader is the one copying and the one doing all the acts that create a copy. Whos coputer that physically might make the copy is in that respect irrelevant. The uploader on the other hand makes the work available to the public, which in itself is often an infringement. The loop hole in Swedish copyright laws up until last year was that copies made for personal use are not infrigning, hence, downloading for personal use was basically ok (it was never tried in court specifcally though). The new law from last year, makes coppies being made from an "original" (original of the copy, not nessecarilly the complete original from the copyright holder) must be made available in a non infringing way. That basically means that most such downloads became infringing.
As for copies along the way, those have never been considered infringing by Swedish copyright law and with the rewriting of the law, have specific exception of infringement (before they didn't have specific iexception but back then, such temporary (and other similar) copies was not considered copies to start with.
>In the United States, copyright law gives the
s c_sup_01_17.html
>holder of the copyright great powers to say how
>their work is distributed, how you may use that
>work, and in what formats.
Not true, the copyright law gives a few specific rights as exclusive (but with exceptions) to the copyright holder. Ordinaru use is NOT one of those, nor is format decision. Please feel free to read the US copyright law below and if you find any reference to any exclusive rights that support what you say, feel free to quote or point it out.
>Can a company claim that recording their TV show
>is breaking their copyright? Yes, if you
>recorded it on a DVD. No, if you record it on a
>VHS tape.
I believe this has allready been mentioned, but this is a complete lie and not at all supported or even touched on in the copyright law.
>Now, companies like Sony owns the content, the
>distribution and the manufacturing sides.
Now, they don't own the content, they hold the copyright to it, which is a HUGE difference. Copyright only gives a few specific rights, and those are the ones given by copyright laws, in addition there is often exceptions to the exclusivness, one such being the fair use, but there are MANY others, see 107-122! Holding the copyright is quite different from owning something.
As for manufacturing, they hold control over creation of copies only as much as the copyright law gives and although it is a quite exclusive right, there are many exceptions when others can "manufacture" or create copies of a work that is not infringement, fair use is one such common exception.
As for distribution, they only control or "own" the initial distribution, after that, they have MUCH less control, I believe that in the US it goes under the "first sale doctrine". but basically after the initial distribution, that right is consumed for a particular copy of a work. That is why you can resell a book for example or borrow it from a friend and so on.
>Remember you don't "buy" copyrighted material (and you never could). Instead, you license it
>from the copyright holder.
This is not at all true. Most copies of copyrighted works are sold, there is nothing wrong with buying, selling or owning copies of a copyrighted work and such ownership and transfer of ownership has nothing to do with and is distinct from ownership and transfer of the copyright itself. See the link below and specifically 202 which tells about this in detail.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
>Any time consumers agree to rent music is bad for copyright* and fair use.
Huh? Just as people have rented books, renting music can be great for some. those who don't like it, can buy music instead, just as some people like to buy books over renting them. By the way, mu local library allready have music for rent as well as books, best of all, it is free, just as with books.
>In Scandinawia for example, there is a (by law) 2 years of indemnifications
>from defects in materials or craftmanships on all items marketed to
>consumers.
It was actually increased to 3 years recently.
Depends, does it involve money given to RIAA? If so, no, no risk, otherwise, yes, high risk.
>Usage and distribution are essentially the same in this case. nVidia
>and ATI make the drivers. IF they are derived works, they can't legally
>distribute them without the source code which means that I can't
>legally GET it and thereby can't possible even consider using it.
Using and (re)distribution (redistribution including making copies to distribute) are quite different since (re)distribution is regulated through copyrigh, while usage is not. You don't need any license or permission to use while you do need one to distribute. Hence simple using is not at all any illegal while distributing is, unless you got a leciense (for example though GPL) to do so.
>Ah, but have you not read the EULA? Or are those illegal, too?
Depends on whats in them. An EULA does not override the law, it is the otherway arround, the law override the EULA. This is especially true for consumer related cases since those laws tend to specifically say just that, that you can't contract away the law and hence in such cases it is irellevant what the EULA says.
>What do you mean international law doesn't exist? What do you call maritime law, the various treaties
>that cover human rights abuses (regardless of how little they are enforced), and the litany of trade
>agreements and other rules/regulations that the WTO promulgates?
They are treaties and agreement between states. That is not the same as laws. States can then honour them by changing or adding laws to follow the treaty or agreement. Then it will become a law in that country.