Ehh, what? You do know and realise there is a difference between owning something and holding the copyright to something? Very different although many often confuses and mixes it up.
Seems to handle motion pictures only?? So will we now have to wait for a new law doing the same to music CDs? WHen will we have a law that makes it "legal" to skip adds and uninteresting articles in a newspaper?
As long as there is a flag indicating if it is legal to go to the toilett while watching the movie, I am fine.
Seriously, why have laws indicating how someone watches or uses a DVD at home at all? Isn't that an indication something in the law system is wrong? What is next? A law saying it is OK to skip ads while reading a newspaper?
There are a whole different set of laws and regulations for investing money i na company (for example through shares or other means) and for buying consumer products/services!
Just an addition. There is a database maintained by the EU in regard to unfair consumer contracts as far as cases that has been decided goes (it seems to also have cases that was NOT unafair). One of the search criteria is to look for unfair cases related to liability. Very interesting reading:
>If I understand you correctly then Swedes can >safely ignore most "pop-up contracts"?
No, not really. Or depends. There is a freedom of making contracts, so basically one can contract freely and under any conditions, as long as one follow normal laws. Since there is not much regulated about contract, in theory one can enter into whatever sort of contract one want with any conditions.
However, in a consumer situation, there is regulations and they are setup in such a way that the seller can not contract it away. Or rather, they can not through a contract give the consumer a worse condition, they can however give the consumer a better situation. This I would say is not unique to Sweden though, although it has had such laws since before EU, the EU has its own directive on consumer contracts which has similar content. It is found at:
Click on the link in the second paragraph to read the actual directive (just chose language). It is interesting to note that many of the examples listed in the directive are things commonly found in most EULAs for example.
>Could a Swede take legal action if, say, they >lose data due to a kernel panic?
As I mentioned, there are several considerations and requirements to be fullfilled for it to be considered a safety failiure, and I am not so sure simple bugs or errors in a program can be considerd in most cases. I am sure than in some cases, one can probably argue it is. The main point is, that a seller can't through contract (with customer) remove that responsability. For non consumer situations, we have a very different situation and almost anything goes though.
Let me add that this of the law is not one I have much knowledge or information about (I am not a lawyer for example), I am mostly interested and knowledgabel when it comes to copyright, but that has spilled over to consumer sale laws, but not as far as to liability issues. I have taken some law classes long ago though, and that certainly helps and is very usefull. Something I would recommend everyone to do really.
>Could you give us an example? A country where, >by law, MS are actually liable if their software >has (provably) caused losses? Just curious..
I know Sweden (and probably other countries in Europe) as part of the consumer sale laws won't allow the seller to contract away that the product shall not work and function acoording to what can be assumed by the conaumser, based on advertising, package, other information given by seller and what can generally be assumed by the product (that is a car, should work like a car, a word procesor should be usable as a word processor and so on), the product is otherwsie faulty and all meassurements for a faulty product can be used. It is not possible for the seller to "contract away" this and for example claim it is "as is" (in swedish consumer sales, the "as is" for example is generallycompletely ignored as far as courts would be concerned should the contract come under evaluation.
In addition, the "product safety law" regulate the sellers (and importers) responsability to pay damage in case a product causes personal injury or damage to property. This only applies if the injury or damage was caused by a "safety failure" (sorry, don't know an appropriate translation), there are several considerations to check if that is the case discussed in the law, so it is not in every case a product causes damage that one can claim damage. This law is not possible to negotiate away either. There is also an initial ammount of about 600 that the consumer has to pay, meaning only damages above that ammount will be possible to process for anyway.
>Maybe they will start by making all spyware >illegal.
Then they figure out it needs better "protection" so they set up a multi step process to reach the goal.
* First, make anyone who helps making spyware or help install spyware being illegal as well.
* Then make any person who manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in spyware commiting an illegal act.
* Then they make all those programs that bundle spyware illegal. Anyone involved in making, producing, programming, marketing or otherwise invilved in the making of a program that in any way installs, or through other means places spyware on a computer should be liable.
* Rise the penalties, each instance of spyware placed on a system illegally should be fined up to a possible $500.000 or 2 years in prision. This insluced all those that are liable therough other laws previously or later proposed. After all, the spyware is stealing my computer from me!!
* Now there needs to be protection for any technologial measure that effectively controls the access to the computer to prevent the installation of spyware. Any circumvention (intetionally or not, regardless of an approving "click" that states otherwise) of such is illegal. By the way, a simple file somewere on the hard disc of a computer that says "no spyware" is definately a working technological access protection for spyware.
* Next is then making anyone who in any way help, aid, induce, abets, procures in spyware or their functioning commiting illegal acts.
* Now follows that it will be illegal for anyone to make, manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is in anyway connected to spyware.
* Finally, even thinking about spyware will be illegal!
>Comcast may revise this Acceptable Use Policy >(the "Policy") from time to time without notice >by posting a new version of this document on the >Comcast Web site at http://www.comcast.net (or >any successor URL(s)).
HOw can any such provisions really be ok and acceptable in a contract, especially in a consumer retaled situation?
It really mean that each and every customer each and every time before using the service really need to go visiti the site, read the whole thing trying to figure out any changes, and THEN start to use the servicee. Each and every time. On top of that, it basically mean they can do anything they want and the only possibility the customer has it basically to terminate the service. To me it almost seems like being hostage at their mercy.
Why not simply condense all those pages after pages with terms of use, policies and so on into a single line stating, "we can do whatever we want, we will post a notice a few seconds in advance, just accept it".
>WARNING: This digital video disc is sold on the >condition that it is not blah blah blah
You seem to refering to some sort of text printed somewhere, supposedly on the disc and/or the package, right? So what? That is not a contract any more than the piece of paper I have in my pocket when buying the DVD.
>Now the MPAA may find shooting p2p fish in a >barrel easier than chasing folks who rip a DVD >in the privacy of their home and hand it to a >neighbour on a Sunday morning, but it's still >the same EULA violation.
SInce there is no EULA, there is no EULA violation, what you describe could in many cases be a copyright infringement though. That does not need ANY warning printed. Although it is of course nothing preventing someone from printing information about the law on their product. Still doesn't turn it into a EULA though, it is still "just" normal law that applies.
>Is their EULA more powerfull than non-American >laws?
Whose EULA? I have yet to see someone attempting to use EULAs on a DVD player (or DVD movie for that matter).
If contracts (assuming they are entered into in a correct way) can be more more powerfull than the law, depends on the law. Typically such laws will tell if various rights or conditions is possible to contract away. Some are, some are not and it depends on country.
>What part of "implied" don't you understand? When >you purchase an item you enter into an implied >contract, no signing need,
Yes, it is a deal or contract between me and the shop, no one else. I get whatever I bought, and they get the money, ownership changed.
>there are understood rights and limitations.
Only those specifically agreed upon at the purchase or those in place by law.
> When you buy a CD or book, there are implied >limitations that you only own a copy and that you >don't have distribution rights.
The reason you can't distribute it is due to the copyright law saying so, nothing else. There is no "implied license to read it" as you claim since there is nothing that forbids it to start with. Neither is there any implied license to "have it" since normal slaes laws deal with change of ownership (and it is an issue between me and the shop, has nothing to do with the copyright owner).
>You don't own the copyright, you are granted >limited ownership and use of a copy. Ownership >means you can do whatever you want with >somethiing.
I have never claimed you get copyright on something you buy, stop making up things. YOU are mixing up owning the copyrigth to a work and owning a copy of a work. When I buy a copy, I get FULL ownership of that specific copy. I do however not gain any ownership of the copyright. Owning the copyright gives you a few exlusive rights to the work, making new copies is one such, owning specific copies is NOT, hence there is no need to grant a license to own a specific copy of a work, neither can the copyright holder grant it since it is not an exclusive right of him.
>I never said you need a license or permission to >read a book,
Strange, since what I initially replied to was this, written by you:
"When you purchase music or a copy you enter into an implied contract where in exchange for money you are granted license [yahoo.com](legal permission) to use a copy to listen to the music. Nobody else has a right to that copy, only you have the license to use it"
This was in reply t me telling that one does not a license to read a book. You neither get, nor need the, implied, license you mention. Neither is it illegal for someone else to read the book. Anyone I want to can freely for example borrow my book and read it without any permision from the copyright holder.
On top of that you claimed:
"You must be granted permission somehow to have a copy of a book or song in the first place."
There is no need for such a permision. By simply selling the book in the first place, they lose ownership and I gain ownership (usually through the store first having ownership). There is no license in it or permision any more than I need permision to be in possession of a toaster. Again, read the copyright law, possession or having something is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
So...
> but you need some sort of legal permission to >come into possession whether purchase from >copyright holder or transfer of license beyond >first sale.
This is not really correct, possession and ownership is dealth with by normal laws, you get, in this case in posession through a purchase.
Another case is me buying a book and then giving it to someone as a present, no need for that person to get a permision from the copyright holder to get into possession of it.
To sumarixe, possession is not a right of the copyright holder and once he sells or gives away it, by whatever means, he loses any ownership or possession or right/possibility to control it further unless he at the same time enters into a specific contract which at least in my experience has never happened when I have bought a book or music CD.
The only thing he keeps is the copyright to the work which ONLY prevents new owners from making new copies of it, distributing them and making public performances of thw work. That i
>A copy of an illegal stream/copy is still >illegal.
Not being american, I have to ask, is possession really a copyright infringement? I can understand that the copying in it self of course is illegal. I can understand that a specific copy can have been made in a non legal way, but is possession of that copy an infringemen? Any use of such a copy, as long as it is not a copyright infringement itself, should be legal no? And if not so, do you know were in the law it is said so?
>You must be granted permission somehow to have a >copy of a book or song in the first place.
Huh??? What do you mean? Are you talking from a copyright perspective or from a general property perspective? In neither case I see a problem though, once you buy the book, you are the owner of it both as a physical object and as a copy of the copyrighted work. No extra permission needed to "have" it.
>When you purchase music or a copy you enter into >an implied contract where in exchange for money >you are granted license(legal permission) to use >a copy to listen to the music. Nobody else has a >right to that copy, only you have the license to >use it
You need to read up on purchase laws of your country. A purchase is a change of ownership, after which you own it. Again, I assume you think that copyright would in any way change this. Again, go read the copyright law, there is nothing of such in it. You are basically just making up completely false ideas about copyright with no basis in the law. Please find ANYTHING in the law that support what you say.
>You make it sound like getting a license to use > music is all bad.
No, I say that you don't need any license at all to listen to a music CD (be it your own, your friends or whatever). From a copyright persepctive you only need a license when you want to create new copies (in cases it would otherwise be infringement, this is not always the case), to distribute copies, and to make public perfomrances and in other ways make it available to the public in ways exlusive to the copyright holder. That is it, read 106 in the first chapter of the US copyright law for this (or if you live in another country, find the similar part in the law of that country. I will even provide a link for you:
That is it, anything else you are free to do with a work without needing any sort of permision. Note how listeing to the music or reading the book is not on the list (or anything equivalent to it).
>Ever purchase an e-book, nothing physical there.
I was talking about "book", normal books. Of course, just like it applies to music on a CD, it applies to a book in an electronic form. You still don't need permision to READ it.
>What is protected is the information and >expressions contained.
You, however, seem to have a very wrong idea on what that protection includes. It ONLY includes the rights listed above in the link I gave you to the copyright law. Those are the things given as a right to the copyright holder, no other rights. So reading a book is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder and hence anyone can do it.
>Unless you are telepathic, how can you get a >copy to read or listen to?
I can for example buy it in a store. I assume you are familiar with that concept, it has existed for far longer than copyright. It is how I get hold of not only books, music CDs or hammers, but pretty much everything in my house that I own and use. You should try it some time. There are other ways as well, one can borrow the book from a friend or library, someone can give it to you and so on, lots of possibilities.
If you want to have further discussion, at least learn what rights copyright grant to the copyright holder and don't make up additional ones.
>You get an implied license giving you all the >rights granted under copyright law.
You don't need any license or permision to read the book since there is nothing in the copyright law that forbids you to start with. Besides, if the law granted you rights, why on earth would you need a license to start with to get them? Do note that copyright laws do NOT grant you any right to read or pretty much any right at all. What it do is give some specific actions as an (almost) exclusive right to the copyright holder. One such right is copying. Reading is NOT such a right. Reading can hence NOT be a copyright infringement since it is not listed in the copyright law as being such, hence it is irellevant if you have such a premision or not. The fact that you find a webpage that has no clue what it talks about is irrelevant.
>The comparison to a hammer doesn't make sense >since it is a physical object,
So is the book really. At least all the books I have bought.
>The terms are those of copyright law the >publisher retains certain rights, and you have >certain rights.
Gee, you quote a relevant law and then don't bother reading it???? But instead base your whole argument on a completely different web page instead? Now, go back to the link on the copyright law you found and see if you can find anywere anything that gives READING as an exclusive right to the copyright holder that he needs to grant you a license to do. Please get back when you find such a thing in the copyright law. You may also do the same for listening to a music CD while you on to it.
First, lets disregard any contractual provisions (you meantionined EULA) since in such cases, anything goes of course.
However, I still don't see a sitation with a lawfully made copy (which rules out for example imported copies as you mentioned). Take your example, it deals with unlawfull copies. not lawfull ones.
It still looks to me that any lawfull made copy can be freely distributed with no permision needed, while unlawfull copies can not, right? And it is irellevant WHO made the copy, as long as it is lawfully made, right?
If that is the case, US copyright law in this aspect seem to differ from European ones (well, perhpas not all) were the copyright holder always get distribution rights for any copy made and loses it (on a per copy basis) after the first distribution only. In the case of Sweden, the new proposed copyright law actually limits it further so that the distribution right is only consumed if it was inside EU. That basically means, if I understand it, that if I buy a book in USA or Japan (for example) and take it home, I can't sell it or give it away, since the copyright holder has not yet distributed that copy (or permited it) inside EU. In my opinion this is horrible but hardly ever commented about the new proposed law (there are so many other bad parts it perhaps get forgotten).
The source is irellevant. Again, look at the law (Canadian in this case, both you and the others you replied to have allready given the link.
> You don't have any rights to make >copies of it, because you're not supposed to >have it in the first place.
This is irellevant, the law making it possible to make copies for private use does NOT put any requirements on the original.
> That is what the law >says.
Were? Lets actually copy it again:
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
So, were is there any requirement regarding the original???
Since you refered to subsection 2 in one of your replies, lets paste it as well and please point out what in that section apply since you claimed so when mentioning it:
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
Again, nothing requires the original from which you make a copy to be legal. Actually it doesn't mention anything about the original at all.
Note that the paragraph talks about the purpose of the copy being made. As long as you don't intend to do any of the things listed, it is private use and ok to do. That means I can't make a copy and claim it to be for private use and then distribute it to someone.
> Beleive a fallacy if you want, just shut >the fuck up about it.
If you feel bad language is a good way to argument, rethink. Something doesn't become more or less through just because like to use such language.
We still have the situation that you have claimed that POSSESSION (having), USING (as in reading, listening and anything else that does not explicity involves copying and distribution that is not allowed) requires permision while not ebing able to show proof of such a thing.
You claim that Canadian copyright law does not allow for making private copies thorugh downloading, yet can't show were in its law it makes such a thing not allowed (and we are talking about the downloading here, not the uploading or making it available, that I think we can agree on is not legal and those who do so is commiting copyright infringement).
Actually, I was not thinking of any specific paragraph in US copyright law since I am not american and not familiar with it in such detail. I was speaking more in general only.
However, your reply and reading the relevant sections more carefully, makes me wonder about the specific case of US copyright. If we stick to lawfully made copies, is there really ANY time someone other than the copyright holder can NOT sell a copy? I can see that you can't distribute it in some ways like renting, but lets stick to simple selling and giving away. IN what circumstances for a lawfully made copy does the copyright holder have the exclusive right to it?
If I go to for example swedish copyright law, the case is, as I explained that the copyright holder has the right to the first distribution (regardless of who made the copy), but after that, any one can redistribute that specific copy. But you seem to sugest that a (lawful) copy someone else make, the copyright holder never has distribution rights to (still talking only about sale and giving away). Is that correct? So why give it to the copyright holder as an exclusive right and then make it never apply? Or did I miss anything you said?
>There is no law against distribution. If there >were, there would be no First Sale doctrine, >because only the copyright holder would be able >to sell or give away a copyrighted work.
Yes, copyright law include distribution as an exclusive right to the copyright holder. However, that right is specific to each copy of the work and is lost of the initial distribution. This principle is what goes under the First Sale principle in US I believe. Other countries have similar concept. Hence, once the copyright holder has sold (or in other ways distributed) a copy for the first time, he no longer can control THAT copies distribution and the current owner can resell, give away or whatever he likes.
This applies to all new copies made. Hence, if you, through fair use for example, can make a legal copy, you still can't distribute it since the right to distribute is with the copyright holder initially.
Decryption in itself can not be illegal or you would not be able to view/listen to it to start with. The whole issue of encryption/decryption in regard to DVD is really bizarre since encryption is used to PREVENT someone to access it, however, here the one having the DVD is supposed to access it, that is the whole point, listening or viewing it.
Slashdot Mirror
>You can't own "the smell of a spring rain", but
>you can own (the rights to) a poem about the
>same. That's what's meant by "intangible".
That is not ownership, that is having a few exclusive rights. Ownership is non related to that.
>Patent, copyright?
Ehh, what? You do know and realise there is a difference between owning something and holding the copyright to something? Very different although many often confuses and mixes it up.
Seems to handle motion pictures only?? So will we now have to wait for a new law doing the same to music CDs? WHen will we have a law that makes it "legal" to skip adds and uninteresting articles in a newspaper?
As long as there is a flag indicating if it is legal to go to the toilett while watching the movie, I am fine.
Seriously, why have laws indicating how someone watches or uses a DVD at home at all? Isn't that an indication something in the law system is wrong? What is next? A law saying it is OK to skip ads while reading a newspaper?
Yes, but it is not the SAME thing happening just because the end result is similar.
> Ever since Blizzard won its case against the
>bnetd project,
Sorry, they have not won anything since the process is not finnished yet, the case was appealed!
Also realise that this was a USA case, and would not nessecarilly have any relevance to most other countries which may have quite different laws.
There are a whole different set of laws and regulations for investing money i na company (for example through shares or other means) and for buying consumer products/services!
Just an addition. There is a database maintained by the EU in regard to unfair consumer contracts as far as cases that has been decided goes (it seems to also have cases that was NOT unafair). One of the search criteria is to look for unfair cases related to liability. Very interesting reading:
g EntryClabAnonymous.html
https://adns.cec.eu.int/CLAB/SilverStream/Pages/p
>If I understand you correctly then Swedes can
f e_ shop/unf_cont_terms/index_en.htm
>safely ignore most "pop-up contracts"?
No, not really. Or depends. There is a freedom of making contracts, so basically one can contract freely and under any conditions, as long as one follow normal laws. Since there is not much regulated about contract, in theory one can enter into whatever sort of contract one want with any conditions.
However, in a consumer situation, there is regulations and they are setup in such a way that the seller can not contract it away. Or rather, they can not through a contract give the consumer a worse condition, they can however give the consumer a better situation. This I would say is not unique to Sweden though, although it has had such laws since before EU, the EU has its own directive on consumer contracts which has similar content. It is found at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/sa
Click on the link in the second paragraph to read the actual directive (just chose language). It is interesting to note that many of the examples listed in the directive are things commonly found in most EULAs for example.
>Could a Swede take legal action if, say, they
>lose data due to a kernel panic?
As I mentioned, there are several considerations and requirements to be fullfilled for it to be considered a safety failiure, and I am not so sure simple bugs or errors in a program can be considerd in most cases. I am sure than in some cases, one can probably argue it is. The main point is, that a seller can't through contract (with customer) remove that responsability. For non consumer situations, we have a very different situation and almost anything goes though.
Let me add that this of the law is not one I have much knowledge or information about (I am not a lawyer for example), I am mostly interested and knowledgabel when it comes to copyright, but that has spilled over to consumer sale laws, but not as far as to liability issues. I have taken some law classes long ago though, and that certainly helps and is very usefull. Something I would recommend everyone to do really.
>Could you give us an example? A country where,
http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19920018.HTM
>by law, MS are actually liable if their software
>has (provably) caused losses? Just curious..
I know Sweden (and probably other countries in Europe) as part of the consumer sale laws won't allow the seller to contract away that the product shall not work and function acoording to what can be assumed by the conaumser, based on advertising, package, other information given by seller and what can generally be assumed by the product (that is a car, should work like a car, a word procesor should be usable as a word processor and so on), the product is otherwsie faulty and all meassurements for a faulty product can be used. It is not possible for the seller to "contract away" this and for example claim it is "as is" (in swedish consumer sales, the "as is" for example is generallycompletely ignored as far as courts would be concerned should the contract come under evaluation.
In addition, the "product safety law" regulate the sellers (and importers) responsability to pay damage in case a product causes personal injury or damage to property. This only applies if the injury or damage was caused by a "safety failure" (sorry, don't know an appropriate translation), there are several considerations to check if that is the case discussed in the law, so it is not in every case a product causes damage that one can claim damage. This law is not possible to negotiate away either. There is also an initial ammount of about 600 that the consumer has to pay, meaning only damages above that ammount will be possible to process for anyway.
The laws, in Swedish, is found here:
http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19900932.HTM
>Microsoft has never accepted any accountablilty.
Dpends, some countries doesn't allow for vaiwing liability like that, especially not to consumers.
>Maybe they will start by making all spyware
>illegal.
Then they figure out it needs better "protection" so they set up a multi step process to reach the goal.
* First, make anyone who helps making spyware or help install spyware being illegal as well.
* Then make any person who manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in spyware commiting an illegal act.
* Then they make all those programs that bundle spyware illegal. Anyone involved in making, producing, programming, marketing or otherwise invilved in the making of a program that in any way installs, or through other means places spyware on a computer should be liable.
* Rise the penalties, each instance of spyware placed on a system illegally should be fined up to a possible $500.000 or 2 years in prision. This insluced all those that are liable therough other laws previously or later proposed. After all, the spyware is stealing my computer from me!!
* Now there needs to be protection for any technologial measure that effectively controls the access to the computer to prevent the installation of spyware. Any circumvention (intetionally or not, regardless of an approving "click" that states otherwise) of such is illegal. By the way, a simple file somewere on the hard disc of a computer that says "no spyware" is definately a working technological access protection for spyware.
* Next is then making anyone who in any way help, aid, induce, abets, procures in spyware or their functioning commiting illegal acts.
* Now follows that it will be illegal for anyone to make, manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is in anyway connected to spyware.
* Finally, even thinking about spyware will be illegal!
>Comcast may revise this Acceptable Use Policy
>(the "Policy") from time to time without notice
>by posting a new version of this document on the
>Comcast Web site at http://www.comcast.net (or
>any successor URL(s)).
HOw can any such provisions really be ok and acceptable in a contract, especially in a consumer retaled situation?
It really mean that each and every customer each and every time before using the service really need to go visiti the site, read the whole thing trying to figure out any changes, and THEN start to use the servicee. Each and every time. On top of that, it basically mean they can do anything they want and the only possibility the customer has it basically to terminate the service. To me it almost seems like being hostage at their mercy.
Why not simply condense all those pages after pages with terms of use, policies and so on into a single line stating, "we can do whatever we want, we will post a notice a few seconds in advance, just accept it".
>Correlation != Causation
What? So you are saying that piracy is only a factor when sales goes down, not up?????
>WARNING: This digital video disc is sold on the
>condition that it is not blah blah blah
You seem to refering to some sort of text printed somewhere, supposedly on the disc and/or the package, right? So what? That is not a contract any more than the piece of paper I have in my pocket when buying the DVD.
>Now the MPAA may find shooting p2p fish in a
>barrel easier than chasing folks who rip a DVD
>in the privacy of their home and hand it to a
>neighbour on a Sunday morning, but it's still
>the same EULA violation.
SInce there is no EULA, there is no EULA violation, what you describe could in many cases be a copyright infringement though. That does not need ANY warning printed. Although it is of course nothing preventing someone from printing information about the law on their product. Still doesn't turn it into a EULA though, it is still "just" normal law that applies.
>Is their EULA more powerfull than non-American
>laws?
Whose EULA? I have yet to see someone attempting to use EULAs on a DVD player (or DVD movie for that matter).
If contracts (assuming they are entered into in a correct way) can be more more powerfull than the law, depends on the law. Typically such laws will tell if various rights or conditions is possible to contract away. Some are, some are not and it depends on country.
>What part of "implied" don't you understand? When
>you purchase an item you enter into an implied
>contract, no signing need,
Yes, it is a deal or contract between me and the shop, no one else. I get whatever I bought, and they get the money, ownership changed.
>there are understood rights and limitations.
Only those specifically agreed upon at the purchase or those in place by law.
> When you buy a CD or book, there are implied
>limitations that you only own a copy and that you
>don't have distribution rights.
The reason you can't distribute it is due to the copyright law saying so, nothing else. There is no "implied license to read it" as you claim since there is nothing that forbids it to start with. Neither is there any implied license to "have it" since normal slaes laws deal with change of ownership (and it is an issue between me and the shop, has nothing to do with the copyright owner).
>You don't own the copyright, you are granted
>limited ownership and use of a copy. Ownership
>means you can do whatever you want with
>somethiing.
I have never claimed you get copyright on something you buy, stop making up things. YOU are mixing up owning the copyrigth to a work and owning a copy of a work. When I buy a copy, I get FULL ownership of that specific copy. I do however not gain any ownership of the copyright. Owning the copyright gives you a few exlusive rights to the work, making new copies is one such, owning specific copies is NOT, hence there is no need to grant a license to own a specific copy of a work, neither can the copyright holder grant it since it is not an exclusive right of him.
>I never said you need a license or permission to
>read a book,
Strange, since what I initially replied to was this, written by you:
"When you purchase music or a copy you enter into an implied contract where in exchange for money you are granted license [yahoo.com](legal permission) to use a copy to listen to the music. Nobody else has a right to that copy, only you have the license to use it"
This was in reply t me telling that one does not a license to read a book. You neither get, nor need the, implied, license you mention. Neither is it illegal for someone else to read the book. Anyone I want to can freely for example borrow my book and read it without any permision from the copyright holder.
On top of that you claimed:
"You must be granted permission somehow to have a copy of a book or song in the first place."
There is no need for such a permision. By simply selling the book in the first place, they lose ownership and I gain ownership (usually through the store first having ownership). There is no license in it or permision any more than I need permision to be in possession of a toaster. Again, read the copyright law, possession or having something is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
So...
> but you need some sort of legal permission to
>come into possession whether purchase from
>copyright holder or transfer of license beyond
>first sale.
This is not really correct, possession and ownership is dealth with by normal laws, you get, in this case in posession through a purchase.
Another case is me buying a book and then giving it to someone as a present, no need for that person to get a permision from the copyright holder to get into possession of it.
To sumarixe, possession is not a right of the copyright holder and once he sells or gives away it, by whatever means, he loses any ownership or possession or right/possibility to control it further unless he at the same time enters into a specific contract which at least in my experience has never happened when I have bought a book or music CD.
The only thing he keeps is the copyright to the work which ONLY prevents new owners from making new copies of it, distributing them and making public performances of thw work. That i
>A copy of an illegal stream/copy is still
>illegal.
Not being american, I have to ask, is possession really a copyright infringement? I can understand that the copying in it self of course is illegal. I can understand that a specific copy can have been made in a non legal way, but is possession of that copy an infringemen? Any use of such a copy, as long as it is not a copyright infringement itself, should be legal no? And if not so, do you know were in the law it is said so?
>You must be granted permission somehow to have a
o de17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html
>copy of a book or song in the first place.
Huh??? What do you mean? Are you talking from a copyright perspective or from a general property perspective? In neither case I see a problem though, once you buy the book, you are the owner of it both as a physical object and as a copy of the copyrighted work. No extra permission needed to "have" it.
>When you purchase music or a copy you enter into
>an implied contract where in exchange for money
>you are granted license(legal permission) to use
>a copy to listen to the music. Nobody else has a
>right to that copy, only you have the license to
>use it
You need to read up on purchase laws of your country. A purchase is a change of ownership, after which you own it. Again, I assume you think that copyright would in any way change this. Again, go read the copyright law, there is nothing of such in it. You are basically just making up completely false ideas about copyright with no basis in the law. Please find ANYTHING in the law that support what you say.
>You make it sound like getting a license to use
> music is all bad.
No, I say that you don't need any license at all to listen to a music CD (be it your own, your friends or whatever). From a copyright persepctive you only need a license when you want to create new copies (in cases it would otherwise be infringement, this is not always the case), to distribute copies, and to make public perfomrances and in other ways make it available to the public in ways exlusive to the copyright holder. That is it, read 106 in the first chapter of the US copyright law for this (or if you live in another country, find the similar part in the law of that country. I will even provide a link for you:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc
That is it, anything else you are free to do with a work without needing any sort of permision. Note how listeing to the music or reading the book is not on the list (or anything equivalent to it).
>Ever purchase an e-book, nothing physical there.
I was talking about "book", normal books. Of course, just like it applies to music on a CD, it applies to a book in an electronic form. You still don't need permision to READ it.
>What is protected is the information and
>expressions contained.
You, however, seem to have a very wrong idea on what that protection includes. It ONLY includes the rights listed above in the link I gave you to the copyright law. Those are the things given as a right to the copyright holder, no other rights. So reading a book is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder and hence anyone can do it.
>Unless you are telepathic, how can you get a
>copy to read or listen to?
I can for example buy it in a store. I assume you are familiar with that concept, it has existed for far longer than copyright. It is how I get hold of not only books, music CDs or hammers, but pretty much everything in my house that I own and use. You should try it some time. There are other ways as well, one can borrow the book from a friend or library, someone can give it to you and so on, lots of possibilities.
If you want to have further discussion, at least learn what rights copyright grant to the copyright holder and don't make up additional ones.
>You get an implied license giving you all the
>rights granted under copyright law.
You don't need any license or permision to read the book since there is nothing in the copyright law that forbids you to start with. Besides, if the law granted you rights, why on earth would you need a license to start with to get them? Do note that copyright laws do NOT grant you any right to read or pretty much any right at all. What it do is give some specific actions as an (almost) exclusive right to the copyright holder. One such right is copying. Reading is NOT such a right. Reading can hence NOT be a copyright infringement since it is not listed in the copyright law as being such, hence it is irellevant if you have such a premision or not. The fact that you find a webpage that has no clue what it talks about is irrelevant.
>The comparison to a hammer doesn't make sense
>since it is a physical object,
So is the book really. At least all the books I have bought.
>The terms are those of copyright law the
>publisher retains certain rights, and you have
>certain rights.
Gee, you quote a relevant law and then don't bother reading it???? But instead base your whole argument on a completely different web page instead? Now, go back to the link on the copyright law you found and see if you can find anywere anything that gives READING as an exclusive right to the copyright holder that he needs to grant you a license to do. Please get back when you find such a thing in the copyright law. You may also do the same for listening to a music CD while you on to it.
First, lets disregard any contractual provisions (you meantionined EULA) since in such cases, anything goes of course.
However, I still don't see a sitation with a lawfully made copy (which rules out for example imported copies as you mentioned). Take your example, it deals with unlawfull copies. not lawfull ones.
It still looks to me that any lawfull made copy can be freely distributed with no permision needed, while unlawfull copies can not, right? And it is irellevant WHO made the copy, as long as it is lawfully made, right?
If that is the case, US copyright law in this aspect seem to differ from European ones (well, perhpas not all) were the copyright holder always get distribution rights for any copy made and loses it (on a per copy basis) after the first distribution only. In the case of Sweden, the new proposed copyright law actually limits it further so that the distribution right is only consumed if it was inside EU. That basically means, if I understand it, that if I buy a book in USA or Japan (for example) and take it home, I can't sell it or give it away, since the copyright holder has not yet distributed that copy (or permited it) inside EU. In my opinion this is horrible but hardly ever commented about the new proposed law (there are so many other bad parts it perhaps get forgotten).
>You're an idiot.
Whatever, if that is your best argument, fine.
> The source copy is the
>infringement.
The source is irellevant. Again, look at the law (Canadian in this case, both you and the others you replied to have allready given the link.
> You don't have any rights to make
>copies of it, because you're not supposed to
>have it in the first place.
This is irellevant, the law making it possible to make copies for private use does NOT put any requirements on the original.
> That is what the law
>says.
Were? Lets actually copy it again:
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
So, were is there any requirement regarding the original???
Since you refered to subsection 2 in one of your replies, lets paste it as well and please point out what in that section apply since you claimed so when mentioning it:
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
Again, nothing requires the original from which you make a copy to be legal. Actually it doesn't mention anything about the original at all.
Note that the paragraph talks about the purpose of the copy being made. As long as you don't intend to do any of the things listed, it is private use and ok to do. That means I can't make a copy and claim it to be for private use and then distribute it to someone.
> Beleive a fallacy if you want, just shut
>the fuck up about it.
If you feel bad language is a good way to argument, rethink. Something doesn't become more or less through just because like to use such language.
We still have the situation that you have claimed that POSSESSION (having), USING (as in reading, listening and anything else that does not explicity involves copying and distribution that is not allowed) requires permision while not ebing able to show proof of such a thing.
You claim that Canadian copyright law does not allow for making private copies thorugh downloading, yet can't show were in its law it makes such a thing not allowed (and we are talking about the downloading here, not the uploading or making it available, that I think we can agree on is not legal and those who do so is commiting copyright infringement).
Actually, I was not thinking of any specific paragraph in US copyright law since I am not american and not familiar with it in such detail. I was speaking more in general only.
However, your reply and reading the relevant sections more carefully, makes me wonder about the specific case of US copyright. If we stick to lawfully made copies, is there really ANY time someone other than the copyright holder can NOT sell a copy? I can see that you can't distribute it in some ways like renting, but lets stick to simple selling and giving away. IN what circumstances for a lawfully made copy does the copyright holder have the exclusive right to it?
If I go to for example swedish copyright law, the case is, as I explained that the copyright holder has the right to the first distribution (regardless of who made the copy), but after that, any one can redistribute that specific copy. But you seem to sugest that a (lawful) copy someone else make, the copyright holder never has distribution rights to (still talking only about sale and giving away). Is that correct? So why give it to the copyright holder as an exclusive right and then make it never apply? Or did I miss anything you said?
>There is no law against distribution. If there
>were, there would be no First Sale doctrine,
>because only the copyright holder would be able
>to sell or give away a copyrighted work.
Yes, copyright law include distribution as an exclusive right to the copyright holder. However, that right is specific to each copy of the work and is lost of the initial distribution. This principle is what goes under the First Sale principle in US I believe. Other countries have similar concept. Hence, once the copyright holder has sold (or in other ways distributed) a copy for the first time, he no longer can control THAT copies distribution and the current owner can resell, give away or whatever he likes.
This applies to all new copies made. Hence, if you, through fair use for example, can make a legal copy, you still can't distribute it since the right to distribute is with the copyright holder initially.
Decryption in itself can not be illegal or you would not be able to view/listen to it to start with. The whole issue of encryption/decryption in regard to DVD is really bizarre since encryption is used to PREVENT someone to access it, however, here the one having the DVD is supposed to access it, that is the whole point, listening or viewing it.