>It's not about revenue. The point is that when a second sale is made the >costs to the publisher go up.
So, the same applies to the car manufacturers too for example.
>Publishers have to pay for their 1-800 support lines, multiplayer >servers, online community, etc. Have you played a Live! enabled game yet? >The goal is to provide value to the player long after the sale of a game >is made.
Most of these costs applies no matter if you resell the game or not. If there is a goal to provide a long time value, why would it matter if it the game is resold? You would still have had the cost anyway.
As for extra "install costs" and such someone mentioned, make sure the game is easier to install and such then. DOn't see a problem, just live with the fact like everyone else doing bussiness in the world.
Return it to the store for a refund? Like with everything else I buy that is broken. Of course, the store can decide to fix it for me instead, either way works for me.
>"Copies" in this sense refer to actual published, readable copies.
Indeed, what a copy mean (in the us copyright law) is indeed defined in 101. I have never claimed anything else.
>Collections of bits stored as hashes in google's search index do not count,
Uhuh??? Were have I claimed such a thing? What does that have to do with what I have written or replied to? My reply was to a statement claiming that copyright was not about *copying*. I have not even TOUCHED upon what work is protected by copyright. Actually, talking about what copyright gives in rights would assume that I am ONLY talking about things that get copyright to start with. I really have no idea were you got the idea that my text tried to claim a hash is protected by copytight. Try to reread what I wrote.
>Maybe it's because little tiny brains like yours are incapable of a decent >vocabulary,
At least it is cabable of reading the posts I reply to, something you don't manage.
First, just because someone else do something, it is not automatically ok or evenlegal. There is quite a difference though I would say. The ISP cach is typically used as such temporary copies, used only when someone requests the original, you can't search or aquire those cach copies independantly from the original nor can you get them far later when the original does no longer exists, quite a huge differnce.
>There is an implicit assumption is that the defendent would be making multiple copies for the purpose >of giving them to other people or else it would not be a matter of law
No there is no such "assumtion" in the law. Even a single copy and with no giving away to other would be an infrrinngment, that is the base. Then there can be various excpetions were such an activity can still not be an infringement although this vary with country, in US for example, it goes under, among other things, fair use, the European countries, since this topi is about Europe, has it coded in more specific cases were you are allowed to make copies. But the basis is still that you cna't make copies, period.
>a type of legislation issued by the European Union which is binding on >Member States in terms of the results to be achieved but which leaves to >Member States the choice of methods.
It issues directives, not laws. Those directives are NOT laws in the countries. However, the countries has to implement them into their laws though. Many times there is quite a difference (and allowance for difference) in how those implementations are done. The directive can for example be a minimum and the individual countries can go further and so on. Still, it is not until a country changes itw own law, that there is any effect in that country as far as what is legal or not.
>And, at the moment, European Union legislation, meaning directives, >regulations, binding decisions and recommendations do not mention such thing >as fare use in any way.
Exactly, it leaves it up to the individual countries. There is no restriction on that you can NOT add such things, which is what you claimed:
>>At the moment they have no fare use, or right to make a copy in any way.
Which is not ture since almost all (probably all) have various varinats on the fair use in their own laws. Actually, some of the dircetives specifically says it is up to individual countries to handle such things (within limits).
>Oh really? All sorts of things change meaning over time.
Copying is and still is part of copyright. Here is a copy of the US copyright law for example, the same exists in all copyright laws really:
in 106: "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; "
If you know of a country were copying is NOT a right of the copyright holder, please feel free to say so and point if out, there should be virtually none in the world although there probably exist some country that has for example not yet joined the Bern convention and such.
>By your logic, so would every person with a web browser that caches.
Such temporary copies or copies needed for technical reasons are tpyically excempted from being infringing by most countries copyright laws as long as they are not used for anything else. The moment you start to use it as "real" copies, for example making it available over the net to others, they are no longer under such an exception and are infriging copies. Try to read some copyright laws before you answer, more specifically, in this case, perhaps some European ones.
>There are so many things that these publishers could do to avoid being >indexed by Google if they so choose. I guess they haven't heard of using >robot.txt to tell Google to leave them alone.
Last I checked the copyright laws there was no requirement of using a "robot.txt" file to be granted copyright or its related rights. I guess I should start looking for it next I visit my favorite torrent site. After all, those music, movie and game companies could simply have put such a thing into their files as well so I knew I could not download them, or?
>No, the Internet would collapse when the courts declared caching illegal. >After all, everything from the ISP to the web browser application does >caching, and technically it does make a copy of the copyrighted >material...
Such, often temporary, copies are in most countries copyright law excepted from infringing ones. However, if you start to use those caches as normal copies, then they of course no longer are.
>As Lawrence Lessig has pointed out many times, the European Union Copyright >laws are all screwed up.
To be more precise, the Union doesn't have any laws. Individual countries has their own copyright laws, and although they are in part very similar due to various directives they do differ in quite a few ways.
>At the moment they have no fare use, or right to make a copy in any way.
Thus, this statement may or may not be true depening on what country you refer to. Although there might not be something similar to the way the US "fair use" works, there are other variants that in much give the same and sometimes even more, ability to use copyright works. It can include for example making copies for private use, which would include even giving away a copy to a friend for example. There are many other examples, so your statement that there is no right at all to make copies is simply not true.
>Because only.01% of the population would actually give a damn about this >information getting out. Who the hell really cares if people know what I am >doing with my Xbox? I don't care...and nobody who would actually bother to >see what I am doing would care either.
So it is a pointless and useless feature that 99.99% of the population doesn't even care about, so why does it exist to start with and turned on? Considering that a bunch of those 0.01% that DO care, doesn't like it, it appears that even less actually think it is something usefull. Or are you one of those 74.3% of the people that like spitting out percentages out of your nose just for the sake of it without having a clue?
>This is a known "feature." The article was even updated after people e- >mailed them. Both the article and the MANUAL tell how to change the >default privacy settings.
But why should you always have to tunr OFF such things? Why not let the user turn ON things and features they like instead in cases like this?
Or a publisher can do like in many other areas in society, hire the author and pay salary, that is how most people in the world make their money. Just one of many possible solutions.
And why should a writer automatically be payed by how well and much something sells? Most people working does not get payed more based on how many cars was sold of the type the manufacture and so on.
>So far, the group of Blizzard vets that went off to form ArenaNet have >done pretty damn well with their game GuildWars.
Yes, but they were mostly from "main" Blizzard, not from Blizzard North who were the ones mostly responsible for the Diablo games. The Blizzard North and Diablo people went mostly to form Flagship Studios at http://www.flagshipstudios.com/
>Er, no. I CANNOT make a copy for a friend. That's illegal. But I can lend him a disk and he makes a >copy of it, that's perfectly ok.
Which is in teresting, because in some European countries it is basically the other way arround. I can make a copy and give to a friend, but he might not be allowed to make a copy of my CD.
>The difference between copyright violation and theft is simply semantics. The fact remains that they >are both illegal in the US.
So is murder. So what is the point? Because two things are both illegal, we should mix and use whichever terminology we feel for? That is hardly productive or help understand. How hard can it be to use the proper word for things? No one is arguing that copyright infringement is not illegal, but it is quite different from stealing. This becomes obvious when people start to tell WHY something should allowed or not when it comes to copyrights. You (not you personally but many) also end up with a typical logical error arguingt that since one copying is semanitcally the same as stealing, any copying is illegal since copying was stealing. And since stealing means someone lost something, anytime where there can be a "loss", even such a silly thing such as no income, must hence be stealing and hence copyright infringement and hence bad. It just ends up with bad discussions, confusions and missunderstandings. So why not use the correct terminology when we are discussing the legality?
> Making a copy of your friends CD for yourself is NOT covered under fair use.
Considering the topic is about EU, you might want to know that it is perfectly legal in many EU countries. There might in some be a provision that the friend do the copy, but it is not infringement.
> That is, in effect, stealing.
No, it would at most be copyright infringement. Going to a store taking a CD, THAT is stealing (or shoplifting actually, but lets take a whole bunch of CDs). Creating something new, a copy, is at most copyright infringement.
Also, since the "topic" in this case is the legal ness or illegalness, why not use the proper language? Which is definately NOT to call it theft, but copyright infringement? How hard can that be?
>To set you straight again: "Fair use" was designed to......
That depends a lot on which country you talk about. It is in addition implemented quite differently in different country. If you take Sweden for example, which happens to be in EU, there is a SPECIFIC exception to the copyright holders right to make copies so that others might make copies for personal use. There are other such exceptions as well that make an action non infringing. On the other hand there is no general "test" for a fair use such as in the, for example, US copyright law.
So don't just generalize and assume it is the same in all countries.
> Then along comes the DMCA....
Which is also a US specific law. Even though there is a smiliar directive in the EU, the implementation differs quite a lot. in addition, it does not cover "access". Basically you would have to first have an act of copyright infringement for which there is a protection to circumvent. So, if it is allowed to actually make personal copies, you are allowed to corcumvent protection do make such personal copies. Again, it differs with country.
>Since probably all music CDs made in the last few years have some type of copy protection,
Again not true. I would say that in many countries in Europe it is even less common than in USA.
>What I find most interesting is how some people believe that downloading or copying music or movies or >whatever is not wrong or illegal.
That can be legal in some countries, illegal in others. In general this would be illegal in most countries in Europe that has implemented the directive I mentioned above since it requires that copies for personal use for example, must have a legal original, or rather, one made available in a legal way. This rules out downloading from the net in many cases. it used to be legel in Sweden though up to last summer. In Canada though it still appears to be perfectly legal though although I believe the one making the copies available might be infringing on copyright.
>If you have something in your possession that you previously didn't, and >didn't pay for, when you otherwise could have, it is stealing.
No, it is not, go read laws about stealing and theft and you will see it is completely false.
By the way, I just now have something in my possession that I did not a few minutes ago. I did not pay for it although I could have should I want to. In no way did I steal. What it is?
1) A drawing I just made 2) A book I took from the shelf here at work 3) A hammer I borrowed from a friend 4) A book I borrowed from a friend 5) All of the above and anything else you would like to come up with
>Piracy is stealing if you sell illegal copies for money that would >otherwise have gone to the record companies and artists.
No, it is still copyright infringement no matter how you look at it, twist it and tries to come up with examples.
It would be good to actually check out on not only copyright law but also laws dealing with "stealing" and theft and you would notice the difference and how they are not related.
Slashdot Mirror
>It's not about revenue. The point is that when a second sale is made the
>costs to the publisher go up.
So, the same applies to the car manufacturers too for example.
>Publishers have to pay for their 1-800 support lines, multiplayer
>servers, online community, etc. Have you played a Live! enabled game yet?
>The goal is to provide value to the player long after the sale of a game
>is made.
Most of these costs applies no matter if you resell the game or not. If there is a goal to provide a long time value, why would it matter if it the game is resold? You would still have had the cost anyway.
As for extra "install costs" and such someone mentioned, make sure the game is easier to install and such then. DOn't see a problem, just live with the fact like everyone else doing bussiness in the world.
>And if it's broken.... then what do you do?
Return it to the store for a refund? Like with everything else I buy that is broken. Of course, the store can decide to fix it for me instead, either way works for me.
>"Copies" in this sense refer to actual published, readable copies.
Indeed, what a copy mean (in the us copyright law) is indeed defined in 101. I have never claimed anything else.
>Collections of bits stored as hashes in google's search index do not count,
Uhuh??? Were have I claimed such a thing? What does that have to do with what I have written or replied to? My reply was to a statement claiming that copyright was not about *copying*. I have not even TOUCHED upon what work is protected by copyright. Actually, talking about what copyright gives in rights would assume that I am ONLY talking about things that get copyright to start with. I really have no idea were you got the idea that my text tried to claim a hash is protected by copytight. Try to reread what I wrote.
>Maybe it's because little tiny brains like yours are incapable of a decent
>vocabulary,
At least it is cabable of reading the posts I reply to, something you don't manage.
First, just because someone else do something, it is not automatically ok or evenlegal. There is quite a difference though I would say. The ISP cach is typically used as such temporary copies, used only when someone requests the original, you can't search or aquire those cach copies independantly from the original nor can you get them far later when the original does no longer exists, quite a huge differnce.
>There is an implicit assumption is that the defendent would be making multiple copies for the purpose
>of giving them to other people or else it would not be a matter of law
No there is no such "assumtion" in the law. Even a single copy and with no giving away to other would be an infrrinngment, that is the base. Then there can be various excpetions were such an activity can still not be an infringement although this vary with country, in US for example, it goes under, among other things, fair use, the European countries, since this topi is about Europe, has it coded in more specific cases were you are allowed to make copies. But the basis is still that you cna't make copies, period.
>a type of legislation issued by the European Union which is binding on
>Member States in terms of the results to be achieved but which leaves to
>Member States the choice of methods.
It issues directives, not laws. Those directives are NOT laws in the countries. However, the countries has to implement them into their laws though. Many times there is quite a difference (and allowance for difference) in how those implementations are done. The directive can for example be a minimum and the individual countries can go further and so on. Still, it is not until a country changes itw own law, that there is any effect in that country as far as what is legal or not.
>And, at the moment, European Union legislation, meaning directives,
>regulations, binding decisions and recommendations do not mention such thing
>as fare use in any way.
Exactly, it leaves it up to the individual countries. There is no restriction on that you can NOT add such things, which is what you claimed:
>>At the moment they have no fare use, or right to make a copy in any way.
Which is not ture since almost all (probably all) have various varinats on the fair use in their own laws. Actually, some of the dircetives specifically says it is up to individual countries to handle such things (within limits).
>Oh really? All sorts of things change meaning over time.
Copying is and still is part of copyright. Here is a copy of the US copyright law for example, the same exists in all copyright laws really:
in 106:
"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; "
If you know of a country were copying is NOT a right of the copyright holder, please feel free to say so and point if out, there should be virtually none in the world although there probably exist some country that has for example not yet joined the Bern convention and such.
>By your logic, so would every person with a web browser that caches.
Such temporary copies or copies needed for technical reasons are tpyically excempted from being infringing by most countries copyright laws as long as they are not used for anything else. The moment you start to use it as "real" copies, for example making it available over the net to others, they are no longer under such an exception and are infriging copies. Try to read some copyright laws before you answer, more specifically, in this case, perhaps some European ones.
>There are so many things that these publishers could do to avoid being
>indexed by Google if they so choose. I guess they haven't heard of using
>robot.txt to tell Google to leave them alone.
Last I checked the copyright laws there was no requirement of using a "robot.txt" file to be granted copyright or its related rights. I guess I should start looking for it next I visit my favorite torrent site. After all, those music, movie and game companies could simply have put such a thing into their files as well so I knew I could not download them, or?
>No, the Internet would collapse when the courts declared caching illegal.
>After all, everything from the ISP to the web browser application does
>caching, and technically it does make a copy of the copyrighted
>material...
Such, often temporary, copies are in most countries copyright law excepted from infringing ones. However, if you start to use those caches as normal copies, then they of course no longer are.
>As Lawrence Lessig has pointed out many times, the European Union Copyright
>laws are all screwed up.
To be more precise, the Union doesn't have any laws. Individual countries has their own copyright laws, and although they are in part very similar due to various directives they do differ in quite a few ways.
>At the moment they have no fare use, or right to make a copy in any way.
Thus, this statement may or may not be true depening on what country you refer to. Although there might not be something similar to the way the US "fair use" works, there are other variants that in much give the same and sometimes even more, ability to use copyright works. It can include for example making copies for private use, which would include even giving away a copy to a friend for example. There are many other examples, so your statement that there is no right at all to make copies is simply not true.
>Second, copyright protects against others publishing your work, not against
>copying.
You need to learn more about copyright. Copyright gives several (almost) exclusive rights to the copyright holder. One of those is copying!
>Search engines do not reproduce content.
Ohh, so them haveing a cache of pages and scanning all books is just something I dreamt last night then?
I was right, you WERE one of those 74.3% of people that like tossing out random percentages left and right!
>Because only .01% of the population would actually give a damn about this
>information getting out. Who the hell really cares if people know what I am
>doing with my Xbox? I don't care...and nobody who would actually bother to
>see what I am doing would care either.
So it is a pointless and useless feature that 99.99% of the population doesn't even care about, so why does it exist to start with and turned on? Considering that a bunch of those 0.01% that DO care, doesn't like it, it appears that even less actually think it is something usefull. Or are you one of those 74.3% of the people that like spitting out percentages out of your nose just for the sake of it without having a clue?
>This is a known "feature." The article was even updated after people e-
>mailed them. Both the article and the MANUAL tell how to change the
>default privacy settings.
But why should you always have to tunr OFF such things? Why not let the user turn ON things and features they like instead in cases like this?
>Well who's to say your ISP doesn't collect data on you?
Because there are laws not allowing it? No idea if they exist in your country though.
>A lot of people do get paid like this. They're called salesmen.
That is why I said "most". Last I checked, most people in the world are not made up by salesmen.....
But sure, if writers like to work as salesmen, fine. The post I replied to was about something else though.
Or a publisher can do like in many other areas in society, hire the author and pay salary, that is how most people in the world make their money. Just one of many possible solutions.
And why should a writer automatically be payed by how well and much something sells? Most people working does not get payed more based on how many cars was sold of the type the manufacture and so on.
>So far, the group of Blizzard vets that went off to form ArenaNet have
>done pretty damn well with their game GuildWars.
Yes, but they were mostly from "main" Blizzard, not from Blizzard North who were the ones mostly responsible for the Diablo games. The Blizzard North and Diablo people went mostly to form Flagship Studios at http://www.flagshipstudios.com/
>Er, no. I CANNOT make a copy for a friend. That's illegal. But I can lend him a disk and he makes a
>copy of it, that's perfectly ok.
Which is in teresting, because in some European countries it is basically the other way arround. I can make a copy and give to a friend, but he might not be allowed to make a copy of my CD.
>The difference between copyright violation and theft is simply semantics. The fact remains that they
>are both illegal in the US.
So is murder. So what is the point? Because two things are both illegal, we should mix and use whichever terminology we feel for? That is hardly productive or help understand. How hard can it be to use the proper word for things? No one is arguing that copyright infringement is not illegal, but it is quite different from stealing. This becomes obvious when people start to tell WHY something should allowed or not when it comes to copyrights. You (not you personally but many) also end up with a typical logical error arguingt that since one copying is semanitcally the same as stealing, any copying is illegal since copying was stealing. And since stealing means someone lost something, anytime where there can be a "loss", even such a silly thing such as no income, must hence be stealing and hence copyright infringement and hence bad. It just ends up with bad discussions, confusions and missunderstandings. So why not use the correct terminology when we are discussing the legality?
> Making a copy of your friends CD for yourself is NOT covered under fair use.
Considering the topic is about EU, you might want to know that it is perfectly legal in many EU countries. There might in some be a provision that the friend do the copy, but it is not infringement.
> That is, in effect, stealing.
No, it would at most be copyright infringement. Going to a store taking a CD, THAT is stealing (or shoplifting actually, but lets take a whole bunch of CDs). Creating something new, a copy, is at most copyright infringement.
Also, since the "topic" in this case is the legal ness or illegalness, why not use the proper language? Which is definately NOT to call it theft, but copyright infringement? How hard can that be?
>To set you straight again: "Fair use" was designed to......
That depends a lot on which country you talk about. It is in addition implemented quite differently in different country. If you take Sweden for example, which happens to be in EU, there is a SPECIFIC exception to the copyright holders right to make copies so that others might make copies for personal use. There are other such exceptions as well that make an action non infringing. On the other hand there is no general "test" for a fair use such as in the, for example, US copyright law.
So don't just generalize and assume it is the same in all countries.
> Then along comes the DMCA....
Which is also a US specific law. Even though there is a smiliar directive in the EU, the implementation differs quite a lot. in addition, it does not cover "access". Basically you would have to first have an act of copyright infringement for which there is a protection to circumvent. So, if it is allowed to actually make personal copies, you are allowed to corcumvent protection do make such personal copies. Again, it differs with country.
>Since probably all music CDs made in the last few years have some type of copy protection,
Again not true. I would say that in many countries in Europe it is even less common than in USA.
>What I find most interesting is how some people believe that downloading or copying music or movies or >whatever is not wrong or illegal.
That can be legal in some countries, illegal in others. In general this would be illegal in most countries in Europe that has implemented the directive I mentioned above since it requires that copies for personal use for example, must have a legal original, or rather, one made available in a legal way. This rules out downloading from the net in many cases. it used to be legel in Sweden though up to last summer. In Canada though it still appears to be perfectly legal though although I believe the one making the copies available might be infringing on copyright.
>If you have something in your possession that you previously didn't, and
>didn't pay for, when you otherwise could have, it is stealing.
No, it is not, go read laws about stealing and theft and you will see it is completely false.
By the way, I just now have something in my possession that I did not a few minutes ago. I did not pay for it although I could have should I want to. In no way did I steal. What it is?
1) A drawing I just made
2) A book I took from the shelf here at work
3) A hammer I borrowed from a friend
4) A book I borrowed from a friend
5) All of the above and anything else you would like to come up with
>Piracy is stealing if you sell illegal copies for money that would
>otherwise have gone to the record companies and artists.
No, it is still copyright infringement no matter how you look at it, twist it and tries to come up with examples.
It would be good to actually check out on not only copyright law but also laws dealing with "stealing" and theft and you would notice the difference and how they are not related.