>So far, NCSoft NA has been relatively sane with >the well regulated private servers out there - >versus the rabid Blizzard.
Are you saying that NCSfot does not have you waife fair use rights thorugh a EULA/ToS? Are you saying NCSoft does not forbid reverse engineering through their EULA/ToS? Are you saying that NCSoft does not use any sort of "cd-key" or similar, that is checked on their servers to "protect" their server mode?
If so, fine, otherwise, they are really just as bad.
>You don't own the music, you own the disk. >That has been the law in the U.S. since the >piano roll days of Irving Berlin, Victor Herbert >and John Philip Sousa. The Birth of ASCAP 1914
You have missunderstood the law then. Or alternatively you are mixing up two different ownerships, to own the copyright ot a work and to own copies of a work. They are different and have nothing to do with each other and one does not imply the other. Check the US copyright law for example, 202:
So saying "you don't own the music" really means little, one can own the copyright to some music and one can own copies of the music. Two different things. So, while I don't own the copyright, I can still own copies of the music. When you buy a CD, you own a copy of the music (the CD) but still don't own any copyright to it. The CD *is* the copy of the music. It is a material copy of it. Check 101 for definitions of a copy (in US copyrigth law):
So saying that "you dont own the music" is really wrong, you do, a copy of it.
>You want a license for broadcast, public >performance, re-distribution, you negotiate it >separately.
Partly correct. As noted in for example 202, transfewr of ownership to a copy, does not mean there is any transfer of copyright, hence by owning a copy, you don't get any of the exclusivr rights of the copyright holder. So indeed, you can't broadcast or make a public performance. However, you can resdistribute THAT specific copy of yours (you can't make new ones and distribute them though). The right to distribute is actually a right that is tied to individual copies and after the first distribution it is lost (for that particular copy), for example seen in:
>If by "no other rights", you really meant "three >other rights", then you are entirely correct!
Yes, the ones about about various forms of public performance. The point he made still stands, there is no general right to control anything else and normal use is among the things that won't violate any of the listed rights, hance can't be controlled (at least not through copyright).
There is a big difference between those. In my opinion, one of the main problems the DMCA created was that it in part added an extra "right" that really had nothing to do with copyright otherwsie. The circumvention part of it, deals with protection that controls *access*. Access is not something the copyright holder has an exclusive right to and thus can control. However, protection that controll access can now not be circumvented. It is still not an infringment to access the work, but you are not allowed to circumvent the access protection. This in contrast to protection versus copying (a copyright right), were even the act it is protecting is infringement.
Now, the EUCD does not have this added "right". It only deals with protection (and circumvention of it) that has to do with the copyright holders right. Hence, protection for access is not included. Sure, some countries in Europe has gone further than the directive and also included similar access related laws, while others have not.
>Except that the copyright holder has the right >to decide in what form something will be >distributed and under what terms you can use it.
Again, it has nothing to do with copyright. Anyone selling something, be it a copyright holder or not, has the same such "right". Copyright in itself grants no such thing.
As for the terms, that is typically regulated through (consumer) sale laws as to what is acceptible and not. It applies equakky to products with copyright and those not.
>If they decide to distribute it on a CD that is >specially crafted to self-destruct after one >use, they are fully within their right to do so.
And what does that have to do with copyright? Someone selling a toaster can do the same. Same with your other examples.
>Many people in this thread have already >commented on how this is a perfectly valid use >of DRM. I completely agree with that. I actually >think that _any_ instance where the copyright >holder puts DRM on something is perfectly valid; >after all, they _are_ the copyright holder. So >far so good.
However, most of the DRM part has NOTHING to do with copyright. Restricting how long you can view or read something has nothing to do with copyright. The copyright holder has no exclusive right for that. The copyright holder can control a few things such as copying and public performance due to being exclusive to them, nothing else. DRM however, add completely new control over things that has nothing to do with copyright.
>There is no point in continuing the debate. You >ignore my points and keep repeating that 'EULAs >are valid if you agree to them' whereas I have >shown that the rest of the world thinks >otherwise:
You mean, they apply even if you do NOT agree to them? What is the point in having someone actually agree then if they apply no matter what?
Lets see:
* To whom do they apply to since they apply even if I don't agree, hence they would apply to...everyone in the world?
* Can I then make everyone to agree to stuff I write by calling it an "eula"?
* What body of law regulate a EULA to start with since the copyright is clearly not it and you even claim it is something else since saoftware is "different" and you claim it is not a contract, hence contract law does not apply? What is this mystery law (apart from your idea that it is something that will come in the future).
* What is valid to put into it (and what controls that)?
* What IS it if it is not a contract? (and to "license somthing, it must be something forbiden to start with, see next question)
* What forbids someone from using a program without agreeing to a EULA (it must be some sort of law after all, and you fail to show were).
None of the above have you managed to answer.
What I tell you is quite simply:
Nowere in the copyright law does it state that normal use and running of software is a right of the copyright holder, hence it is not infringement and does not need a copyright holders permision (you seem to think otherwsie but have not managed to point out were). I have listed the things copyright law forbids you to do, it is not there.
If someone wants you to be bound by some contract or agreement, normal contract law specifies how that works and apply. This includes that you have to accept and agree to the terms for them to be in effect. If you don't agree, it doesn't apply.
That is it. I am not violating any law by running some software I bought (no matter how you look at the ownership). There is no law requiering me to agree to a license before running it (show which if you think there is one). YOu have yet to mention any other law that applies, mentionng copyright law only to then claim software is different it doesn't apply.
Your argumentation seems to be that the EULA applies because it says so. I can write such a paper too, it doesn't make it true.
>You're wrong: > >1. where does it say that EULAs are valid on >agreement only?
The EULA is just a contract/agreement. They are only valid if you agree to them. Basic contract law.
Laws apply even if you do not agree to them. There is nothing in copyright law that requires you to agree to any license for normal use of software. Hence you don't need to agree to any EULA to use software, and they are not vlid if you don't agree to them.
>the law you showed me is about works of art.
Yes, it is called copyright. Software is included in that. Or are you claiming software has its own special laws apart from copyright? Please tell which then. You have yourself said the whole EULA is "based on copyright", no you claim it is not?
> Even if there is no law right now, it will be >in the future.
Perhaps. Since current copyright law covers software, there really is no need. If there is new laws in the future, lets discuss them then. At least don't argue on current situation based on some possible future law.
>If they do then it takes all of three seconds to >tell Google to leave your site.
Although it take slightly longer than 3 seconds for you to actually read the article, you would realise that is not about indexing their own site, but other sites containing their pictures.
>I hadn't argued that. I had argued that if there >is an EULA, then it must be obeyed.
No, the EULA must at most only be followed if you AGREE to it. If you do not agree to it, you don't have to follow it. YOu don't HAVE to agree to it, just because someone writes one and there is nothing in copyright law that says that if someone writes an EULA you have to follow it. Even more so, most of the things in the EULA (I would say almost everything) has nothing to do with copyright at all.
>Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally >gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right >to do and to authorize others to do the >following: > >Therefore the owner of the copyright defines the >way of usage of his/her work.
Huh? Why don't you read those things listed as "the following". "Usage" in general is not there. Only a few selected things are listed, of which normal useage do none of those, hence can't be controlled b y the copyright holder, at least not due to the copyright law.
>Besides, even if they did, how is downloading a >copyrighted file any different from picking up a >copyrighted book lying in the street?
The difference is in the creation of a new copy. The one "uploading" is infringing in that he is making the work available for the public, the "downloader" in that he is the one making a new copy. One or both of these activities can be infringment of copyright depending on country. Typically, the uploading is infringement in more countries, while downloading can be ok since many countries allows for making copies for private or personal use. Some countries (well, at least Sweden) have added restrictions recently that when making a copy for private use, the original from which it is made, have to be lawfull. Since the original offered for download on the net usually is not offered with authorization from the copyright holder, they are not considered lawfull and one can't use the "I make a copy fopr private use".
So yes, there is a difference a copy is created in one of the cases, while not in the other.
>The installer does not have an EULA! (it was so >simple, why should I have to say it?)
You have constantly argued that there is a NEED to agree to an EULA to use software. NOw you are turning arround claiming it is NOT needed?
>The copyright law does not forbid modification. >The copyright law forbids unauthorized use...the >EULA specifies the authorization and permissions.
No, show me were in the copyright law were it forbids "unauthorized use"? There is no such place. It forbids a few specifically mentioned type of actions ONLY. Nothing else. I have told you that multiple times, provided you with links to copyright law and asked for any support from you by pointing to were in the copyright law you find what you claim. here, another link that details what copyright law controls:
That is it. There is no general "authorization requirement" for anyting the copyright holder feels like.
And actually, the copyright law in part forbids modifications since that would in many times require you to also include the existing program. Alternatively there are restrictions due to derived works. All of which is covered in the copyright law.
>Aha...this is where we disagree. The reason is >the EULA, and not the copyright law. The >copyright law gives an author the right to >pinpoint the specific usage of its work through >a licence.
Not true. Show it or stop tossing out such lies!
>You see, the EULA is not an agreement between >the vendor and the person that uses the program, >it is an agreement between the vendor and the >society...and that includes everyone.
Agreement with the "society"? Get real. You probably need to read up on contract law as well.
>We are going in circles here. You can use a >piece of software if you agree with the EULA. If >you don't, you can't use it. It's simple and >crystal clear. That's why installations do not >proceed if you don't agree with the EULA. >Whether or not a law supports the concept of >EULAs is irrelevant.
If the law does not support the concept it is for SURE not OK. There are many way sthat you can install programs without using the installer or not having to agree (and you still have not answered how you run the installer to start with, since at that point, you do not have your "license" to run it). In my case, I have, own and use several programs that someone else than me have installed. In addition, forced contracts, in this case forcing you to agree to run yor program, is generally not accetable contracts and void.
>It goes without saying that, if you don't want >to to modify a piece of software, then the EULA >is irrelevant...but if you want to modify it, >and the EULA says you can't?
The EULA is not about modifying software. The copyright law ALLREADY forbids it! The only relevant case is when there is some license that ALLOWS modifications, that is when you need such a license, since copyright forbids in general since it will in most cases en up being infringement of some sort. So there is no need for a EULA to "forbid" it since it is allready forbidden. I am not so sure why you have focused so much in the modification and the EULA.
>Copyright does deal with ownership: MS Word, for >example, is ownership of Microsoft.
You are confusing two different "ownership" constantly. The ownership of the copyright of a work and the ownership of the individual copies of the work. They are not the same and one does not imply the other.
In your example, Microsoft owns the copyright, no one is arguing about that. People who buy MS Word ni a shop will own the individual copy and ownership of it is transfered. Change of ownership of an individual copy does not imply any changes of ownership of the copyright. This is even clearly spelled out in the copyright law which I gave you a link to in a previous post, check out Chapter 2, 202 with the title "Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object". Material object here is as defined as mentioned in my previous post and refers to the individual copy.
When I and many others claim we "own" the software we efer to the individual copy and owning it, not owning the copyright. People claiming "one can't own software" usually mix it up and think of the ownership of the copyright and things that means they also automatically owns the individual copies and that they are tied together. From your sentence above, I suspect you make the same error.
>but you can't modify MS Word as you see fit, >just because you bought it, unless the EULA says >so
BINGO! That is what I have said all the time. Modifications are usually a right that belongs to whoever ownes the copyright, not the individual copies. As stated in my other post, the reason is the copyright law, not the EULA. HOWEVER, most users of software do not intend to modify, hence they don't need a license from the copyright holder that allows for modification and hence they don't need any EULA and do not have to agree to it for they normal use.
>The EULA has a more important role than >copyright laws. Here is why: software is used >according to its EULA, not the copyright laws.
You are basing your arguing on a situation were an agreement HAS been done and in iaddition is valid, legal and enforcable. However, in a situation were there is NOT an agreement, for exmaple, if you do NOT agree to the EULA, it won't govern your use.
The copyright law always applies, regardless of if you agree to it or not and regardless to if you agree to any EULA or not.
So yes, you can use software without agreeing to any EULA since there is nothing forbidding you to do so.
>That is the reason there are so many licences: >each licence defines its own way of using the >software. That's the reason people don't like >the GPL licence and use the BSD or Apache >licence.
Those are licenses that regulate things you would normally not be allowed to do under copyright law. That is, they let you do something the copyright forbids. If you want to do that, you have to agree to them. If you have no need to do any of those things, you really don't have to agree to them (GPL and so on) either.
>To conclude, the EULA defines the actual ways to >use the software. The copyright laws simply >state that you can't use the software without >the permission of its owner. The EULA is that >permission.
That is the problem, you state and believe that the copyright law says you need permission to use the software. That is not correct. The copyright law does NOT say so. The only thing it forbids or regulate is situations of public performances and making the wokr available to the public. It also deals with distribution of the software, a right that is restrited and consumed after the first sale. In addition it doesn't allow you to create a new copies although there are exceptions, sometimes you can make copies without needing permission.
That is it. Anything else you do that does not violate any of those few (almost) exclusive rights of the copyright holder is legal and can be done with any sort of permision. Normal use of software does not have you do any infringing activities, hence you don't need to use any permision or license and why you don't need to agree to any EULA (that typically deals with completely other things than those prevented by copyright law).
>Agreed, but my original reply was about someone >saying that since they have bought the software, >they have the right to modify it...that's the >basis of my discussion.
Well, the person was wrong but not for the rason you state. That is, it has nothing to do with ownership but due to copyright which have little if anything to do with copyright. Copyright doesn't deal with ownership, the things you can do or not do due to copyright has basically nothing to do with if you own or do not own individual copies.
>You are wrong. If the buyer of the software does >not agree with the EULA, then there is no point >in buying the software.
Of course there is, to use the software, that is why you buy it to start with. Just because you have bought it, does not mean you have to agree to everything the software maker later present to you as contract offers.
>>In addition, it has nothing to do with the >>subject of discussing, ownership or use of >>software (or other things) without needing a >>license. > >It has: you claim you own the software and you >can use it in any way you like, even to modify >it and re-use it as you see fit, and I claim >that the EULA (which is based on copyright laws) >prohibits you for doing so.
Again, you are making things up or mixing me up with someone else's post. I have never said you can "even modify it and re-use it as you see fit". I have specifically stated that you can for the most part NOT do that, due to the copyright law. This is regardless of if you own it or not and regardless of the existence of any EULA or not.
Since the copyright law already specify you can't do the free modifications and reuse of the software you refer to, there is no need for any EULA for it, although you seem to believe the EULA is necessary, it is not.
>>Where have I said you can change the software? >>Typically you cant, not because of any EULA, >>but because of copyright laws. > >You said that you would like to modify any >software you own, if you don't find it >satisfactory...isn't that the basis for our >disagreement?
I believe you are confusing me or my posts with those of someone else's. I have not said one should be able to modify like that. Don't make things up. As is clearly seen in the quote of me you maid, I am saying you can usually NOT make such modifications. And that it is due to copyright laws, not due to any EULA. Don't make things up about what I am saying when the quote of me clearly says something else.
>>You don't need any permision from the copyright >>holder to use it, hence you don't need to agree >>to any such "permision" either. Please go back >and read up on copyright law. > >But EULAs explicitely say "you use the software >FOO under these terms:" etc...therefore EULAs >define the actual permissions.
The EULA is a proposal for a contract or agreement. Nothing else. What is stated in it would at most be valid only if agreed up on. If you have NOT agreed to it (either by not having even had it offered to you yet, or due to declining to accept it) what is said in it is of no relevance. You can't use the EULA itself as the reason why you must agree to it.
Since there is no law that forbids the use of the software to start with, there is no requirement to enter into an agreement that offer you that ability, since you already have it and got it the moment you got the software in the shop (or borrowed it from someone or had it given or sold to you by someone and so on). As long as you don't violate copyright laws or other applicable law, it is fine, even without a EULA.
>I have already explained to you that software is >different from other material goods...so there >is no need to stick to the existing laws for >proving my point.
So what law do you want to stick to??? Since the law make no such distinction or deal with software in any special way, there is no difference, no matter how much YOU feel it differ.
>>If you do NOT agree to something, it doesn't >>apply, then it is iirellevant what it says. > >You are again wrong. If you violate a law you >don't agree, you go to prison.
From the context, it is clear that by "something" I am referring to contracts and such, not the law. I even specifically have written that. Again, READ what I write and don't make things up. IN the
>Of course: you own the CDs. You don't actually >own the software on the CDs: the sale is done >under the EULA.
Sorry, the sale has little to do with the EULA. It is for example not even done with the same entity, one is with the shop, the other with the manufacturer. The sale is regulated thgorugh sale laws and is finnished the moment you leave the shop (or cashier or whatever). Claiming you don't own the software then simply doesn't work any more than claiming I don't own the wheels on my car. So yes, I do indeed own the software (the copy that is on the CD).
>Nope. You can't, for example, change msword.exe >with an assembler. If you do so, you are in >violation of the EULA
Where have I said you can change the software? Typically you cant, not because of any EULA, but because of copyright laws.
>>A copy of a work is a material object together >>with its content. > >Nope, it is not.
Feel free to check the US copyright law (for example), it is clearly shown under definitions, here, I will give you a link:
>The work inside, and the copy >you get, is used under permission from the IP >owner.
You don't need any permision from the copyright holder to use it, hence you don't need to agree to any such "permision" either. Please go back and read up on copyright law.
>There is no such thing as a 'normal sales law'. >Laws are made to fit certain domains. Software, >due to its nature, has its own laws.
Would you care to poitn to that special "software law"? For your information, sales law (I think that is the english terminology, sorry if not, I am not a native english speaker) regulate ALL sales, including that of software. In the US I believe this is the law:
Sales would be article 2. It applies when you enter a shop to buy software too you know, there is no special law for software sales. If you feel you know of one (which you appearantly do), feel free to point towards it and were it is find.
>It seems like you have never actually read any >part of any EULA, have you? if you don't agree, >you can't use the software...that's why there is >a 'cancel' button in the EULA installation >window.
I have actually read them. What makes you think you can't use software if you don't agree to it? DOn't answer "because it says so in the EULA", since you don't agree to it, it doesnn't apply, so you can disregard it. There is no law either that specifies you must agree to some sort of license to use software, at least no copyright law. Perhaps you live in some country with strange laws, what do I know. Please point to them then, would be interesting reading.
By the way, how do YOU do when you run the installation program for your Windows copy? You claim you are not allowed to run software with out having a license, but you don't have that when you start the installation program as far as I know. Just out of curiosity.
>The MS EULA allows gifts.
So you claim I must FIRST agree to the EULA, before I can give away something I bought? Shees, you do have strange views. I can give away basically anything I own should I want to. Even if EULA's WOULD apply, at the time I give software away, I have typically not installed or agreed to any such when giving it away though.
>It does not allow modifying its software.
Neither do copyrigtht law for the most time. YOu don't need an EULA to forbid that since you need a lincense to actually make such changes. That is a case when you in fact WOULD need a licemse. People buying software thend to have no need to alter the s
>Nope, you only own the CD, not the actual >software on it, nor the binaries printed on the >disk. Read the EULAs, please.
The EULA can't reverse the sale I have done with the shop. A sale is a sale. For you interest, the CD *is* the software on it too. A copy of a work is amaterial object together with its content. You can't make the distinction between them as you want to do. Normal sales law dictate that a sale is a change of ownership, that is what happens in a shop. Besides, what happens if I don't decide to agree to the EULA? Or perhaps I won't even use the program myself. Perhaps it is a gift. You can't use the EULA as a basis for situations were it has not even been agreed to.
>An EULA means 'end user license agreement'. In >other words, the owner of the program (e.g. >Microsoft) gives you a licence to run one copy >of their software. You don't have the right to >copy it, let alone change it.
Microsoft is only the initial owner, it is then sold. I am then the owner. I don't need any license or permision to run it any more than I need a license to use the toaster I just bought.
FOr the sake of argument, since your argumentation is that the EULA is the one that claim I don't own the program (see your first sentence), then, if someone don't agree to it, we can disregard what it say since the agreement has not been entered. What then?
>You don't have the right to >copy it, let alone change it.
Who has talked about making new copies?
>Nope, you only own the CD and the licence. You >don't own the actual software.
THe CD is the copy of the software. Try to understand that. You buy it in a shop, slae laws regulate that. By your reasoning, you would perhaps not even own the CD. Or perhaps I don't own the toaster eithr, I might just license it if I find a paper in it claiming so, is that your point of view?
>What you can do with a piece of software is >strictly defined in its licence.
Says what law? You can set up conditions together with a sale. Such conditions or contracts are generally regulated thorugh consumer sales laws (if we stick with consumer situations). They restrict fairly well what can and can not be done. There has NEVER been any such additional contract when I have bought software. There is no law I need a license to use software, hence, at most, it applies if you make some agreement prior to aquiring your software.
>There is a great difference between buying a >house and buying a piece of software.
For the most part, no.
>When you buy a house, you actually buy the >physical representation of it.
When you buy software, you do the same, that is the typically in form of a CD.
>When you buy software, you are given a licence >to run it
Why would you need to get such a license? Nothing prevents you from doing so to start with.
>you don't actually own the software.
Yes, you own a copy of it. I think you are confusing holding (or owning) the copyright of a work and owning copies of a work. It is two different, unrelated thing and one does not imply the other. You buy copies of the software, and own copies of the software, while you do not buy the copyright nor own the copyright to the work. You need licenses to do things that only the copyright owner can do (check your applicable copyright law of your country for details, it is typially similary all over the world). You don't need a license to do any other thing.
>Obviously in some countries (like, supposedly, >the US), free speech laws might come into play >so you can't really restrict the design of the >game too much, but you can restrict the actions >of users against other users.
Of course you can have a game with as much restriction as you want. "Free speech" is about the goverment not allowed to restrict you, it doesn't mean everyone else has to support and provide means for you to speak, you are free to make whatever own game you want if you feel to speak through a game, don't demand of others to do it for you since they don't have to.
>Um, yes it does. If you're in possession of the >music, then by law you have to pay for it.
What law is that? What law says you must pay for anything in your possession? There are many ways to come by things without paying for it nad not being illegal. As far as copyright goes, paying has nothing to do with it.
>You have deprived the copyright holder of the >payment.
And that has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
>Oddly, since you click on "I Agree", you're >actually indicating your agreement with the EULA >contents. Have fun defending against it.
What part of my post did you not understand? If there is some law that says certain conditions can't be changed through a contract, then it doesn't matter what you agree to. This is often the case in many consumer related issues such as as sales of goods and services in many countries that set certain minimum conditions that apply and that can't be changed to the worse for the consumer through contract. In addition, many countries, for example in EU have laws against "unfair" terms in consumer contracts. The law and court cases works out what is and is not unfair. In such cases, again, it doesn't mater of you agree to something or not, since the law says such terms are not valid.
Slashdot Mirror
>So far, NCSoft NA has been relatively sane with
>the well regulated private servers out there -
>versus the rabid Blizzard.
Are you saying that NCSfot does not have you waife fair use rights thorugh a EULA/ToS? Are you saying NCSoft does not forbid reverse engineering through their EULA/ToS? Are you saying that NCSoft does not use any sort of "cd-key" or similar, that is checked on their servers to "protect" their server mode?
If so, fine, otherwise, they are really just as bad.
Because it might have, or in the future get, new features you might like?
>You don't own the music, you own the disk.
s c_sec_17_00000202----000-.html
s c_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
s c_sec_17_00000109----000-.html
>That has been the law in the U.S. since the
>piano roll days of Irving Berlin, Victor Herbert
>and John Philip Sousa. The Birth of ASCAP 1914
You have missunderstood the law then. Or alternatively you are mixing up two different ownerships, to own the copyright ot a work and to own copies of a work. They are different and have nothing to do with each other and one does not imply the other. Check the US copyright law for example, 202:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
So saying "you don't own the music" really means little, one can own the copyright to some music and one can own copies of the music. Two different things. So, while I don't own the copyright, I can still own copies of the music. When you buy a CD, you own a copy of the music (the CD) but still don't own any copyright to it. The CD *is* the copy of the music. It is a material copy of it. Check 101 for definitions of a copy (in US copyrigth law):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
So saying that "you dont own the music" is really wrong, you do, a copy of it.
>You want a license for broadcast, public
>performance, re-distribution, you negotiate it
>separately.
Partly correct. As noted in for example 202, transfewr of ownership to a copy, does not mean there is any transfer of copyright, hence by owning a copy, you don't get any of the exclusivr rights of the copyright holder. So indeed, you can't broadcast or make a public performance. However, you can resdistribute THAT specific copy of yours (you can't make new ones and distribute them though). The right to distribute is actually a right that is tied to individual copies and after the first distribution it is lost (for that particular copy), for example seen in:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
So to redistribute a specific copy, no you don't need any permision.
>If by "no other rights", you really meant "three
>other rights", then you are entirely correct!
Yes, the ones about about various forms of public performance. The point he made still stands, there is no general right to control anything else and normal use is among the things that won't violate any of the listed rights, hance can't be controlled (at least not through copyright).
>the DMCA/EUCD is enough.
There is a big difference between those. In my opinion, one of the main problems the DMCA created was that it in part added an extra "right" that really had nothing to do with copyright otherwsie. The circumvention part of it, deals with protection that controls *access*. Access is not something the copyright holder has an exclusive right to and thus can control. However, protection that controll access can now not be circumvented. It is still not an infringment to access the work, but you are not allowed to circumvent the access protection. This in contrast to protection versus copying (a copyright right), were even the act it is protecting is infringement.
Now, the EUCD does not have this added "right". It only deals with protection (and circumvention of it) that has to do with the copyright holders right. Hence, protection for access is not included. Sure, some countries in Europe has gone further than the directive and also included similar access related laws, while others have not.
>Except that the copyright holder has the right
>to decide in what form something will be
>distributed and under what terms you can use it.
Again, it has nothing to do with copyright. Anyone selling something, be it a copyright holder or not, has the same such "right". Copyright in itself grants no such thing.
As for the terms, that is typically regulated through (consumer) sale laws as to what is acceptible and not. It applies equakky to products with copyright and those not.
>If they decide to distribute it on a CD that is
>specially crafted to self-destruct after one
>use, they are fully within their right to do so.
And what does that have to do with copyright? Someone selling a toaster can do the same. Same with your other examples.
You have to agree to the EULA to get that though, so it sort of invalidate the purpose...
>Many people in this thread have already
>commented on how this is a perfectly valid use
>of DRM. I completely agree with that. I actually
>think that _any_ instance where the copyright
>holder puts DRM on something is perfectly valid;
>after all, they _are_ the copyright holder. So
>far so good.
However, most of the DRM part has NOTHING to do with copyright. Restricting how long you can view or read something has nothing to do with copyright. The copyright holder has no exclusive right for that. The copyright holder can control a few things such as copying and public performance due to being exclusive to them, nothing else. DRM however, add completely new control over things that has nothing to do with copyright.
>There is no point in continuing the debate. You
>ignore my points and keep repeating that 'EULAs
>are valid if you agree to them' whereas I have
>shown that the rest of the world thinks
>otherwise:
You mean, they apply even if you do NOT agree to them? What is the point in having someone actually agree then if they apply no matter what?
Lets see:
* To whom do they apply to since they apply even if I don't agree, hence they would apply to...everyone in the world?
* Can I then make everyone to agree to stuff I write by calling it an "eula"?
* What body of law regulate a EULA to start with since the copyright is clearly not it and you even claim it is something else since saoftware is "different" and you claim it is not a contract, hence contract law does not apply? What is this mystery law (apart from your idea that it is something that will come in the future).
* What is valid to put into it (and what controls that)?
* What IS it if it is not a contract? (and to "license somthing, it must be something forbiden to start with, see next question)
* What forbids someone from using a program without agreeing to a EULA (it must be some sort of law after all, and you fail to show were).
None of the above have you managed to answer.
What I tell you is quite simply:
Nowere in the copyright law does it state that normal use and running of software is a right of the copyright holder, hence it is not infringement and does not need a copyright holders permision (you seem to think otherwsie but have not managed to point out were). I have listed the things copyright law forbids you to do, it is not there.
If someone wants you to be bound by some contract or agreement, normal contract law specifies how that works and apply. This includes that you have to accept and agree to the terms for them to be in effect. If you don't agree, it doesn't apply.
That is it. I am not violating any law by running some software I bought (no matter how you look at the ownership). There is no law requiering me to agree to a license before running it (show which if you think there is one). YOu have yet to mention any other law that applies, mentionng copyright law only to then claim software is different it doesn't apply.
Your argumentation seems to be that the EULA applies because it says so. I can write such a paper too, it doesn't make it true.
>You're wrong:
>
>1. where does it say that EULAs are valid on
>agreement only?
The EULA is just a contract/agreement. They are only valid if you agree to them. Basic contract law.
Laws apply even if you do not agree to them. There is nothing in copyright law that requires you to agree to any license for normal use of software. Hence you don't need to agree to any EULA to use software, and they are not vlid if you don't agree to them.
>the law you showed me is about works of art.
Yes, it is called copyright. Software is included in that. Or are you claiming software has its own special laws apart from copyright? Please tell which then. You have yourself said the whole EULA is "based on copyright", no you claim it is not?
> Even if there is no law right now, it will be
>in the future.
Perhaps. Since current copyright law covers software, there really is no need. If there is new laws in the future, lets discuss them then. At least don't argue on current situation based on some possible future law.
>As soon as the they stop linking to "we split
>the story into 30 ad-ridden pages" stories I'll
>start reading TFA.
So instead you continue to post completely erroneous posts? Great.
Besides, had you actually read it, it was just one page....
>If they do then it takes all of three seconds to
>tell Google to leave your site.
Although it take slightly longer than 3 seconds for you to actually read the article, you would realise that is not about indexing their own site, but other sites containing their pictures.
>I hadn't argued that. I had argued that if there
>is an EULA, then it must be obeyed.
No, the EULA must at most only be followed if you AGREE to it. If you do not agree to it, you don't have to follow it. YOu don't HAVE to agree to it, just because someone writes one and there is nothing in copyright law that says that if someone writes an EULA you have to follow it. Even more so, most of the things in the EULA (I would say almost everything) has nothing to do with copyright at all.
>Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally
>gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right
>to do and to authorize others to do the
>following:
>
>Therefore the owner of the copyright defines the
>way of usage of his/her work.
Huh? Why don't you read those things listed as "the following". "Usage" in general is not there. Only a few selected things are listed, of which normal useage do none of those, hence can't be controlled b y the copyright holder, at least not due to the copyright law.
>Besides, even if they did, how is downloading a
>copyrighted file any different from picking up a
>copyrighted book lying in the street?
The difference is in the creation of a new copy. The one "uploading" is infringing in that he is making the work available for the public, the "downloader" in that he is the one making a new copy. One or both of these activities can be infringment of copyright depending on country. Typically, the uploading is infringement in more countries, while downloading can be ok since many countries allows for making copies for private or personal use. Some countries (well, at least Sweden) have added restrictions recently that when making a copy for private use, the original from which it is made, have to be lawfull. Since the original offered for download on the net usually is not offered with authorization from the copyright holder, they are not considered lawfull and one can't use the "I make a copy fopr private use".
So yes, there is a difference a copy is created in one of the cases, while not in the other.
>The installer does not have an EULA! (it was so
>simple, why should I have to say it?)
You have constantly argued that there is a NEED to agree to an EULA to use software. NOw you are turning arround claiming it is NOT needed?
>The copyright law does not forbid modification.
>The copyright law forbids unauthorized use...the
>EULA specifies the authorization and permissions.
No, show me were in the copyright law were it forbids "unauthorized use"? There is no such place. It forbids a few specifically mentioned type of actions ONLY. Nothing else. I have told you that multiple times, provided you with links to copyright law and asked for any support from you by pointing to were in the copyright law you find what you claim. here, another link that details what copyright law controls:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci
That is it. There is no general "authorization requirement" for anyting the copyright holder feels like.
And actually, the copyright law in part forbids modifications since that would in many times require you to also include the existing program. Alternatively there are restrictions due to derived works. All of which is covered in the copyright law.
>Aha...this is where we disagree. The reason is
>the EULA, and not the copyright law. The
>copyright law gives an author the right to
>pinpoint the specific usage of its work through
>a licence.
Not true. Show it or stop tossing out such lies!
>You see, the EULA is not an agreement between
>the vendor and the person that uses the program,
>it is an agreement between the vendor and the
>society...and that includes everyone.
Agreement with the "society"? Get real. You probably need to read up on contract law as well.
>probably 99% of the MMORPG players play with a
>single account
Probably because there is usually no need for more than one account. However, that can change with things like this.
>We are going in circles here. You can use a
o de17/usc_sec_17_00000202----000-.html
>piece of software if you agree with the EULA. If
>you don't, you can't use it. It's simple and
>crystal clear. That's why installations do not
>proceed if you don't agree with the EULA.
>Whether or not a law supports the concept of
>EULAs is irrelevant.
If the law does not support the concept it is for SURE not OK. There are many way sthat you can install programs without using the installer or not having to agree (and you still have not answered how you run the installer to start with, since at that point, you do not have your "license" to run it). In my case, I have, own and use several programs that someone else than me have installed. In addition, forced contracts, in this case forcing you to agree to run yor program, is generally not accetable contracts and void.
>It goes without saying that, if you don't want
>to to modify a piece of software, then the EULA
>is irrelevant...but if you want to modify it,
>and the EULA says you can't?
The EULA is not about modifying software. The copyright law ALLREADY forbids it! The only relevant case is when there is some license that ALLOWS modifications, that is when you need such a license, since copyright forbids in general since it will in most cases en up being infringement of some sort. So there is no need for a EULA to "forbid" it since it is allready forbidden. I am not so sure why you have focused so much in the modification and the EULA.
>Copyright does deal with ownership: MS Word, for
>example, is ownership of Microsoft.
You are confusing two different "ownership" constantly. The ownership of the copyright of a work and the ownership of the individual copies of the work. They are not the same and one does not imply the other.
In your example, Microsoft owns the copyright, no one is arguing about that. People who buy MS Word ni a shop will own the individual copy and ownership of it is transfered. Change of ownership of an individual copy does not imply any changes of ownership of the copyright. This is even clearly spelled out in the copyright law which I gave you a link to in a previous post, check out Chapter 2, 202 with the title "Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object". Material object here is as defined as mentioned in my previous post and refers to the individual copy.
When I and many others claim we "own" the software we efer to the individual copy and owning it, not owning the copyright. People claiming "one can't own software" usually mix it up and think of the ownership of the copyright and things that means they also automatically owns the individual copies and that they are tied together. From your sentence above, I suspect you make the same error.
Direct link again: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc
>but you can't modify MS Word as you see fit,
>just because you bought it, unless the EULA says
>so
BINGO! That is what I have said all the time. Modifications are usually a right that belongs to whoever ownes the copyright, not the individual copies. As stated in my other post, the reason is the copyright law, not the EULA. HOWEVER, most users of software do not intend to modify, hence they don't need a license from the copyright holder that allows for modification and hence they don't need any EULA and do not have to agree to it for they normal use.
>The EULA has a more important role than
>copyright laws. Here is why: software is used
>according to its EULA, not the copyright laws.
You are basing your arguing on a situation were an agreement HAS been done and in iaddition is valid, legal and enforcable. However, in a situation were there is NOT an agreement, for exmaple, if you do NOT agree to the EULA, it won't govern your use.
The copyright law always applies, regardless of if you agree to it or not and regardless to if you agree to any EULA or not.
So yes, you can use software without agreeing to any EULA since there is nothing forbidding you to do so.
>That is the reason there are so many licences:
>each licence defines its own way of using the
>software. That's the reason people don't like
>the GPL licence and use the BSD or Apache
>licence.
Those are licenses that regulate things you would normally not be allowed to do under copyright law. That is, they let you do something the copyright forbids. If you want to do that, you have to agree to them. If you have no need to do any of those things, you really don't have to agree to them (GPL and so on) either.
>To conclude, the EULA defines the actual ways to
>use the software. The copyright laws simply
>state that you can't use the software without
>the permission of its owner. The EULA is that
>permission.
That is the problem, you state and believe that the copyright law says you need permission to use the software. That is not correct. The copyright law does NOT say so. The only thing it forbids or regulate is situations of public performances and making the wokr available to the public. It also deals with distribution of the software, a right that is restrited and consumed after the first sale. In addition it doesn't allow you to create a new copies although there are exceptions, sometimes you can make copies without needing permission.
That is it. Anything else you do that does not violate any of those few (almost) exclusive rights of the copyright holder is legal and can be done with any sort of permision. Normal use of software does not have you do any infringing activities, hence you don't need to use any permision or license and why you don't need to agree to any EULA (that typically deals with completely other things than those prevented by copyright law).
>Agreed, but my original reply was about someone
>saying that since they have bought the software,
>they have the right to modify it...that's the
>basis of my discussion.
Well, the person was wrong but not for the rason you state. That is, it has nothing to do with ownership but due to copyright which have little if anything to do with copyright. Copyright doesn't deal with ownership, the things you can do or not do due to copyright has basically nothing to do with if you own or do not own individual copies.
>You are wrong. If the buyer of the software does
>not agree with the EULA, then there is no point
>in buying the software.
Of course there is, to use the software, that is why you buy it to start with. Just because you have bought it, does not mean you have to agree to everything the software maker later present to you as contract offers.
>>In addition, it has nothing to do with the
>>subject of discussing, ownership or use of
>>software (or other things) without needing a
>>license.
>
>It has: you claim you own the software and you
>can use it in any way you like, even to modify
>it and re-use it as you see fit, and I claim
>that the EULA (which is based on copyright laws)
>prohibits you for doing so.
Again, you are making things up or mixing me up with someone else's post. I have never said you can "even modify it and re-use it as you see fit". I have specifically stated that you can for the most part NOT do that, due to the copyright law. This is regardless of if you own it or not and regardless of the existence of any EULA or not.
Since the copyright law already specify you can't do the free modifications and reuse of the software you refer to, there is no need for any EULA for it, although you seem to believe the EULA is necessary, it is not.
>>Where have I said you can change the software?
>>Typically you cant, not because of any EULA,
>>but because of copyright laws.
>
>You said that you would like to modify any
>software you own, if you don't find it
>satisfactory...isn't that the basis for our
>disagreement?
I believe you are confusing me or my posts with those of someone else's. I have not said one should be able to modify like that. Don't make things up. As is clearly seen in the quote of me you maid, I am saying you can usually NOT make such modifications. And that it is due to copyright laws, not due to any EULA. Don't make things up about what I am saying when the quote of me clearly says something else.
>>You don't need any permision from the copyright
>>holder to use it, hence you don't need to agree
>>to any such "permision" either. Please go back
>and read up on copyright law.
>
>But EULAs explicitely say "you use the software
>FOO under these terms:" etc...therefore EULAs
>define the actual permissions.
The EULA is a proposal for a contract or agreement. Nothing else. What is stated in it would at most be valid only if agreed up on. If you have NOT agreed to it (either by not having even had it offered to you yet, or due to declining to accept it) what is said in it is of no relevance. You can't use the EULA itself as the reason why you must agree to it.
Since there is no law that forbids the use of the software to start with, there is no requirement to enter into an agreement that offer you that ability, since you already have it and got it the moment you got the software in the shop (or borrowed it from someone or had it given or sold to you by someone and so on). As long as you don't violate copyright laws or other applicable law, it is fine, even without a EULA.
>I have already explained to you that software is
>different from other material goods...so there
>is no need to stick to the existing laws for
>proving my point.
So what law do you want to stick to??? Since the law make no such distinction or deal with software in any special way, there is no difference, no matter how much YOU feel it differ.
>>If you do NOT agree to something, it doesn't
>>apply, then it is iirellevant what it says.
>
>You are again wrong. If you violate a law you
>don't agree, you go to prison.
From the context, it is clear that by "something" I am referring to contracts and such, not the law. I even specifically have written that. Again, READ what I write and don't make things up. IN the
>Of course: you own the CDs. You don't actually
>own the software on the CDs: the sale is done
>under the EULA.
Sorry, the sale has little to do with the EULA. It is for example not even done with the same entity, one is with the shop, the other with the manufacturer. The sale is regulated thgorugh sale laws and is finnished the moment you leave the shop (or cashier or whatever). Claiming you don't own the software then simply doesn't work any more than claiming I don't own the wheels on my car. So yes, I do indeed own the software (the copy that is on the CD).
>Nope. You can't, for example, change msword.exe
>with an assembler. If you do so, you are in
>violation of the EULA
Where have I said you can change the software? Typically you cant, not because of any EULA, but because of copyright laws.
>>A copy of a work is a material object together
>>with its content.
>
>Nope, it is not.
Feel free to check the US copyright law (for example), it is clearly shown under definitions, here, I will give you a link:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco de17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
>The work inside, and the copy
>you get, is used under permission from the IP
>owner.
You don't need any permision from the copyright holder to use it, hence you don't need to agree to any such "permision" either. Please go back and read up on copyright law.
>There is no such thing as a 'normal sales law'.
>Laws are made to fit certain domains. Software,
>due to its nature, has its own laws.
Would you care to poitn to that special "software law"? For your information, sales law (I think that is the english terminology, sorry if not, I am not a native english speaker) regulate ALL sales, including that of software. In the US I believe this is the law:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.ht ml
Sales would be article 2. It applies when you enter a shop to buy software too you know, there is no special law for software sales. If you feel you know of one (which you appearantly do), feel free to point towards it and were it is find.
>It seems like you have never actually read any
>part of any EULA, have you? if you don't agree,
>you can't use the software...that's why there is
>a 'cancel' button in the EULA installation
>window.
I have actually read them. What makes you think you can't use software if you don't agree to it? DOn't answer "because it says so in the EULA", since you don't agree to it, it doesnn't apply, so you can disregard it. There is no law either that specifies you must agree to some sort of license to use software, at least no copyright law. Perhaps you live in some country with strange laws, what do I know. Please point to them then, would be interesting reading.
By the way, how do YOU do when you run the installation program for your Windows copy? You claim you are not allowed to run software with out having a license, but you don't have that when you start the installation program as far as I know. Just out of curiosity.
>The MS EULA allows gifts.
So you claim I must FIRST agree to the EULA, before I can give away something I bought? Shees, you do have strange views. I can give away basically anything I own should I want to. Even if EULA's WOULD apply, at the time I give software away, I have typically not installed or agreed to any such when giving it away though.
>It does not allow modifying its software.
Neither do copyrigtht law for the most time. YOu don't need an EULA to forbid that since you need a lincense to actually make such changes. That is a case when you in fact WOULD need a licemse. People buying software thend to have no need to alter the s
>Nope, you only own the CD, not the actual
>software on it, nor the binaries printed on the
>disk. Read the EULAs, please.
The EULA can't reverse the sale I have done with the shop. A sale is a sale. For you interest, the CD *is* the software on it too. A copy of a work is amaterial object together with its content. You can't make the distinction between them as you want to do. Normal sales law dictate that a sale is a change of ownership, that is what happens in a shop. Besides, what happens if I don't decide to agree to the EULA? Or perhaps I won't even use the program myself. Perhaps it is a gift. You can't use the EULA as a basis for situations were it has not even been agreed to.
>An EULA means 'end user license agreement'. In
>other words, the owner of the program (e.g.
>Microsoft) gives you a licence to run one copy
>of their software. You don't have the right to
>copy it, let alone change it.
Microsoft is only the initial owner, it is then sold. I am then the owner. I don't need any license or permision to run it any more than I need a license to use the toaster I just bought.
FOr the sake of argument, since your argumentation is that the EULA is the one that claim I don't own the program (see your first sentence), then, if someone don't agree to it, we can disregard what it say since the agreement has not been entered. What then?
>You don't have the right to
>copy it, let alone change it.
Who has talked about making new copies?
>Nope, you only own the CD and the licence. You
>don't own the actual software.
THe CD is the copy of the software. Try to understand that. You buy it in a shop, slae laws regulate that. By your reasoning, you would perhaps not even own the CD. Or perhaps I don't own the toaster eithr, I might just license it if I find a paper in it claiming so, is that your point of view?
>What you can do with a piece of software is
>strictly defined in its licence.
Says what law? You can set up conditions together with a sale. Such conditions or contracts are generally regulated thorugh consumer sales laws (if we stick with consumer situations). They restrict fairly well what can and can not be done. There has NEVER been any such additional contract when I have bought software. There is no law I need a license to use software, hence, at most, it applies if you make some agreement prior to aquiring your software.
>There is a great difference between buying a
>house and buying a piece of software.
For the most part, no.
>When you buy a house, you actually buy the
>physical representation of it.
When you buy software, you do the same, that is the typically in form of a CD.
>When you buy software, you are given a licence
>to run it
Why would you need to get such a license? Nothing prevents you from doing so to start with.
>you don't actually own the software.
Yes, you own a copy of it. I think you are confusing holding (or owning) the copyright of a work and owning copies of a work. It is two different, unrelated thing and one does not imply the other. You buy copies of the software, and own copies of the software, while you do not buy the copyright nor own the copyright to the work. You need licenses to do things that only the copyright owner can do (check your applicable copyright law of your country for details, it is typially similary all over the world). You don't need a license to do any other thing.
>Obviously in some countries (like, supposedly,
>the US), free speech laws might come into play
>so you can't really restrict the design of the
>game too much, but you can restrict the actions
>of users against other users.
Of course you can have a game with as much restriction as you want. "Free speech" is about the goverment not allowed to restrict you, it doesn't mean everyone else has to support and provide means for you to speak, you are free to make whatever own game you want if you feel to speak through a game, don't demand of others to do it for you since they don't have to.
>Um, yes it does. If you're in possession of the
>music, then by law you have to pay for it.
What law is that? What law says you must pay for anything in your possession? There are many ways to come by things without paying for it nad not being illegal. As far as copyright goes, paying has nothing to do with it.
>You have deprived the copyright holder of the
>payment.
And that has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
>Oddly, since you click on "I Agree", you're
>actually indicating your agreement with the EULA
>contents. Have fun defending against it.
What part of my post did you not understand? If there is some law that says certain conditions can't be changed through a contract, then it doesn't matter what you agree to. This is often the case in many consumer related issues such as as sales of goods and services in many countries that set certain minimum conditions that apply and that can't be changed to the worse for the consumer through contract. In addition, many countries, for example in EU have laws against "unfair" terms in consumer contracts. The law and court cases works out what is and is not unfair. In such cases, again, it doesn't mater of you agree to something or not, since the law says such terms are not valid.