>If they can change the EULA to accomodate the >Exchange, they can also change it to say they're >immune from lawsuits that could arise from it. >Keep in mind, you can't get to the Exchange >without agreeing to the EULA before even >entering to the game.
YOu can't just immunize yourself versus the law since very often (at least in consumer related issues in most countries) the law applies regardless of what you agree to.
>If one accepts that the wording of the EULA >protects the company that writes it, then re- >writing of the EULA to make sure it still >protects it is both trivial and necessary.
That assumes that whatever you write there is permited according to your countries law. Most countries have consumer sales laws that govern sales of goods, services and most such things, and typically you can't set those aside through contracts. Hence you can't cover yourself for everything, nor do whatever you want. DOn't like it? Don't sell!!
>diablo one wasn't a client/server model... hence >the character files were stored on the users >computers unencrypted.
Actually it was encrypted. Hence most cheats, dupes and such was done once the game was running and the character was loaded into memory (were it was not stored encrypted). MUCH easier.
Of course, just copying the save file also works although you need an additional character to move items to....
>tried opening a debugger and increasing the >amount of gold in a pile, discovered that it >worked in single player, tried in on whatever >demo server I was playing on, discovered (and >was rather appalled by the fact that it worked).
Diablo didn't have any servers for game play, it was always played out on your own machine.
>What do you do when two or more different >organisations share the trademark on the same >word?
It is not only an issue of the same word for different areas, but also between countries. Many trademarks are not global, but local to specific countries. If one want global domains not tied to countries, like.com that can also be a problem.
>Actually, copyright means it's up to the owner >how it's viewed, or even how it's linked to - >this ruling basically says that you have to get >permission from the copyright holder to link to >the content. Just because a site contains >illegal content shouldn't make linking to it >illegal as well.
Ehh, please tell were in copyright laws it says that how linking or viewing is done is an excluvsive right to the copyright holder? Copyright holders can only control the rights they have eclusivley (and even then there are exceptions).
As a bonus, do it for both Australian copyright law and for your own country's copyright law.
>this would mean that Google should not link to >anything ever written/published/etc. from there >and not return any links to stuff from any >country that has the same or similar clause.
Most sites out there are actually run and put up BY the copyright owner to it.
>The fully legal Etree torrent site is reportedly >moving Petabytes on a regular basis.
But do you have to pay for downloading that music? The article states that it is paid music downloads that they report about, it is the very first word of the article.
They would be wrong when they later claim the number of individual songs downloaded but I suppose one can assume it is also "paid" downloaded songs. Probably they DO miss some paid songs though.
>Google cache does not serve content that is not >already available online.
Which is irellevant from a copyright persecptive. Just because something is available (for free or whatever) does not make it allowed for you to do the same. Copyright work does not work that way and there are no such provisions.
>If content replication is such a big deal, they >should outlaw ISP and corporate use of caching >proxies to reduce border traffic from frequently >visited pages as well.
Such caching and other temporary "copies" are by most copyright laws not treated as actual copies and hence not infringement.
OK, lets not get stuck in terminology (especially since I am not a native english speaker). The archieving works great when you archieve individual physical copies and don't make additional copies to hand out when someone searches it.
The problem here is that copyright law does not allow you to make it allowed to make a work available to the public (especially in the way you do on a webpage). It is sort of irellevant if that is called archieve or not. I meant that the actuall act of saving it, indexing and whatever is not illegal, it is the part were you make it available for the public that is illegal.
>You responded to "This company dumped the pages >out on the public Internet, with no robots.txt. >Surely they know what that means.".
I was just restating the same type of argument changing the object of page on a website to a software program, both protected by copyright law, and with about the same protection.
> You are >referring to software made publicly available >for free on the Net, such as freeware and >shareware, right? As far as I know, it is legal >to copy, distribute, and archive this type of >software software.
What in the copyright law says that if you give it away for free, automatically also includes a license for making new copies and for (re)distribution???? Fell free to point out such a thing. The issue here is that making it available to the public is the illagl part, not to download or even archieve it.
>Are pages archives at archive.org pages that are >sold? Of course not. They are given away. Did >you think this through first? The "given away" >vs "sold" difference rips your analogy to shreds.
Of course I know the difference. From a copyright perspective it is totally irellevant HOW you give a copy of your work to anyone. Just because you does not charge money and sell it does not mean you lose any of the protections of it.
>Sorry. People here frequently make the "ok to >copy software" comment and they're not joking. >If you meant it to be funny, it should have been >more obviously absurd.
Since I made an almost identical text (content wise) as the one I replied to, I thought it was quite absurd to start with...
>The issue at hand is not whether it was >copyrighted, but at what point and to what >degree the viewing (or making available to other >to view) of a web page becomes "copying".
That is quite irellevant. At issue is when you take your copy and make it available to others, THAT is the illegal part of it.
As for when viewing a page is copying or not, well, that in part depends on the exact definition of copy in your countries copyright law. For example, looking at Swedish copyright law, which I know best being swedish, a simple copy in ram, or in caches along the way (and perhaps even in your own cach although that can be arguable) are not copies, since a copy to be relevant from a copyright perspectice has to be persistant (we are talking Swedish copyright law, and according to the current, newly updated one). A copy on your hard disc when you install software is a copy though. So listening to streamed music is not making a copy, saving a copy from a place and then listeing to it, is making a copy.
It can be argued that if someone makes a page (and content) availabel on the net, they also allow you to make a copy of it for you to view (and even keep), since that is typically required. However, that does not imply that you also get the right to make this copy available to the public by puting it out on the net yourself. THAT is the illegal part of it.
>The protocol itself requires copying which, if >copyright law is applied strictly and literally, >could technically be construed as infringement.
Not if the content was put there by the concent of the copyright holder since he would be aware that one need to make such a copy to view and/or access it.
>No, with a game you purchase a single copy. With >a web page you are essentially given permission >to copy from their server for free as many times >as you like.
Yes, I am well aware of that differece, but that was not my point, my point was about then making it available for the public to copy.
>If they were handing out free paper pamphlets >and let me have 1000 copies, could they claim >copyright infringement if I handed out those >1000 copies to people ten years later?
Of course not, but the right for redistribution, is typically tied to individual copies. The right to distribute is commonly in most countries a right the copyright holder loses after the first distribution. Although it can be a bit complicated in a case like we discuss, you would probably have to keep track and handle the individual copies and make sure you only hand out those (and none more, an't start making additional copies yourself). When you put something on the net, you are not giving away a copy you have, you are basically making the work available to the public for copying which is typically not allowed under copyright laws. That is the illegal part.
>Sure it does. Ever been to a library? Yeah, now >you'll trot out the "single instance" argument, >but remember that that only illustrates how your >analogy of a book is flawed.
No, libraries are in most countries treated by special cases in copyright laws and are given various exceptions which is why they are allowed what they do. Check the copyright law of your own country to see what special provisions there are for libraries.
>When one purchases a game, one purchases a >single copy. The nature of web pages is such >that relatively indiscriminant copying goes on >as a normal part of the process. Add to that the >fact that they were "giving away copies" to any >and all comers, and you have a very differe
Some people have a hard time understanding when people are joking and when they are not...
> A web page is not software,
It is still protected by copyright laws though, no difference.
> and IA isn't "copying".
They have made a copy for their archieve and they are making it available to the public. What is the difference to making a copy of a game I have available to the public? None! Is it legal? No.
> By making it available on the internet the >plaintiff essentially distributed a free copy of >the contents of their web site to every man, >woman, child, and bot who visited it.
No, they made they web page available to anyone who wanted to visit their webpage, just as I make, for example a book available to anyone in a shop. That does not give anyone visiting the site to in turn take a copy and make it available to the public.
> The question here is whether IA is allowed to >show anyone else the copy they received.
Exactly!!! Bingo! And just as it is not allowed to make a copy of a game I got available to the public, they are not allowed to make a copy of someone elses web page available to the public!
>being a big blizzard fan myself I was >disappointed with their W3 release as by the >time it came out the gameplay and graphics were >so outdated the game itself was not that >interesting. Whereas had it been released on >time with one or two bugs it would have been a >great game in its time.
Yes, the game was delayed so long that both gameplay and graphics got outdated, and the only thing they fixed in that time was "one or two bugs"....
Libraries, which typically are given special rights in copyright laws, are given the status as libraries (for copyright purposes) by the goverment, you can't just claim to be a library and then apply anything that applies to a library to yourself, no matter how much you have similarities with real libraries.
>I know that the argument is flawed (you try >writing something better as soon as you wake >up), but the point remains that there's a >fundamental difference between redistributing >and archiving.
But they DO redsitribute it, you can search their archieve and access it and its content. That is not archieving.
>First, you used an amazing number of words to >illustrate a fair use situation, since the single >copy of the book was lended. (I assume you didn't >steal it?)
Huh? Borrowing the book was one of the examples I mentioned, it could have been given to me. Actually, I could even have STOLEN (the real sence of stealing, from my friend for example). In no case would I either commit copyright infringement nor would fair use be an issue since that applies to situations that would normally be infringement, it is a defence for an action that is infringement but turns it non infringing.
>Second, it's common vernacular to say I was >"robbed" when your house was broken into, even >though, technically, you were probably >burgularized. The generic term covers the >concept, even though a more specific word exists.
Again, what is your point then? You are arguing for using a not so appropriate word why? Because you felt "infringement" doesn't sound severe enough? As I and others have shown, stealing is WAY of (not even close to your house example). You end up in so many wrong conclusions and erroneous similarities it is silly.
>So, as someone whose work is often "stolen",
You mean as in someone actually stealing in the sence I mentioned above? Like stealing a book you have written, or a painting? You must be making an awefully lot of them and not have many left if that is the case.
>and I refuse to play the flip side of the >propaganda game.
What propaganda? Calling it stealing is the propaganda. You want to call it something else because you feel that sounds better and more severe. The main problem is not that though, you then try to argue about infringement and what is and is not, not based on what copyright law clearly says is infringement, but rather on what stealing typically result in. To bad you end up wrong all the time.
>As said, many on the "other" side would greatly >prefer that people use words or euphemisms that >hide or trivialize the offense.
What is trivializing about infringement? It is illegal. As for deciding what type of illegal activity is most "trivial", that is another issue.
>And I'll continue to do so, as the end result is >no different. You have something you were >supposed to pay for... and didn't.
So, what are you trying to proof, or tell? That copyright infringement is against the law? We already know that, no need to find any analogies or anything. So what is your point in trying to compare it to theft? You only confuse things and up with the wrong conclusions.
You seem to look at theft and take the results from theft and situations when something is theft, then you seem to claim that any such situation is also theft and since theft is the same a copyright infringement, any such situation or result of an action must also be copyright infringement, or at least illegal. That is both completely bogus logic and ends up with the wrong conclusion. There are many situations were analogies with theft fails because copyright does not work the same way as ownership for physical property, otherwise there would be no point with copyright.
Specifically, there is a difference between ownership of the copyright to a work, and ownership of copies of the work. Two different things and one does not imply the other. Theft would apply to the copies of the work (just as with any other property), copyright (and copyright infringement) applies to the work itself.
Even though there can many times be illegal to possess stolen property, there is for example no copyright infringement for possession of a copy of a work, even if it was produced through an infringing way. Hence what you ay above is completely irrelevant and wrong. It does not matter if you paid for something or not if it is copyright infringement. You can be in possession of something, not having paid for it, use it and still, there being no copyright infringement. I can for example borrow a book from someone, read it and even own it (if it is given to me), without having paid for it nor is there any reason why I should have paid for it. Note that the ownership of the physical copy of the book (or CD and so on) is with individual people, typically with the one initially making it and later whoever it is given and/or sold to. The copyright of the copyright owner only applies to the work and only to certain actions, like copying it, distributing it, making public performances and so on. That is the only thing that can be infringement. Possession is not for example.
So, just as there is differences between ownership of the copyright to a work and ownership to copies of a work, there is a difference between copyright infringement (which applies to the work, and when you copy, perform it and so on) and theft, which applies to individual copies of a work like when you take a CD from my home without permission (not that is stealing from ME, not the copyright holder). One have nothing to do with the other.
So why not use the proper word for things? What is the point in using erroneous words? Especially since you do it and from that draws completely wrong and false conclusions.
>The European copyright law is basically a copy >of the US DMCA, so yes.
There is no "european" law. There is a directive to the individual countries. The directive acctually allows for quite some freedom and exceptions to be set and used by the countries. In addition, each country can in most cases go further than the directive say.
As for the comparison to the US DMCA, it is not at all just "basically a copy". There is at least one, in my opinion, huge difference. The DMCA mentiones circumvention of protection of access, the EU directive does not. Access is not a right that is exclusive to the copyright holder, yet the DMCA in fact gives something similar as long as there is some access protection, since that can't be circumvented, it turns into something the copyright holder can control.
The EU directive on the other hand only deals with protection for copyright related rights, such as actual copying, not just access. Hence, access protection and controls can freely be circumvented.
Of course, some European countries have added access to their own laws, while some have not.
>In Europe, under the EU Copyright directive, >it's illegal to chip a console - actually, the >offense is "circumventing copy protection >systems"
Several problems wit this statement. First of all, this directive does not handle computerprograms at all. That has been covered in an earlier directive.
Second, the circumvention is for copyright related "rights". Hence, access is not covered (although countries are free to add such provisions if they want). Also, the directive allows for each country to make exceptions to when copying for example is not infringement (this can thus vary a lot between countries, and for such non infringing copying, circumvention would be allowed.
It is not a law, it is a directive to the member countries. Each country then have to implement it. The implementation can vary, especially since the directive allows for excpetions and such. In addition, countries are free to go further than the minimum dictated by the cdirective.
> does that offically make >using a region code on your DVD player illegal?
No, the directive only deals with protections relevant to rights under copyright. The region coding is an access restriction, it has nothing to do with copying, hence, it is not covered by the directive. Of course, some countries have implemented it and added access for circumvention as well.
>It is used to bypass region coding problems, and >is the "worst kept secret" with most DVD >players.
There is nothing in the directive about circumventing "region coding".
>So you're trying to say that a 100GB library of >MP3s - with no original media even having been >purchased - is not a copyright violation ?
Possession is not a copyright infringement. Not in those countries I am aware of. It is the act of copying and distribution (for example) that is copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
>If they can change the EULA to accomodate the
>Exchange, they can also change it to say they're
>immune from lawsuits that could arise from it.
>Keep in mind, you can't get to the Exchange
>without agreeing to the EULA before even
>entering to the game.
YOu can't just immunize yourself versus the law since very often (at least in consumer related issues in most countries) the law applies regardless of what you agree to.
>If one accepts that the wording of the EULA
>protects the company that writes it, then re-
>writing of the EULA to make sure it still
>protects it is both trivial and necessary.
That assumes that whatever you write there is permited according to your countries law. Most countries have consumer sales laws that govern sales of goods, services and most such things, and typically you can't set those aside through contracts. Hence you can't cover yourself for everything, nor do whatever you want. DOn't like it? Don't sell!!
>diablo one wasn't a client/server model... hence
>the character files were stored on the users
>computers unencrypted.
Actually it was encrypted. Hence most cheats, dupes and such was done once the game was running and the character was loaded into memory (were it was not stored encrypted). MUCH easier.
Of course, just copying the save file also works although you need an additional character to move items to....
>tried opening a debugger and increasing the
>amount of gold in a pile, discovered that it
>worked in single player, tried in on whatever
>demo server I was playing on, discovered (and
>was rather appalled by the fact that it worked).
Diablo didn't have any servers for game play, it was always played out on your own machine.
>What do you do when two or more different
.com that can also be a problem.
>organisations share the trademark on the same
>word?
It is not only an issue of the same word for different areas, but also between countries. Many trademarks are not global, but local to specific countries. If one want global domains not tied to countries, like
>Actually, copyright means it's up to the owner
>how it's viewed, or even how it's linked to -
>this ruling basically says that you have to get
>permission from the copyright holder to link to
>the content. Just because a site contains
>illegal content shouldn't make linking to it
>illegal as well.
Ehh, please tell were in copyright laws it says that how linking or viewing is done is an excluvsive right to the copyright holder? Copyright holders can only control the rights they have eclusivley (and even then there are exceptions).
As a bonus, do it for both Australian copyright law and for your own country's copyright law.
>this would mean that Google should not link to
>anything ever written/published/etc. from there
>and not return any links to stuff from any
>country that has the same or similar clause.
Most sites out there are actually run and put up BY the copyright owner to it.
>The fully legal Etree torrent site is reportedly
>moving Petabytes on a regular basis.
But do you have to pay for downloading that music? The article states that it is paid music downloads that they report about, it is the very first word of the article.
They would be wrong when they later claim the number of individual songs downloaded but I suppose one can assume it is also "paid" downloaded songs. Probably they DO miss some paid songs though.
>I had thought such was the case, but wasn't
>certain it applied to all governments.
Almost every country in the world have signed up to it. There are a few rogue countries that have not.
>Google cache does not serve content that is not
>already available online.
Which is irellevant from a copyright persecptive. Just because something is available (for free or whatever) does not make it allowed for you to do the same. Copyright work does not work that way and there are no such provisions.
>If content replication is such a big deal, they
>should outlaw ISP and corporate use of caching
>proxies to reduce border traffic from frequently
>visited pages as well.
Such caching and other temporary "copies" are by most copyright laws not treated as actual copies and hence not infringement.
>I believe that that IS archiving.
OK, lets not get stuck in terminology (especially since I am not a native english speaker). The archieving works great when you archieve individual physical copies and don't make additional copies to hand out when someone searches it.
The problem here is that copyright law does not allow you to make it allowed to make a work available to the public (especially in the way you do on a webpage). It is sort of irellevant if that is called archieve or not. I meant that the actuall act of saving it, indexing and whatever is not illegal, it is the part were you make it available for the public that is illegal.
>You responded to "This company dumped the pages
>out on the public Internet, with no robots.txt.
>Surely they know what that means.".
I was just restating the same type of argument changing the object of page on a website to a software program, both protected by copyright law, and with about the same protection.
> You are
>referring to software made publicly available
>for free on the Net, such as freeware and
>shareware, right? As far as I know, it is legal
>to copy, distribute, and archive this type of
>software software.
What in the copyright law says that if you give it away for free, automatically also includes a license for making new copies and for (re)distribution???? Fell free to point out such a thing. The issue here is that making it available to the public is the illagl part, not to download or even archieve it.
>Are pages archives at archive.org pages that are
>sold? Of course not. They are given away. Did
>you think this through first? The "given away"
>vs "sold" difference rips your analogy to shreds.
Of course I know the difference. From a copyright perspective it is totally irellevant HOW you give a copy of your work to anyone. Just because you does not charge money and sell it does not mean you lose any of the protections of it.
>Sorry. People here frequently make the "ok to
>copy software" comment and they're not joking.
>If you meant it to be funny, it should have been
>more obviously absurd.
Since I made an almost identical text (content wise) as the one I replied to, I thought it was quite absurd to start with...
>The issue at hand is not whether it was
>copyrighted, but at what point and to what
>degree the viewing (or making available to other
>to view) of a web page becomes "copying".
That is quite irellevant. At issue is when you take your copy and make it available to others, THAT is the illegal part of it.
As for when viewing a page is copying or not, well, that in part depends on the exact definition of copy in your countries copyright law. For example, looking at Swedish copyright law, which I know best being swedish, a simple copy in ram, or in caches along the way (and perhaps even in your own cach although that can be arguable) are not copies, since a copy to be relevant from a copyright perspectice has to be persistant (we are talking Swedish copyright law, and according to the current, newly updated one). A copy on your hard disc when you install software is a copy though. So listening to streamed music is not making a copy, saving a copy from a place and then listeing to it, is making a copy.
It can be argued that if someone makes a page (and content) availabel on the net, they also allow you to make a copy of it for you to view (and even keep), since that is typically required. However, that does not imply that you also get the right to make this copy available to the public by puting it out on the net yourself. THAT is the illegal part of it.
>The protocol itself requires copying which, if
>copyright law is applied strictly and literally,
>could technically be construed as infringement.
Not if the content was put there by the concent of the copyright holder since he would be aware that one need to make such a copy to view and/or access it.
>No, with a game you purchase a single copy. With
>a web page you are essentially given permission
>to copy from their server for free as many times
>as you like.
Yes, I am well aware of that differece, but that was not my point, my point was about then making it available for the public to copy.
>If they were handing out free paper pamphlets
>and let me have 1000 copies, could they claim
>copyright infringement if I handed out those
>1000 copies to people ten years later?
Of course not, but the right for redistribution, is typically tied to individual copies. The right to distribute is commonly in most countries a right the copyright holder loses after the first distribution. Although it can be a bit complicated in a case like we discuss, you would probably have to keep track and handle the individual copies and make sure you only hand out those (and none more, an't start making additional copies yourself). When you put something on the net, you are not giving away a copy you have, you are basically making the work available to the public for copying which is typically not allowed under copyright laws. That is the illegal part.
>Sure it does. Ever been to a library? Yeah, now
>you'll trot out the "single instance" argument,
>but remember that that only illustrates how your
>analogy of a book is flawed.
No, libraries are in most countries treated by special cases in copyright laws and are given various exceptions which is why they are allowed what they do. Check the copyright law of your own country to see what special provisions there are for libraries.
>When one purchases a game, one purchases a
>single copy. The nature of web pages is such
>that relatively indiscriminant copying goes on
>as a normal part of the process. Add to that the
>fact that they were "giving away copies" to any
>and all comers, and you have a very differe
>No jackass, it's not legal to copy software.
Some people have a hard time understanding when people are joking and when they are not...
> A web page is not software,
It is still protected by copyright laws though, no difference.
> and IA isn't "copying".
They have made a copy for their archieve and they are making it available to the public. What is the difference to making a copy of a game I have available to the public? None! Is it legal? No.
> By making it available on the internet the
>plaintiff essentially distributed a free copy of
>the contents of their web site to every man,
>woman, child, and bot who visited it.
No, they made they web page available to anyone who wanted to visit their webpage, just as I make, for example a book available to anyone in a shop. That does not give anyone visiting the site to in turn take a copy and make it available to the public.
> The question here is whether IA is allowed to
>show anyone else the copy they received.
Exactly!!! Bingo! And just as it is not allowed to make a copy of a game I got available to the public, they are not allowed to make a copy of someone elses web page available to the public!
>being a big blizzard fan myself I was
>disappointed with their W3 release as by the
>time it came out the gameplay and graphics were
>so outdated the game itself was not that
>interesting. Whereas had it been released on
>time with one or two bugs it would have been a
>great game in its time.
Yes, the game was delayed so long that both gameplay and graphics got outdated, and the only thing they fixed in that time was "one or two bugs"....
Libraries, which typically are given special rights in copyright laws, are given the status as libraries (for copyright purposes) by the goverment, you can't just claim to be a library and then apply anything that applies to a library to yourself, no matter how much you have similarities with real libraries.
>I know that the argument is flawed (you try
>writing something better as soon as you wake
>up), but the point remains that there's a
>fundamental difference between redistributing
>and archiving.
But they DO redsitribute it, you can search their archieve and access it and its content. That is not archieving.
>This company dumped the pages out on the public
>Internet, with no robots.txt. Surely they know
>what that means.
Cool, now it is legal to copy software freeley, make it available on the net and so on. Why?
Well. I know this company that sells computer software with no copy prevention mechanism, no DRM and so on, surely they know what that means...
>That's right, the Copyright owner is the only
>one who can publish or give permission to
>publish. They DID.
No, they published it, they did not give OTHERS the right to publish it.
> It was published and that's the only way that
>the Way Back Machine got it in the first place.
That does not mean the Way Back Machine got any right to make new copies and/or distribute or publish them.
>First, you used an amazing number of words to
>illustrate a fair use situation, since the single
>copy of the book was lended. (I assume you didn't
>steal it?)
Huh? Borrowing the book was one of the examples I mentioned, it could have been given to me. Actually, I could even have STOLEN (the real sence of stealing, from my friend for example). In no case would I either commit copyright infringement nor would fair use be an issue since that applies to situations that would normally be infringement, it is a defence for an action that is infringement but turns it non infringing.
>Second, it's common vernacular to say I was
>"robbed" when your house was broken into, even
>though, technically, you were probably
>burgularized. The generic term covers the
>concept, even though a more specific word exists.
Again, what is your point then? You are arguing for using a not so appropriate word why? Because you felt "infringement" doesn't sound severe enough? As I and others have shown, stealing is WAY of (not even close to your house example). You end up in so many wrong conclusions and erroneous similarities it is silly.
>So, as someone whose work is often "stolen",
You mean as in someone actually stealing in the sence I mentioned above? Like stealing a book you have written, or a painting? You must be making an awefully lot of them and not have many left if that is the case.
>and I refuse to play the flip side of the
>propaganda game.
What propaganda? Calling it stealing is the propaganda. You want to call it something else because you feel that sounds better and more severe. The main problem is not that though, you then try to argue about infringement and what is and is not, not based on what copyright law clearly says is infringement, but rather on what stealing typically result in. To bad you end up wrong all the time.
>As said, many on the "other" side would greatly
>prefer that people use words or euphemisms that
>hide or trivialize the offense.
What is trivializing about infringement? It is illegal. As for deciding what type of illegal activity is most "trivial", that is another issue.
>And I'll continue to do so, as the end result is
>no different. You have something you were
>supposed to pay for... and didn't.
So, what are you trying to proof, or tell? That copyright infringement is against the law? We already know that, no need to find any analogies or anything. So what is your point in trying to compare it to theft? You only confuse things and up with the wrong conclusions.
You seem to look at theft and take the results from theft and situations when something is theft, then you seem to claim that any such situation is also theft and since theft is the same a copyright infringement, any such situation or result of an action must also be copyright infringement, or at least illegal. That is both completely bogus logic and ends up with the wrong conclusion. There are many situations were analogies with theft fails because copyright does not work the same way as ownership for physical property, otherwise there would be no point with copyright.
Specifically, there is a difference between ownership of the copyright to a work, and ownership of copies of the work. Two different things and one does not imply the other. Theft would apply to the copies of the work (just as with any other property), copyright (and copyright infringement) applies to the work itself.
Even though there can many times be illegal to possess stolen property, there is for example no copyright infringement for possession of a copy of a work, even if it was produced through an infringing way. Hence what you ay above is completely irrelevant and wrong. It does not matter if you paid for something or not if it is copyright infringement. You can be in possession of something, not having paid for it, use it and still, there being no copyright infringement. I can for example borrow a book from someone, read it and even own it (if it is given to me), without having paid for it nor is there any reason why I should have paid for it. Note that the ownership of the physical copy of the book (or CD and so on) is with individual people, typically with the one initially making it and later whoever it is given and/or sold to. The copyright of the copyright owner only applies to the work and only to certain actions, like copying it, distributing it, making public performances and so on. That is the only thing that can be infringement. Possession is not for example.
So, just as there is differences between ownership of the copyright to a work and ownership to copies of a work, there is a difference between copyright infringement (which applies to the work, and when you copy, perform it and so on) and theft, which applies to individual copies of a work like when you take a CD from my home without permission (not that is stealing from ME, not the copyright holder). One have nothing to do with the other.
So why not use the proper word for things? What is the point in using erroneous words? Especially since you do it and from that draws completely wrong and false conclusions.
>The European copyright law is basically a copy
>of the US DMCA, so yes.
There is no "european" law. There is a directive to the individual countries. The directive acctually allows for quite some freedom and exceptions to be set and used by the countries. In addition, each country can in most cases go further than the directive say.
As for the comparison to the US DMCA, it is not at all just "basically a copy". There is at least one, in my opinion, huge difference. The DMCA mentiones circumvention of protection of access, the EU directive does not. Access is not a right that is exclusive to the copyright holder, yet the DMCA in fact gives something similar as long as there is some access protection, since that can't be circumvented, it turns into something the copyright holder can control.
The EU directive on the other hand only deals with protection for copyright related rights, such as actual copying, not just access. Hence, access protection and controls can freely be circumvented.
Of course, some European countries have added access to their own laws, while some have not.
>In Europe, under the EU Copyright directive,
>it's illegal to chip a console - actually, the
>offense is "circumventing copy protection
>systems"
Several problems wit this statement. First of all, this directive does not handle computerprograms at all. That has been covered in an earlier directive.
Second, the circumvention is for copyright related "rights". Hence, access is not covered (although countries are free to add such provisions if they want). Also, the directive allows for each country to make exceptions to when copying for example is not infringement (this can thus vary a lot between countries, and for such non infringing copying, circumvention would be allowed.
>So, under this law,
It is not a law, it is a directive to the member countries. Each country then have to implement it. The implementation can vary, especially since the directive allows for excpetions and such. In addition, countries are free to go further than the minimum dictated by the cdirective.
> does that offically make
>using a region code on your DVD player illegal?
No, the directive only deals with protections relevant to rights under copyright. The region coding is an access restriction, it has nothing to do with copying, hence, it is not covered by the directive. Of course, some countries have implemented it and added access for circumvention as well.
>It is used to bypass region coding problems, and
>is the "worst kept secret" with most DVD
>players.
There is nothing in the directive about circumventing "region coding".
>So you're trying to say that a 100GB library of
>MP3s - with no original media even having been
>purchased - is not a copyright violation ?
Possession is not a copyright infringement. Not in those countries I am aware of. It is the act of copying and distribution (for example) that is copyright infringement.