>If it is encrypted then it is protected under >certain provisions of the DMCA.
First of all, in USA only. Second, no, only if it at first is protected under copyright. Then it is irellevant if it is encrypted or not, that has only to do with circumvention, no?
>You have to wait for OpenMetro to reverse >engineer the format so you can read Metro >documents without MetroReader, because Microsoft >decided not to freely license the format to Sun >Microsystems.
Just curious, the format of a file is protected in what way?
>"The fact is that if you spoil your CD, which >has a recording of music on it, you have to go >and buy another. The same is true of a CD >carrying a game. Backups are not necessary at >all."
And all the time I was under the impression that backups was meant to be usable in EXACTLY those situations. So that you did NOT have to buy a new one. Oh well.....
>Do you have a source for the claim that the >directive only deals with copyright related >issues?
This is mostly from the text of the proposed copyright law changes in Sweden. It is a VERY large documnet (the pdf is split into two 250 page documents). Below is a link to a text version. I can post the link to the pdf tomorrow if needed. It is in Swedish of course. Also note that I mostly read the initial proposal from last year, there are some changes in this one. The relevant chaptr would be 11.3 I think, or perhaps all of 11.
I recall from the original proposition were this was discussed and detailed. The reasoning was that the whole directive is about copyright only. Circumvention can only be in regard to copyright related "rights" for the copyright holder. They specifically mentioned region coding as not applying since it had nothing to do with copyright.
Then they raised the question about protection mechanisms that protected both copyright related rights and non copyright related ones. To give such combined protection also protection for circumvention would be to give to much power to the copyright holder. They thus had the option to either make a protection only for copyright related issues and get protection versus circumvention, or to add more and lose the circumvention protection. As I said, I have not read if there is any changes to this in the current proposal. I would say it would be minor changes only.
The EU directive seems to be attached to this text version but from a quick look looks like a mix of swedish and english.Its name is if I am not mistake "2001/29/EG" It is not THAT easy to actually interpret the directive correctly though, hence why I have mostly relied on reading the swedish proposal for its implementation were they argue on how to interpret and apply the directive. After all, it is the actual law of my country that is relevant to me.
>There is a DRM alternative in the way of an >inaudible signature key inside a waveform. You >can use the files as you see fit, however if >they are found on a P2P network you will get >busted because they will have your details from >when you purchased the track.
So? That does not mean I would be the one offering it on the net, nor the one that copied it. Could for example be someone else in my home, or a friend using my computer or listeing to my music and so on, perhaps I even gave it as a gift to someone else and so on....
Next you probably will propose that it is good that cars have register plates, because if there is a bank robbery and someone uses a car, hey, they know who origianlly got that car....case solved!
>Now, circumventing encryption is still >authorised in Europe. The problem would be a >DMCA-like bill at the European level (such as >EUCD).
As far as I know and have read, the directive only deals with circumvention protection for copright related issues, which would primarilly be protection that prevent copying. Accessing is NOT a right for a copuright hodler, hence protection that simply deals with accessing a work is not covered by the directive. Encryption does not in anyway prevent copying, it is about access, and hence ccould be "circumvented". Of course, some countries have gone further and added in access into their copyright laws, but that is then not due to the directive.
In this case I don't think there is an issue since this case have, as far as I can see, no problem with the EU directive. Actually the whole case from reading is one of information to the buyer, that is, there is a need for the seller to inform if a DVD has any sort of "protection" on it that makes it hard to copy for a back up (for exmaple). Nothing to do with copyright or the EU directive really.
>Given the EU Copyright Directive, which mandates >legal protection for digital restrictions >management, can't the EU courts override the >French courts?
No, not at all. First of, the EU directive really only deals with "copy protetion", nothing else really although some countries have broadened the protection to USA like "access" but that is NOT what the directive says.
Second, a EU directive is NOT the law, it is a state issue, it is still the laws of the country that applies to each country, you can't drag someone to court based on a EU directive. What one can do is drag the COUNTRY to the appropriate EU court for not implementing the directive correctly, but that is another thing. In this case it is a non issue though since it doesn't mandate to enforce DRM.
>This is exactly the same thing. You have paid for >a content delivery mechanism, not the content. >They still own that.
You are confusing "having (owning) the copyright to a work" with "owning a copy of the work". They sell a copy of the work which I will be the owner of, yet they still hold the copyright to it. Two completely different things. Holding the copyright simply mean they have a few exclusive rights, which are basically the right to make new copies, distribute such copies and making copies available to the public and making public performances. That is it. Actually, in somce cases, even those exclusive rights are something I might be able to do.
> They sell it to be played on a DVD player that >has licensed the technology from the appropriate >people.
I can do whatever I want with the copy (as long as I don't infringe on their exclusive rights). The player issue is a something betweenb the player manufacturer and whoever have patent rights (or whatever it might be). That has nothing to do with me. I can actually use whatever software or machine I chose or find to play or otherwise access the movie on the DVD. That is not "their" problem really.
>Why is it so hard to understand. You have bought >a disc.
I have bought a disc with *a* copy of the movie, see above, not hard to understand at all, although you seem to not grasp it.
> and owning it gives you no rights to the actual >content besides being able to play it in the >apparatus it was designed to play in.
You have no clue about copyright do you? Go find some appropriate law (preferable french since this is a french issue, but really most copyright laws are similar). The only thing copyright restricts is the things I mentioned above. Sure, the movie makers love to make you believe you have "no rights" and if you want to believe that, fine with you.
>Like it or not, those companies OWN that >content, and they are selling it to you.
Exactly, they own it, and then sell it (and hence no longer own it). There are all sort of laws and regulations on what is acceptable when you sell things to consumers (and a far bit less when it is not a consumer situation). Appearantly in this case, it was not acceptible the way they did it.
>If they don't want you to copy it, they have >every right to put a copy protection scheme on >it beforehand.
Why? If they don't like the idea of people making backups and sucm they should not sell it to start with.
>because consumer freedom means being able to do >anything you want!!
No, you can't do "everything you want". On the other hand, what is prevented is a case where the sellers (in form of companies) should not be able to do whatever THEY want either. Typically the consumers are in a weaker position when buying, that is why there are various consumer protection laws regulating what is and what is not acceptable. If the seller don't like that, don't sell to consumers. Easy.
I would rather see it as a consumer protection issue. Basically, if you want to sell "media" to consumers, make sure it is easy accessible and don't force the consumer into accepting various restrictions through laws OR contracts. There are many other such consumer "protecting" laws to make sure consumers have SOME protection.
But isn't that due to the law specifically saying that it is illegal for you to do so even when you go abroad? I can't see in the DMCA law anything saying that it is illegal for US citizens (or companies) even when they act outside USA.
The idea would not be to import the "world" version of Photoshop, just have a special US version without a special feature. Of course, if people themselves decided to buy a copy abroad and take it home, that would be different.
On the other hand, would it really be illegal to import such a program? Be it someone else, or Adobe?
>They're a US company; the same way that >soliciting somebody to commit a crime is >(usually) criminal, I'm assuming they'd also be >found to be guilty in a civil court when the >DMCA is broken.
So, for the sake of argument, if making cars was illegal in USA, any american company that would manufacture and sell cars in other countries (were it would be legal) would be commiting a crime in USA?
What about a situation were a specific action is required to make business in some country, but that activity would be illegal in USA, would that mean that no USA company could operate in that country?
Yes, I happen to live in Sweden, which is part of the European Union. You appearantly haven't got a clue. First lets quote the relevant swedish law, which in fact is based on an EU directive:
"26 g Den som har förvärvat rätt att använda ett datorprogram får framställa sådana exemplar av programmet och göra sådana ändringar i programmet som är nödvändiga för att han skall kunna använda programmet för dess avsedda ändamål. Detta gäller även rättelse av fel."
Of course, this is in Swedish. Basically it says that anyone that has aquired a program, has the right to do such changes that are needed for the program to work as intended. It Includes correction of errors and bugs.
Since I was commenting on the part about correcting bugs, I am correct. If you want, I can dig up the EU directive (which would be the closest to ENglish I can find you) which this is based up on, if I recall correctly it is the same that for example allows reverse engineering in some cases and so on.
Next time, try to be more informed or have more knowledge before you reply.
>While reverse-engineering is allowed by DMCA, >decryption is not. The DMCA specifically >disallows any kind of non-allowed (by the >original inventor) decryption.
Sorry, but it is not "enctryption" in general that the DMCA deals with, it is works under copyright protected by encryption. here there is no such copyright work protected. Or rather, there is but is not Nikon's but the photographer. DMCA is a non issue. Of course, everywere else in the world apart from USA, the DMCA is also a non issue.
>Wrong. You bought the camera. You did not buy the >rights to computer software that interfaces with >the camera.
Not sure were you live. Were I live it would indeed be perfectly legal to, for example, fix bugs in the software (which was one of the things you replied to).
I admit I am not fully aware of the details of how they work, but it only means they use someone who would violate the TOS along the line, doesn't mean the ones running the site do it.
And next you will have banks claiming you in fact does not own you money on the bank, you just happens to pay for virtual numbers on an account that can be exchanged for money when you want (for a small fee). Of course, you might simply lose it all if their computers crash since you have to agree to that being possible. Yes, that would work and be legal....
How are they violating the TOS? Or are you assuming they have made an agreement with the game creator and signed the TOS? You do realise that to breach a contract you have had to agree to it first.
Slashdot Mirror
>If it is encrypted then it is protected under
>certain provisions of the DMCA.
First of all, in USA only. Second, no, only if it at first is protected under copyright. Then it is irellevant if it is encrypted or not, that has only to do with circumvention, no?
>You have to wait for OpenMetro to reverse
>engineer the format so you can read Metro
>documents without MetroReader, because Microsoft
>decided not to freely license the format to Sun
>Microsystems.
Just curious, the format of a file is protected in what way?
>as long as I can shut it off!
You are looking at it the wrong way. You should not have to shut it off at all. It should be an option to turn it ON for those that so wishes.
>"The fact is that if you spoil your CD, which
>has a recording of music on it, you have to go
>and buy another. The same is true of a CD
>carrying a game. Backups are not necessary at
>all."
And all the time I was under the impression that backups was meant to be usable in EXACTLY those situations. So that you did NOT have to buy a new one. Oh well.....
>the courts have ruled in Sony v Owens (2002)
>that it is never necessary to backup a CD or
>DVD.
How odd!! Are they claiming that CDs and DVDs never break or becomes unusable? In what type of cases IS there a need for a backup at all then?
>Do you have a source for the claim that the
= PROPARKIV0405&$%7BTHWIDS%7D=8.49%5D11145200291088& $%7BHTML%7D=PROP_DOK&$%7BTRIPSHOW%7D=format=THW&$% 7BTHWURLSAVE%7D=49%5D11145200291088
>directive only deals with copyright related
>issues?
This is mostly from the text of the proposed copyright law changes in Sweden. It is a VERY large documnet (the pdf is split into two 250 page documents). Below is a link to a text version. I can post the link to the pdf tomorrow if needed. It is in Swedish of course. Also note that I mostly read the initial proposal from last year, there are some changes in this one. The relevant chaptr would be 11.3 I think, or perhaps all of 11.
http://rixlex.riksdagen.se/htbin/thw/?$%7BBASE%7D
I recall from the original proposition were this was discussed and detailed. The reasoning was that the whole directive is about copyright only. Circumvention can only be in regard to copyright related "rights" for the copyright holder. They specifically mentioned region coding as not applying since it had nothing to do with copyright.
Then they raised the question about protection mechanisms that protected both copyright related rights and non copyright related ones. To give such combined protection also protection for circumvention would be to give to much power to the copyright holder. They thus had the option to either make a protection only for copyright related issues and get protection versus circumvention, or to add more and lose the circumvention protection. As I said, I have not read if there is any changes to this in the current proposal. I would say it would be minor changes only.
The EU directive seems to be attached to this text version but from a quick look looks like a mix of swedish and english.Its name is if I am not mistake "2001/29/EG" It is not THAT easy to actually interpret the directive correctly though, hence why I have mostly relied on reading the swedish proposal for its implementation were they argue on how to interpret and apply the directive. After all, it is the actual law of my country that is relevant to me.
>There is a DRM alternative in the way of an
>inaudible signature key inside a waveform. You
>can use the files as you see fit, however if
>they are found on a P2P network you will get
>busted because they will have your details from
>when you purchased the track.
So? That does not mean I would be the one offering it on the net, nor the one that copied it. Could for example be someone else in my home, or a friend using my computer or listeing to my music and so on, perhaps I even gave it as a gift to someone else and so on....
Next you probably will propose that it is good that cars have register plates, because if there is a bank robbery and someone uses a car, hey, they know who origianlly got that car....case solved!
>You get a surprising number of 'fair-use'
>privileges (you can make backups,
In many countries, making backups is always allowed by law and can't be revoked through any contract.
>Now, circumventing encryption is still
>authorised in Europe. The problem would be a
>DMCA-like bill at the European level (such as >EUCD).
As far as I know and have read, the directive only deals with circumvention protection for copright related issues, which would primarilly be protection that prevent copying. Accessing is NOT a right for a copuright hodler, hence protection that simply deals with accessing a work is not covered by the directive. Encryption does not in anyway prevent copying, it is about access, and hence ccould be "circumvented". Of course, some countries have gone further and added in access into their copyright laws, but that is then not due to the directive.
In this case I don't think there is an issue since this case have, as far as I can see, no problem with the EU directive. Actually the whole case from reading is one of information to the buyer, that is, there is a need for the seller to inform if a DVD has any sort of "protection" on it that makes it hard to copy for a back up (for exmaple). Nothing to do with copyright or the EU directive really.
>Given the EU Copyright Directive, which mandates
>legal protection for digital restrictions
>management, can't the EU courts override the
>French courts?
No, not at all. First of, the EU directive really only deals with "copy protetion", nothing else really although some countries have broadened the protection to USA like "access" but that is NOT what the directive says.
Second, a EU directive is NOT the law, it is a state issue, it is still the laws of the country that applies to each country, you can't drag someone to court based on a EU directive. What one can do is drag the COUNTRY to the appropriate EU court for not implementing the directive correctly, but that is another thing. In this case it is a non issue though since it doesn't mandate to enforce DRM.
>This is exactly the same thing. You have paid for
>a content delivery mechanism, not the content.
>They still own that.
You are confusing "having (owning) the copyright to a work" with "owning a copy of the work". They sell a copy of the work which I will be the owner of, yet they still hold the copyright to it. Two completely different things. Holding the copyright simply mean they have a few exclusive rights, which are basically the right to make new copies, distribute such copies and making copies available to the public and making public performances. That is it. Actually, in somce cases, even those exclusive rights are something I might be able to do.
> They sell it to be played on a DVD player that
>has licensed the technology from the appropriate
>people.
I can do whatever I want with the copy (as long as I don't infringe on their exclusive rights). The player issue is a something betweenb the player manufacturer and whoever have patent rights (or whatever it might be). That has nothing to do with me. I can actually use whatever software or machine I chose or find to play or otherwise access the movie on the DVD. That is not "their" problem really.
>Why is it so hard to understand. You have bought
>a disc.
I have bought a disc with *a* copy of the movie, see above, not hard to understand at all, although you seem to not grasp it.
> and owning it gives you no rights to the actual
>content besides being able to play it in the
>apparatus it was designed to play in.
You have no clue about copyright do you? Go find some appropriate law (preferable french since this is a french issue, but really most copyright laws are similar). The only thing copyright restricts is the things I mentioned above. Sure, the movie makers love to make you believe you have "no rights" and if you want to believe that, fine with you.
>Like it or not, those companies OWN that
>content, and they are selling it to you.
Exactly, they own it, and then sell it (and hence no longer own it). There are all sort of laws and regulations on what is acceptable when you sell things to consumers (and a far bit less when it is not a consumer situation). Appearantly in this case, it was not acceptible the way they did it.
>If they don't want you to copy it, they have
>every right to put a copy protection scheme on
>it beforehand.
Why? If they don't like the idea of people making backups and sucm they should not sell it to start with.
>because consumer freedom means being able to do
>anything you want!!
No, you can't do "everything you want". On the other hand, what is prevented is a case where the sellers (in form of companies) should not be able to do whatever THEY want either. Typically the consumers are in a weaker position when buying, that is why there are various consumer protection laws regulating what is and what is not acceptable. If the seller don't like that, don't sell to consumers. Easy.
I would rather see it as a consumer protection issue. Basically, if you want to sell "media" to consumers, make sure it is easy accessible and don't force the consumer into accepting various restrictions through laws OR contracts. There are many other such consumer "protecting" laws to make sure consumers have SOME protection.
But isn't that due to the law specifically saying that it is illegal for you to do so even when you go abroad? I can't see in the DMCA law anything saying that it is illegal for US citizens (or companies) even when they act outside USA.
The idea would not be to import the "world" version of Photoshop, just have a special US version without a special feature. Of course, if people themselves decided to buy a copy abroad and take it home, that would be different.
On the other hand, would it really be illegal to import such a program? Be it someone else, or Adobe?
>Fortunately, outside the Land Of The Free(tm),
>anyone can access Nikon's encrypted data with a
Considering it is NOT Nikon's data, I don't see the problem to start with.
>They're a US company; the same way that
>soliciting somebody to commit a crime is
>(usually) criminal, I'm assuming they'd also be
>found to be guilty in a civil court when the
>DMCA is broken.
So, for the sake of argument, if making cars was illegal in USA, any american company that would manufacture and sell cars in other countries (were it would be legal) would be commiting a crime in USA?
What about a situation were a specific action is required to make business in some country, but that activity would be illegal in USA, would that mean that no USA company could operate in that country?
They could always make a non US version were they don't have to care about the DMCA.
Yes, I happen to live in Sweden, which is part of the European Union. You appearantly haven't got a clue. First lets quote the relevant swedish law, which in fact is based on an EU directive:
"26 g Den som har förvärvat rätt att använda ett datorprogram får framställa sådana exemplar av programmet och göra sådana ändringar i programmet som är nödvändiga för att han skall kunna använda programmet för dess avsedda ändamål. Detta gäller även rättelse av fel."
Of course, this is in Swedish. Basically it says that anyone that has aquired a program, has the right to do such changes that are needed for the program to work as intended. It Includes correction of errors and bugs.
Since I was commenting on the part about correcting bugs, I am correct. If you want, I can dig up the EU directive (which would be the closest to ENglish I can find you) which this is based up on, if I recall correctly it is the same that for example allows reverse engineering in some cases and so on.
Next time, try to be more informed or have more knowledge before you reply.
I usually don't comment AC's calling names...
>While reverse-engineering is allowed by DMCA,
>decryption is not. The DMCA specifically
>disallows any kind of non-allowed (by the
>original inventor) decryption.
Sorry, but it is not "enctryption" in general that the DMCA deals with, it is works under copyright protected by encryption. here there is no such copyright work protected. Or rather, there is but is not Nikon's but the photographer. DMCA is a non issue. Of course, everywere else in the world apart from USA, the DMCA is also a non issue.
>Wrong. You bought the camera. You did not buy the
>rights to computer software that interfaces with
>the camera.
Not sure were you live. Were I live it would indeed be perfectly legal to, for example, fix bugs in the software (which was one of the things you replied to).
I admit I am not fully aware of the details of how they work, but it only means they use someone who would violate the TOS along the line, doesn't mean the ones running the site do it.
And next you will have banks claiming you in fact does not own you money on the bank, you just happens to pay for virtual numbers on an account that can be exchanged for money when you want (for a small fee). Of course, you might simply lose it all if their computers crash since you have to agree to that being possible. Yes, that would work and be legal....
>Now, tho not only is IGE Violating TOS
How are they violating the TOS? Or are you assuming they have made an agreement with the game creator and signed the TOS? You do realise that to breach a contract you have had to agree to it first.