>Once again you are totally missing the point here, if you are copying music, games etc to sell to other >people then that is clearly not a fair use of your copy.
Who said that? Were did I say I should start selling them? I specifically said it was for the purpose to make an index for people to search about the game!!!!! It will include searchable things like what you can and can't do in the game and so on. I will further extend it to have a music index. That means I can now safely download any music appearantly, trhy to tell that to RIAA for example.
You are looking only at what you do WITH the copy, that can of course in itself be a copyright infringement, and can be looked at from a fair use perspective. But the copying in itself is also such a case (and it doesn't nessecarilly matter what you eventually want to do with the copy. The act of copying itself is copyright infringement, and if you want to claim fair use, you have to look at the copying. How much of the work was copied, for google there is problem because apperantly they copy the whole thing (by scanning). Is it of comercial nature, again, google has a draback compared to me, since they are a company on the stockmarket, they are commercial by nature. And so on. What they then do with the copies is naother story.
>Actually, they are purchasing books. Actually, they are purchasing books.
I was talkinbg about the scanning of them which appearantly is what they are doing. How they got the books initially I don't know and is quite irellevant.
> I'm absolutely free to copy any portion of a book that I own onto my personal computer for my >purposes, whether I'm reviewing it, quoting it, citing it, or simply writing a portion of it in an >email signature.
When making copies, there are, if we stick to how it works in US, several things to consider which are covered under the "Fair use" paragraph of the copyright law. It determines if it is ok or not. Factors include how much of the work you copy, so for example, copying a small fraction for a quote is clearly different from copying the whole book (which appearantly Google is doing). If it is for comercial reasons or not is a nother factor, hence as a private person you can in that aspect do more than for example google (which I believe is even on the stock market).
>As long as they're not reproducing the entire work for profit,
You mean as in scanning the whole book? To offer a service for people and advertisers so they, as a company on the stockmarket makes enough money to satisfy their stock owners?
>or more subtly, as long as they're not reproducing the entire work to cause the copyright holder to >lose profit,
That is quite irellevant, you can commit copyright infringement even if there is no economical impact on the copyright holder, although it is a further factor you use to consider fair use. Why not go and read it? There are numorous links to it in this thread.
>Lemme put it another way: Until a copyright holder can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that properly >citing their work on the internet causes them a loss of profit, then there is no argument.
The issue is not them puting out quotes, but making copies to start with (and a s comercial company to start with).
You are using false logic. Just because some pirated keys are, it does not mean ALL are. It does further not mean that pirtaed games equals blacklisted ones. In addition, non pirtaed games can for example also be pirated. There are tons of people who have pirated games and have never ever connected to the next, and there are many who have pirated games that have connected, and played, including on battle.net.
Even so, what is your problem with this? That someone offers a service were someone else allready does? Do you say that since Blizzard offer an online service to match people up for games, no one else should be allowed to? And if they do, must they follow the same rules Blizzard do? If Ford offer a service to car owners, should I not be allowed to offer one myself? And if I do, must I have the same rules? That is just silly.
>You're missing a very critical bit of info: Blizzard blacklisted pirated >keys. It's documented all over the place.
No, I am not missing it, they have blacklisted many keys, some "pirated", some not at all. There are many "pirated" keys used, including on battle.net still. So what is your point? The fact that Blizzard uses special keys to allow access to their service (the battle.net), what does that have to do with bnetd? Or anyone else offering services on the net? Since the games still work perfectly even without those battle.net checked keys" and can without modification connect and play on other servcies (or on their own), what does it have to do with what others offer? Do note that Blizzard has since changed their games, at least newer ones, not sure about older, so that they do not automatically work when conecting to other services, but at that time, Blizzard's games could freely and without modification connect to any other service and worked without the special keys blizzard used for battle.net.
Since you, by your own words, doesn't talk about what the law allows or not, I must assume that you simply is against competition. Since Blizzard offer a service, no one else should be allowed to offer a similar, unless they follow the exact same rules Blizzard do. If Blizzard blacklist a key from accessing their service, everyone else must also blacklist for some strange reason. Note that there is ALLREADY another check for a key built into the games on the players computers themselves, needed to run and install the game.
>Google aren't copying the books in order to put the entire book on the >web,
Who has said that? They are copying books. Period. If they had then put them on the net, that would have been ANOTHER type of copyright infringement.
>from what I understand they will let you search for text in the book and >will then display the relevant excerpt of text from that book.
What you can and can't do is not the issue. It is them copying books.
>Fair use of copyrighted works seems to protect Googles right to do this >since they are providing the text for the purposes of, amongst other >things, research.
Cool,so I will start copying music, games and such. In addition, I will create a small index so people can search it, for the purpos of science. Great! Since I make money on it all, it is probably even more "fair use".
>For example it would be easy to find quotes from particular books using >this service and place them into a slightly wider context.
How does that make it any more allowed to copy things?
>I don't think fair use has anything to do with whether you are doing it >for commercial purposes or not
From the "fair use" paraprahp of US copyright law:
"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; "
Other things to consider:
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "
Actually, those ar all the 4 things to consider.
>since newspapers, magazines and books all make use of these fair use >provision to quote other copyrighted works.
Quoting has the difference in that it is a small snipet and not the entire work, in case they quote a copyrighted work. That is handled under (3) for example. Google is copying entier books appearantly.
>By the looks of it Google has a good claim to be making copies for the purposes of either news or >reporting purposes.
Huh? Apart from having no idea how copying books can be either news or reporting, could you clarify really WHAT part of your supposed copyright law that you feel makes it allowed to creat copies since you claim some paragraphs makes that ok, specifically one that talks about copying for "news and reporting"? What you should look at is the one dealing with "fair use", however, google has big problems there since it is of comercial nature.
>So if I buy a CD of music, is it fair use for me to make copies of the songs on that CD for my use? If >so, why is it not fair use to make copies of the contents of a book for my use?
Fair use (in US) is covered in 107. Certain criterias are needed to be fullfilled. here, I shall copy it for you:
1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
For one, we might conclude that you, making copy of the CD you bought or a book you bought, is not, typically, of a comercial nature. Google's copying clearly is. So there we have a huge difference rioght away.
>You have to read the whole thing, pal. You showed section 106. When it says "Subject to sections 107 >through 122..." that means you need to read those sections to see what limits are placed on the >provisions of section 106.
And what part of those sections says "disregard the copying, it is allways allowed anyway if you like to do it"? What of those sections do you fullfill? Or more importantly, what of those does Google fullfill? None!
Your statement was a blanket "you are always allowed to make copies", which is wrong, you are not except in some specific defined occations.
>How is it different from me ripping a cd that I own and putting it on my ipod?
That might be fair use, for one, you are not doing it for comercial use but for your private use. Google as a company is hardly doing it for "private use", now are they?
> How is it different from calling a reference librarian and asking them to read you a bit of the text >to determine whether to have the book loaned to your library?
No copy is being made in that case, now is it?
>As long as the size of the excerpt is small and they don't charge for the service, I don't see what the >problem is.
The problem is them copying the entire book in the first place!!!
>If you do not upload (i.e. you leach), or do not know that it is >occurring (you run Windows, and somebody put a virus in your system that >uploads), then you are not liable.
In many, if not most, countries you are commiting copyright infringment when you download as well and is thus liable. The reason you don't see much, if any cases about that is that it is next to impossible to find and/or catch people doing so since only the one you download from would know you are downloading. For uploading it is much easier to find/catch.
Re:You are confusing two issues
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 2, Informative
>So far as I am aware you are allowed to make copies of copyrighted works >if you like.
Then you are aware wrong. I will will show text from the US copyright law for you, other countries have similar text:
"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; "
Nowere does it say that it is allowed as long as you don't distribute the copies. Actually, distribution would be ANOTHER, different copyright infringement, not tied to the one above, lets quote further from the same section:
"(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; "
In case you want to read it yourself, here is a link:
>A used book stores pays the owner of a book a.25, places it on its shelf >and then sells it for $2.00.
>A coffe shop owner sees the book, buys it, and leaves it hanging around >their shop for customers to read.
>These 2 examples are no different.
In neither of these cases are there copies made. Google is making copies!!! If you fail to see that difference you really amazes me. It is the creation of those copies that are the copyright infringement.
Cool, you have just made a discovery that no one else has ever done. I will start copying like crazy (as long as I don't redistribute those copies I am according to you not infringing on copyright).
Now, the question is, what does the part in most copyright laws that says COPYING is an exclusive right to the copyright holder in most cases mean?
>I seriously don't understand what all the fuss is about. All that is >happening is the creation of an index, a list of words associated with >pointers to the words put into context.
No, there is a copy (or more) of the book created when they scan the books.
>It is not like you can realistically download the entire book,
The making available copies of the work would ALSO be a copyright infringment, but in most countries of the world, the creation of copies to start with would be infringement, especially if done for comercial purposes, irellevant of if you make it available or not.
>However, if google lives up to the claim they will only provide snippets, >how is that different than what any web site, quoting an author does.
As far as I see it, the problem is not what they make available or not. The problmewould be that they are copying books to start with. Most copyright laws does not allow it. I can't go arround and copy every book, music or movie I want and then just claim that since I don't make it available to anyone, it is OK. It is still copyright infringement. Making it available would be ANOTHER copyright infringement by the way.
>I'm unclear as to why he doesn't have problem with book reviews (which >often display portions of a book) or student's book reports.
Because they don't have to make copies of the books in order to create reports or reviews? Google is making copies of the books (by scanning them), which is typically a copyright infringement while reviewers and such does not do that.
>Either what Google is doing is allowed by copyright law, or it's not.
You mean copying (by scanning in this case appearantly) every book (or at least a ton of them) is allowed by copyright law? And by a comercial company to start with? By that, I would assume the same copyright law would definately also allow private persons to make copy of all and any book they want. As far as I know, books aren't special, so I assume it would apply to music, film and other media types too.
Somehow I can't see were the doubt would be if copyright law allows this or not....
>I don't see any difference between what Google are doing here and what they >do to index web sites.
What they do with books is that they are making copies (through scanning) which is in general not allowed by copyright laws. Why should Google, as a company that makes money, be allowed to make copies of tons of books when typically normal persons would not? Or are you claiming that it is perfectly OK to make copies of any book you want?
>You could play with a blacklisted key on battle.net?
Ehh, were have I said that? What part of my 11 word sentence implies that?
No, you can play with PIRATED games on battle.net (which was what you talked about). That is what you said. Pirated and blacklisted are two completely different things one does not imply the other. You can for example have a blacklisted key for a non pirated game as well.
Your argument was:
"They did, however, make it possible to play pirated games on-line."
Which is false since you can play pirtaed games online inlcuding on battle.net. Do you even remember what your own posts and arguments have been?
For every single patch, there is a heading stating that the EULA and ToS has changed and that you should review and agree to it again, yet the dates of one of the documents is still from 2004 and the other from summer 2005 (there has been several patches since then).
Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?
on
Blizzcon Writeup
·
· Score: 1
>Blizzard took action against bnetd once it began to be used for >Warcraft III --
As far as I can recall, bnetd did never support WC3. It supported Diablo, Diablo 2 (open game play, it did not host games) and Star Craft. Since the source code of bnetd was made available, there was others (can't recall the name) that added support for WC3 beta, the game had not yet been released. That was the time that Blizzard took action.
>The lagginess of the servers doesn't affect the speed of the >actual games, because it isn't involved in the actual games.
Bnetd did never host games (Diablo 2 being the only game then that was actually hosted by battle.net). SO not sure what point you are trying to make here.
>As I quite clearly stated, I was talking about not feeling sorry for them.
Then you should have writte so instead of continously thoughtout every post (including the first one) arguing about circumvention of copy protection when there is no such thing.
>For all practical purposes, it most certainly does prevent on-line play. Newer releases of Star Craft, >for example, rejected black-listed keys during install. Copy protection.
No, access protection. You can still create as many copies as you want. In addition, this seems to imply that you cna't install the game if you are not online or it would not work. However, this has nothing to do with bnetd, since bnetd would not in any way make it possible to install that game anyway. That cd-key check is built into the client/installer and exists regardless of bnetd.
>Blacklist. No battle.net. Worthless.
The game itself (the one you have on your computer) still work fully. You can still play both single and multiplayer on it. It is not affected.
>That's why BNetD was created in the first place.
Yes, but bnetd doesn't make it possible to connect to battle.net, now do it? It doesn't affect your client at all really. It is an alternative. Alternatives are not "circumvention". I don't circumvent anything if I go out and use something else instead.
>Just to be clear: I'm not talking about the DMCA here.
Then you are completely lost because it is the DMCA that deals with protection and the circumvention of it.
> I'm not talking about copyrights, I'm talking about whether or not copy protection was circumvented.
Yes, that is what the DMCA is about. There is no other law regulating it. Have you read it? You seem to use "copy protection" without having a clue what you talk about. The law specifies quite clearly and detailed what is protected (the work which should be covered by copyright to start with, hence no on line mode applicable) and what type of actions can be protected, typically those actions that are copyright infringement, copying be the main here, PLUS access which is the new added thing in the DMCA that is not otherwise part of copyrigh. You talk about some general "copy protection" believing anything that has in any remote way any affect on the possibility to play pirated game as being covered and called "copy protection". That is not so. The protection must specificall control for example the actual act of copying or the actual act of accessing a copyrighted work. Really, you should go read up on the law. And if you believe there is some OTHER law regulating it, fine, why not tell which, because it would be a huge surprise to people to knwo about this mystery and unknown law.
> Illegally attained games could not connect to battle.net, but they could be connected to BNetD.
So? Legally attained games can too, both connect to battle net and to bnetd. What does that have to do with anything? The law doesn't forbid you to connect to various services based on the legalness of your game?
>My point was that BNetD wasn't guily of violating the DMCA.
yes it was, or rather, the creatoers was in violation of it. The main part of the case was about the EULA though. Your initial post to which I replied to stated:
"Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up circumventing Blizzard's copy protection scheme."
Circumvenmtion adn "copy protection" is dealt by the DMCA. So now you say it did NOT violate the DMCA?
>My point was those idiots bypassed a system Blizzard had in place to keep the copies played legit.
Yes, but the bnetd doesn't affect that either. There are no more "illegal" copies on battle.net due to bnetd? The purpose of bnetd had in fact nothing at all to do with illegal copies, it was to allow players of the game an alternative to battle.net.
Playing online is not a "work". The DMCA covers protection that protects a work only, not a "mode" such as online play. Besides as I allready said, you can play online anyway since the protection only applies to battle.net. Did you not read what I wrote? Online play works perfectly in any case. The protection you talk about, your CD-keys ONLY controls ACCESS to battle.net, it does NOT conrol COPYING of the game and it does NOT control online play in general. This is evident since someone who has its cdkey blacklisted by battle.net, can copy the game, install the game, play the game single player and play the game multiplayer (online) without having to do anything. So indeed you can still play online as much as you want.
>The key appeal of their games was playing on-line. That was the reason to play the game.
Which is irrelevant really. We are talking about a supposed circumvenmtion of a protection.
>If you cannot play the copy on-line, then for most people, it's totally worthless. Again, this is a >very simple easy-to-understand premise.
You are confusing "playing online" with "playing on battle.net". They are not the same. Playing on battle.net is only one of the many online possibilities and the only one the protection controls. Hence, any other type of online play does not circumvent that protection. I think I made that clear in my last post yet so seem to ignore it.
> Yes, the CD key was copy protection. You can spin it any way you want, the end result was that the >game was harder to pirate as a result of Battle Net + CD Keys.
Battle net has nothing to do with copying, the game is just as easy to copy with or without battle net and its checks. It might be harder to ACCESS battle.net, but that has nothing to do with copying. How hard is it to understand?
>They.... enabled.... piraaaaaaaaaacy.
Enabling piracy is in itself not something the DMCA covers, it covers such things as circumventing a copy protection or an access protection. You may wish it said something else, but it doesn't. in addition, bnetd does not enable piracy sine any piracy (I assume you mean the copying of the game ilegally) is made with or without bnetd, bnetd does not help you copy it at all. You seem to have no clue what bnetd is. It is a server program with which anyone can offer a service similar to battle.net. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with the client, its copying or anything realted.
>Right. A worthless copy was made. That's successful copy protection.
How is it worthless? It is completely and fully functional and working in all possible ways!!! You could in fact even play with it on battle.net (although not at the same time as anyone else using the same CD-key). But the same can be said with the original in fact. So I fail to see your "worthlessness".
>Heh. Nothing else? They blacklisted widely pirated keys. Doh. What's really amusing about this comment >is the idea that Blizzard would say "OKay, make sure this system ONLY and I mean ONLY prevents >duplicate keys from being accessed at the same time. Do NOT enforce copy protection in any way with it. >" Oh, by the way, they actually did blacklist a number of pirated keys. Your claim of 'nothing else' is >factually false.
So what is this "else" you talk about then? Because the only thing the check of cd-keys on battle.net do is control if you are allowed to connect to it or not. You seem to have some strange idea that it can remotly disable the game, or that a blacklist of the sd-key on battle.net sudenly makes my copying program not work with Diablo 2 (or any other of the games Blizzard have). I can tell you it has no such effect though. So what is this "else" you talk about?
>It'd help if you could make this statement without intentionally ignoring the on-line importance of >Blizzard's games.
The improtance of the online is irellevant. The relevant things is what the protection protects, and if i
>Oh brother. Is it really so fashionable to hate Blizzard around here that people are willing to throw >common sense out the window to try to win on pedantic terms?
Who said I hate Blizzard? I don't, I have and still play several of their games.
>It was copy protection. Plain and simple. Inarguable.
Copy protection has to protect a work (that has copyright). For there to be a circumvention, you need to either access or copy that work (otherwise you have obviously not circumvente4d any protection). So the question I posed is relevant and you fail to answer it. A copy protection of WHAT is it that bnetd circumvent? That is, what work (that is protected) would you not be able to access or copy and so , in case you had not had bnetd? Since otherwsie you can't argue that bnetd is corcumveting any protection, now can you?
>Online play is the main attraction of their games. They provided the service for playing online.
So, who is arguing that?
> They blacklisted pirated keys.
So fine? They can do whatever they want with their service (battle.net). What does that have to do with bnetd? If you use bnetd, you are not using battle.net, you are not connecting to it and is not doing anything with battle.net.
> This prevented illegal copies from being played online (before BNetD).
No, it prevents them from playing on battle.net. You can still play them, single player or through other means which is appearant since there is no need to do ANYTHING with such copies to be able to play. The blacklisting (which is hardly a copy protection) is an access protection for battle.net. Nothing else. For it to be circumvented, you need to be able to access battle.net anyway. Bnetd doesn't allow you to do that, so it can't circumvent that protection. It is an ALTERNATIVE to battle.net, nothing else.
>This is copy protection.
No, it is acces protection of battle.net. You can copy the game just as easy if the cd-key is blacklisted or not.
> It protected the game from illegal copies being used on-line.
See above, it prevents such copies from playing on battle.net. Otherwise they are fully usable and playable in every aspect, including multi player over the net. The blacklisting doesn't affect the client, it just makes the battle.net not accepting connection. The client is fully working anyway.
> How many ways does this have to be phrased for the thicker people to get this extraordinarily simple >concept?
No one is arguing about you about that. It prevents battle.net play. End of story, what does that have to do with bnetd? Nothing.
> If I copied the game, gave it to a friend, and he used my code, and we used it at the same time, one >of us would get booted. Copy.... protection... D U H.
If it were copy protection, you would not be able to copy it to start with. DUH! Since you maned it is not copy protection. DUH! How hard is THAT to understand? Since you both can't connect to battle.net, it is acces protection for BATTLE.NET (nothing else). DUH! How many ways does this have to be phrased for you to get this extraordinarily simple concept?
>How much lower are you going to sink in order to paint Blizzard as the bad guy here?
Slashdot Mirror
>Once again you are totally missing the point here, if you are copying music, games etc to sell to other
>people then that is clearly not a fair use of your copy.
Who said that? Were did I say I should start selling them? I specifically said it was for the purpose to make an index for people to search about the game!!!!! It will include searchable things like what you can and can't do in the game and so on. I will further extend it to have a music index. That means I can now safely download any music appearantly, trhy to tell that to RIAA for example.
You are looking only at what you do WITH the copy, that can of course in itself be a copyright infringement, and can be looked at from a fair use perspective. But the copying in itself is also such a case (and it doesn't nessecarilly matter what you eventually want to do with the copy. The act of copying itself is copyright infringement, and if you want to claim fair use, you have to look at the copying. How much of the work was copied, for google there is problem because apperantly they copy the whole thing (by scanning). Is it of comercial nature, again, google has a draback compared to me, since they are a company on the stockmarket, they are commercial by nature. And so on. What they then do with the copies is naother story.
>Actually, they are purchasing books. Actually, they are purchasing books.
I was talkinbg about the scanning of them which appearantly is what they are doing. How they got the books initially I don't know and is quite irellevant.
> I'm absolutely free to copy any portion of a book that I own onto my personal computer for my
>purposes, whether I'm reviewing it, quoting it, citing it, or simply writing a portion of it in an
>email signature.
When making copies, there are, if we stick to how it works in US, several things to consider which are covered under the "Fair use" paragraph of the copyright law. It determines if it is ok or not. Factors include how much of the work you copy, so for example, copying a small fraction for a quote is clearly different from copying the whole book (which appearantly Google is doing). If it is for comercial reasons or not is a nother factor, hence as a private person you can in that aspect do more than for example google (which I believe is even on the stock market).
>As long as they're not reproducing the entire work for profit,
You mean as in scanning the whole book? To offer a service for people and advertisers so they, as a company on the stockmarket makes enough money to satisfy their stock owners?
>or more subtly, as long as they're not reproducing the entire work to cause the copyright holder to >lose profit,
That is quite irellevant, you can commit copyright infringement even if there is no economical impact on the copyright holder, although it is a further factor you use to consider fair use. Why not go and read it? There are numorous links to it in this thread.
>Lemme put it another way: Until a copyright holder can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that properly
>citing their work on the internet causes them a loss of profit, then there is no argument.
The issue is not them puting out quotes, but making copies to start with (and a s comercial company to start with).
>Pirated keys were blacklisted on Battle.net.
You are using false logic. Just because some pirated keys are, it does not mean ALL are. It does further not mean that pirtaed games equals blacklisted ones. In addition, non pirtaed games can for example also be pirated. There are tons of people who have pirated games and have never ever connected to the next, and there are many who have pirated games that have connected, and played, including on battle.net.
Even so, what is your problem with this? That someone offers a service were someone else allready does? Do you say that since Blizzard offer an online service to match people up for games, no one else should be allowed to? And if they do, must they follow the same rules Blizzard do? If Ford offer a service to car owners, should I not be allowed to offer one myself? And if I do, must I have the same rules? That is just silly.
>You're missing a very critical bit of info: Blizzard blacklisted pirated
>keys. It's documented all over the place.
No, I am not missing it, they have blacklisted many keys, some "pirated", some not at all. There are many "pirated" keys used, including on battle.net still. So what is your point? The fact that Blizzard uses special keys to allow access to their service (the battle.net), what does that have to do with bnetd? Or anyone else offering services on the net? Since the games still work perfectly even without those battle.net checked keys" and can without modification connect and play on other servcies (or on their own), what does it have to do with what others offer? Do note that Blizzard has since changed their games, at least newer ones, not sure about older, so that they do not automatically work when conecting to other services, but at that time, Blizzard's games could freely and without modification connect to any other service and worked without the special keys blizzard used for battle.net.
Since you, by your own words, doesn't talk about what the law allows or not, I must assume that you simply is against competition. Since Blizzard offer a service, no one else should be allowed to offer a similar, unless they follow the exact same rules Blizzard do. If Blizzard blacklist a key from accessing their service, everyone else must also blacklist for some strange reason. Note that there is ALLREADY another check for a key built into the games on the players computers themselves, needed to run and install the game.
>Google aren't copying the books in order to put the entire book on the
,so I will start copying music, games and such. In addition, I will create a small index so people can search it, for the purpos of science. Great! Since I make money on it all, it is probably even more "fair use".
>web,
Who has said that? They are copying books. Period. If they had then put them on the net, that would have been ANOTHER type of copyright infringement.
>from what I understand they will let you search for text in the book and
>will then display the relevant excerpt of text from that book.
What you can and can't do is not the issue. It is them copying books.
>Fair use of copyrighted works seems to protect Googles right to do this
>since they are providing the text for the purposes of, amongst other
>things, research.
Cool
>For example it would be easy to find quotes from particular books using
>this service and place them into a slightly wider context.
How does that make it any more allowed to copy things?
>I don't think fair use has anything to do with whether you are doing it
>for commercial purposes or not
From the "fair use" paraprahp of US copyright law:
"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; "
Other things to consider:
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "
Actually, those ar all the 4 things to consider.
>since newspapers, magazines and books all make use of these fair use
>provision to quote other copyrighted works.
Quoting has the difference in that it is a small snipet and not the entire work, in case they quote a copyrighted work. That is handled under (3) for example. Google is copying entier books appearantly.
>By the looks of it Google has a good claim to be making copies for the purposes of either news or
>reporting purposes.
Huh? Apart from having no idea how copying books can be either news or reporting, could you clarify really WHAT part of your supposed copyright law that you feel makes it allowed to creat copies since you claim some paragraphs makes that ok, specifically one that talks about copying for "news and reporting"? What you should look at is the one dealing with "fair use", however, google has big problems there since it is of comercial nature.
>So if I buy a CD of music, is it fair use for me to make copies of the songs on that CD for my use? If
>so, why is it not fair use to make copies of the contents of a book for my use?
Fair use (in US) is covered in 107. Certain criterias are needed to be fullfilled. here, I shall copy it for you:
1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
For one, we might conclude that you, making copy of the CD you bought or a book you bought, is not, typically, of a comercial nature. Google's copying clearly is. So there we have a huge difference rioght away.
>You have to read the whole thing, pal. You showed section 106. When it says "Subject to sections 107
>through 122..." that means you need to read those sections to see what limits are placed on the
>provisions of section 106.
And what part of those sections says "disregard the copying, it is allways allowed anyway if you like to do it"? What of those sections do you fullfill? Or more importantly, what of those does Google fullfill? None!
Your statement was a blanket "you are always allowed to make copies", which is wrong, you are not except in some specific defined occations.
>How is it different from me ripping a cd that I own and putting it on my ipod?
That might be fair use, for one, you are not doing it for comercial use but for your private use. Google as a company is hardly doing it for "private use", now are they?
> How is it different from calling a reference librarian and asking them to read you a bit of the text
>to determine whether to have the book loaned to your library?
No copy is being made in that case, now is it?
>As long as the size of the excerpt is small and they don't charge for the service, I don't see what the
>problem is.
The problem is them copying the entire book in the first place!!!
>If you do not upload (i.e. you leach), or do not know that it is
>occurring (you run Windows, and somebody put a virus in your system that
>uploads), then you are not liable.
In many, if not most, countries you are commiting copyright infringment when you download as well and is thus liable. The reason you don't see much, if any cases about that is that it is next to impossible to find and/or catch people doing so since only the one you download from would know you are downloading. For uploading it is much easier to find/catch.
>So far as I am aware you are allowed to make copies of copyrighted works
s c_sec_17_00000106----000-.html
>if you like.
Then you are aware wrong. I will will show text from the US copyright law for you, other countries have similar text:
"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; "
Nowere does it say that it is allowed as long as you don't distribute the copies. Actually, distribution would be ANOTHER, different copyright infringement, not tied to the one above, lets quote further from the same section:
"(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; "
In case you want to read it yourself, here is a link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
>A used book stores pays the owner of a book a .25, places it on its shelf
>and then sells it for $2.00.
>A coffe shop owner sees the book, buys it, and leaves it hanging around
>their shop for customers to read.
>These 2 examples are no different.
In neither of these cases are there copies made. Google is making copies!!! If you fail to see that difference you really amazes me. It is the creation of those copies that are the copyright infringement.
>Copying (without republishing) is fine.
Cool, you have just made a discovery that no one else has ever done. I will start copying like crazy (as long as I don't redistribute those copies I am according to you not infringing on copyright).
Now, the question is, what does the part in most copyright laws that says COPYING is an exclusive right to the copyright holder in most cases mean?
>I seriously don't understand what all the fuss is about. All that is
>happening is the creation of an index, a list of words associated with
>pointers to the words put into context.
No, there is a copy (or more) of the book created when they scan the books.
>It is not like you can realistically download the entire book,
The making available copies of the work would ALSO be a copyright infringment, but in most countries of the world, the creation of copies to start with would be infringement, especially if done for comercial purposes, irellevant of if you make it available or not.
>However, if google lives up to the claim they will only provide snippets,
>how is that different than what any web site, quoting an author does.
As far as I see it, the problem is not what they make available or not. The problmewould be that they are copying books to start with. Most copyright laws does not allow it. I can't go arround and copy every book, music or movie I want and then just claim that since I don't make it available to anyone, it is OK. It is still copyright infringement. Making it available would be ANOTHER copyright infringement by the way.
>I'm unclear as to why he doesn't have problem with book reviews (which
>often display portions of a book) or student's book reports.
Because they don't have to make copies of the books in order to create reports or reviews? Google is making copies of the books (by scanning them), which is typically a copyright infringement while reviewers and such does not do that.
>Either what Google is doing is allowed by copyright law, or it's not.
You mean copying (by scanning in this case appearantly) every book (or at least a ton of them) is allowed by copyright law? And by a comercial company to start with? By that, I would assume the same copyright law would definately also allow private persons to make copy of all and any book they want. As far as I know, books aren't special, so I assume it would apply to music, film and other media types too.
Somehow I can't see were the doubt would be if copyright law allows this or not....
>I don't see any difference between what Google are doing here and what they
>do to index web sites.
What they do with books is that they are making copies (through scanning) which is in general not allowed by copyright laws. Why should Google, as a company that makes money, be allowed to make copies of tons of books when typically normal persons would not? Or are you claiming that it is perfectly OK to make copies of any book you want?
>You could play with a blacklisted key on battle.net?
Ehh, were have I said that? What part of my 11 word sentence implies that?
No, you can play with PIRATED games on battle.net (which was what you talked about). That is what you said. Pirated and blacklisted are two completely different things one does not imply the other. You can for example have a blacklisted key for a non pirated game as well.
Your argument was:
"They did, however, make it possible to play pirated games on-line."
Which is false since you can play pirtaed games online inlcuding on battle.net. Do you even remember what your own posts and arguments have been?
>They did, however, make it possible to play pirated games on-line.
>Indisputable. Sorry.
You could do that before as well, including on battle.net!!!
For every single patch, there is a heading stating that the EULA and ToS has changed and that you should review and agree to it again, yet the dates of one of the documents is still from 2004 and the other from summer 2005 (there has been several patches since then).
>Blizzard took action against bnetd once it began to be used for
>Warcraft III --
As far as I can recall, bnetd did never support WC3. It supported Diablo, Diablo 2 (open game play, it did not host games) and Star Craft. Since the source code of bnetd was made available, there was others (can't recall the name) that added support for WC3 beta, the game had not yet been released. That was the time that Blizzard took action.
>The lagginess of the servers doesn't affect the speed of the
>actual games, because it isn't involved in the actual games.
Bnetd did never host games (Diablo 2 being the only game then that was actually hosted by battle.net). SO not sure what point you are trying to make here.
>As I quite clearly stated, I was talking about not feeling sorry for them.
Then you should have writte so instead of continously thoughtout every post (including the first one) arguing about circumvention of copy protection when there is no such thing.
>For all practical purposes, it most certainly does prevent on-line play. Newer releases of Star Craft,
>for example, rejected black-listed keys during install. Copy protection.
No, access protection. You can still create as many copies as you want. In addition, this seems to imply that you cna't install the game if you are not online or it would not work. However, this has nothing to do with bnetd, since bnetd would not in any way make it possible to install that game anyway. That cd-key check is built into the client/installer and exists regardless of bnetd.
>Blacklist. No battle.net. Worthless.
The game itself (the one you have on your computer) still work fully. You can still play both single and multiplayer on it. It is not affected.
>That's why BNetD was created in the first place.
Yes, but bnetd doesn't make it possible to connect to battle.net, now do it? It doesn't affect your client at all really. It is an alternative. Alternatives are not "circumvention". I don't circumvent anything if I go out and use something else instead.
>Just to be clear: I'm not talking about the DMCA here.
Then you are completely lost because it is the DMCA that deals with protection and the circumvention of it.
> I'm not talking about copyrights, I'm talking about whether or not copy protection was circumvented.
Yes, that is what the DMCA is about. There is no other law regulating it. Have you read it? You seem to use "copy protection" without having a clue what you talk about. The law specifies quite clearly and detailed what is protected (the work which should be covered by copyright to start with, hence no on line mode applicable) and what type of actions can be protected, typically those actions that are copyright infringement, copying be the main here, PLUS access which is the new added thing in the DMCA that is not otherwise part of copyrigh. You talk about some general "copy protection" believing anything that has in any remote way any affect on the possibility to play pirated game as being covered and called "copy protection". That is not so. The protection must specificall control for example the actual act of copying or the actual act of accessing a copyrighted work. Really, you should go read up on the law. And if you believe there is some OTHER law regulating it, fine, why not tell which, because it would be a huge surprise to people to knwo about this mystery and unknown law.
> Illegally attained games could not connect to battle.net, but they could be connected to BNetD.
So? Legally attained games can too, both connect to battle net and to bnetd. What does that have to do with anything? The law doesn't forbid you to connect to various services based on the legalness of your game?
>My point was that BNetD wasn't guily of violating the DMCA.
yes it was, or rather, the creatoers was in violation of it. The main part of the case was about the EULA though. Your initial post to which I replied to stated:
"Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up circumventing Blizzard's copy protection scheme."
Circumvenmtion adn "copy protection" is dealt by the DMCA. So now you say it did NOT violate the DMCA?
>My point was those idiots bypassed a system Blizzard had in place to keep the copies played legit.
Yes, but the bnetd doesn't affect that either. There are no more "illegal" copies on battle.net due to bnetd? The purpose of bnetd had in fact nothing at all to do with illegal copies, it was to allow players of the game an alternative to battle.net.
>Playing on-line.
Playing online is not a "work". The DMCA covers protection that protects a work only, not a "mode" such as online play. Besides as I allready said, you can play online anyway since the protection only applies to battle.net. Did you not read what I wrote? Online play works perfectly in any case. The protection you talk about, your CD-keys ONLY controls ACCESS to battle.net, it does NOT conrol COPYING of the game and it does NOT control online play in general. This is evident since someone who has its cdkey blacklisted by battle.net, can copy the game, install the game, play the game single player and play the game multiplayer (online) without having to do anything. So indeed you can still play online as much as you want.
>The key appeal of their games was playing on-line. That was the reason to play the game.
Which is irrelevant really. We are talking about a supposed circumvenmtion of a protection.
>If you cannot play the copy on-line, then for most people, it's totally worthless. Again, this is a
>very simple easy-to-understand premise.
You are confusing "playing online" with "playing on battle.net". They are not the same. Playing on battle.net is only one of the many online possibilities and the only one the protection controls. Hence, any other type of online play does not circumvent that protection. I think I made that clear in my last post yet so seem to ignore it.
> Yes, the CD key was copy protection. You can spin it any way you want, the end result was that the
>game was harder to pirate as a result of Battle Net + CD Keys.
Battle net has nothing to do with copying, the game is just as easy to copy with or without battle net and its checks. It might be harder to ACCESS battle.net, but that has nothing to do with copying. How hard is it to understand?
>They.... enabled.... piraaaaaaaaaacy.
Enabling piracy is in itself not something the DMCA covers, it covers such things as circumventing a copy protection or an access protection. You may wish it said something else, but it doesn't. in addition, bnetd does not enable piracy sine any piracy (I assume you mean the copying of the game ilegally) is made with or without bnetd, bnetd does not help you copy it at all. You seem to have no clue what bnetd is. It is a server program with which anyone can offer a service similar to battle.net. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with the client, its copying or anything realted.
>Right. A worthless copy was made. That's successful copy protection.
How is it worthless? It is completely and fully functional and working in all possible ways!!! You could in fact even play with it on battle.net (although not at the same time as anyone else using the same CD-key). But the same can be said with the original in fact. So I fail to see your "worthlessness".
>Heh. Nothing else? They blacklisted widely pirated keys. Doh. What's really amusing about this comment
>is the idea that Blizzard would say "OKay, make sure this system ONLY and I mean ONLY prevents
>duplicate keys from being accessed at the same time. Do NOT enforce copy protection in any way with it.
>" Oh, by the way, they actually did blacklist a number of pirated keys. Your claim of 'nothing else' is
>factually false.
So what is this "else" you talk about then? Because the only thing the check of cd-keys on battle.net do is control if you are allowed to connect to it or not. You seem to have some strange idea that it can remotly disable the game, or that a blacklist of the sd-key on battle.net sudenly makes my copying program not work with Diablo 2 (or any other of the games Blizzard have). I can tell you it has no such effect though. So what is this "else" you talk about?
>It'd help if you could make this statement without intentionally ignoring the on-line importance of
>Blizzard's games.
The improtance of the online is irellevant. The relevant things is what the protection protects, and if i
>Oh brother. Is it really so fashionable to hate Blizzard around here that people are willing to throw
>common sense out the window to try to win on pedantic terms?
Who said I hate Blizzard? I don't, I have and still play several of their games.
>It was copy protection. Plain and simple. Inarguable.
Copy protection has to protect a work (that has copyright). For there to be a circumvention, you need to either access or copy that work (otherwise you have obviously not circumvente4d any protection). So the question I posed is relevant and you fail to answer it. A copy protection of WHAT is it that bnetd circumvent? That is, what work (that is protected) would you not be able to access or copy and so , in case you had not had bnetd? Since otherwsie you can't argue that bnetd is corcumveting any protection, now can you?
>Online play is the main attraction of their games. They provided the service for playing online.
So, who is arguing that?
> They blacklisted pirated keys.
So fine? They can do whatever they want with their service (battle.net). What does that have to do with bnetd? If you use bnetd, you are not using battle.net, you are not connecting to it and is not doing anything with battle.net.
> This prevented illegal copies from being played online (before BNetD).
No, it prevents them from playing on battle.net. You can still play them, single player or through other means which is appearant since there is no need to do ANYTHING with such copies to be able to play. The blacklisting (which is hardly a copy protection) is an access protection for battle.net. Nothing else. For it to be circumvented, you need to be able to access battle.net anyway. Bnetd doesn't allow you to do that, so it can't circumvent that protection. It is an ALTERNATIVE to battle.net, nothing else.
>This is copy protection.
No, it is acces protection of battle.net. You can copy the game just as easy if the cd-key is blacklisted or not.
> It protected the game from illegal copies being used on-line.
See above, it prevents such copies from playing on battle.net. Otherwise they are fully usable and playable in every aspect, including multi player over the net. The blacklisting doesn't affect the client, it just makes the battle.net not accepting connection. The client is fully working anyway.
> How many ways does this have to be phrased for the thicker people to get this extraordinarily simple
>concept?
No one is arguing about you about that. It prevents battle.net play. End of story, what does that have to do with bnetd? Nothing.
> If I copied the game, gave it to a friend, and he used my code, and we used it at the same time, one >of us would get booted. Copy.... protection... D U H.
If it were copy protection, you would not be able to copy it to start with. DUH! Since you maned it is not copy protection. DUH! How hard is THAT to understand? Since you both can't connect to battle.net, it is acces protection for BATTLE.NET (nothing else). DUH! How many ways does this have to be phrased for you to get this extraordinarily simple concept?
>How much lower are you going to sink in order to paint Blizzard as the bad guy here?
In what way am I painting the as a bad guy?