>by having large sections all in caps (likely a >requirement for emphasis, but more difficult to >read I find),
Requirement of what? The laws on contracts? Don't think so. Besides, this is all about computers and computers have been able to use bold and italic text for a LONG time. Using all caps is an old relique of the typewriter.
Actually, copyright is about a few restrictions. More important are consumer sale/contract laws though. It is those that often make much of what is said in EULA not enforcible (disregarding the procedure for entering the contract after purchase and so on).
>(b) They still won't understand the real point >to reading the EULA - which is understanding >exactly what the software claims it will do on >your computer.
In my experience most EULA actually claims the program is not guaranteed to do ANYTHING on your computer, it might not even work.
>Perhaps I'm not being clear as to what I mean by >EULA. By EULA, I mean an end-user license which >you are theoritically required to have accept >simply to use the product in question, even >though you'd think by paying for it you'd >implicitly get that right.
No, you are not required to accept it since there is nothing forbidding you to use it to start with. Copyright for example does not cover use at all and most countries have copyright law that allows for the temprary copies in computer ram and so on needed to run software. So EULA are basically about contracts and very little (if anything) about copyright and copyright law.
Even worse, many of them claim they can be changed without notice and at any time, hence you really need to read them (or compare with an old printout) EVERY time you use the program. Oh well.
>One thing you need to understand is that >copyright also prohibits anybody else from >independently coming up with that series of >notes later.
Ehh, this might be something that is different in US copyright laws, but if you can show that you came up with it independantly it is NOT a copyright infringement. The hard part is showing that though. But if you actually do create something independantly you would not infringne. As I said, not sure if it is the same way in US copyright laws though.
>Now with software, I don't have ownership rights.
Of course you do!!
>I own the physical piece of plastic the software >is distributed on, but not the software itself. >I don't own an original, nor do I have access to >the original.
Not sure what you mean by "original". I think you are confusing holding/owning the copyright to the work (software in this case) and owning individual copies (in tangible, "physical" form, usually on a CD). They are quite different. The individual copies of a work, like a book, or a CD with software on it, is no different from any other property you buy and own. Hence you own it, but don't hold the copyright. The only difference to that compared to a, for example, chair, is that you can't make additional copies, distribute them, make public performances and other related exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Other than that, it is just as with any other things you buy and own.
>Modifying the software is prohibited.
Depends a bit, usually correct. This is due to copyright laws and has nothing to do with ownership. Some countries actually DO allow you to make changes for example to fix errors. Still, modification or not, this has nothing to do with ownership but with copyright which is something different.
>The software folks are trying to reach out of >the copyright arena and expand their reach into >the realm of real property.
The issue of license (or rent if you prefer to call it that) really has NOTHING to do with copyright. Copyright does not require you to get licenses. Nor does copyright give USE as an exclusive right to the copyright holder. It is completely a contract issue and could be done to a toaster or chair just as it could with software. There is really nothing different.
>If software is to be considered real property, >it needs to abandon the copyright protections.
As mentioned above, you are confusing two things, the work and the ownership of copyright to it, and the individual copies made of the work. Two different thing and one does not imply the other. For the individual copies, which ARE normal physical properties, there is nothing special and you can sell, buy and own it completely unrelated to holding the copyright. What copyright handle is the creation (through copying fundamentally but also by creating similar derived works) new copies of the work. That copying is not allowed under most conditions. Copyright has nothing to do about the use of individual copies (except forbidding some specific uses like public performances) and should not be confused with such things. Thus claiming you don't own software or books or anything else just because it is a work with copyright is quite wrong if you refer to individual copies.
Just wait a few years and you can't buy a toaster without finding that little paper inside were you should put the bread telling that by removing the paper (so you can put in the bread) you agree to not have bought the toaster but only licensed it. You can of course then only use approved bread and since you don't own the toaster they can come and get it back for whatever reason they make up at any time. Of course, should you house burn down when using the toaster (after all, it is sold "as is" with no guarantee of even being able to make toasts), the most they pay you is for a new toaster. Finally, don't be affraid if you wake up in the middle of the night with some stranger in your kitchen, they are just auditing your toaster to see you comply with the license or alternatively they are "updating" it in some way, perhaps just making one slice at a time instead of two, but in a different "better" way.
>No, the idea is that IP never becomes the >customer's property, it always remains the >property of the company that created it.
I think one reason this "confusion" is relatively iso to sell to people is that in most arguments for it, there is a mix up of ownership of the copyright on a work and ownership of individual copies of a work. They are two very different things, yet many (preferably those advocating for the point you mentioned) simply use the "own the IP".
Another such confusion is the (allready badly named) Intellectual Property and what is really meant by it. It is used to both be the actual copyright ownership, but with the "property" tag it expands into the physical copies created of thw work. Then one get situations like "their IP" refering to the individual copies and people feeling copyright equals ownership of any individual copy.
So, why would you need a scale of 70 different points to tell a game is not worth it but only 20 for good games (and an extra 10 that seems to be not good unless you are a fanatic). Isn't there a problem with such a system? You might as well just cut of the lower 50 points since they are really not used anyway.
Really, take one year of a magazine having such a system and look at all their reviews and see were most of them are. I can tell you it is not in the under 70.
In addition, the absolute main focus, in both pages and otherwise is probably on the ones scoring 95+. WHY? really, they are supposed to be so good you should just go out and buy it, why is there need for page after page of info on them? If anything, most of the pages and info should be on the games in the 70-90 range (or if we skip the lower 50 and have a 0-50 scale, the mid range of 20-40). THAT is games I want to know more about to see if they are worth getting, not reading another 5 pages on the smash hit 99 scorer I get anyway.
>Bnetd are your friends? They publish a public >server to bypass the copy protection on Blizzard >games and they're your friends?
and
> You can't log into BattleNet with a pirated >CDkey, its pretty good copy protection.
How is that related to copying? It doesn't in ANY way make it easier to copy the game. What you could argue is that it (the protection system) prevents ACCESS to bnet. That is not a copy protection. You could for example not only copy the games, but also install and play them, just not the bnet mode.
What they did was basically to create a competing game server. Can't see the problem with that. Or perhaps you are the same type of guy who would argue that if I buy a VHS player from Sony, I should only be allowed to use it with tapes also from Sony. Or?
So, just don't agree to such things that limit you. You don't HAVE to. If you don't, the copyright holder can't control it. Only in those cases the copyright give the copyright holder and exclusive right can they have control regardless of what you want to agree to or not.
>No. It isn't. And No, it doesn't. (There is no >general "fair use" provision under European >Union copyright law, although certain exceptions >are made for research and educational purposes.) >I'd be interested to know why you believe that, >when it is simply untrue.
Actually, there is no European Union Copyright law. Each country has their own copyright law, not always identical. There exist several directives made by the unions which countries have to follow by adjusting their laws so they follow the directive. That can be done in many different ways and is one reason why different countries have different laws in regard to copyright. Still, there are several (or at least one that I know of, namely Sweden) countries that has not yet adopted the directive. Although never tested in court in Sweden for example, the download (at least for non computer programs) could most likely NOT be considered infringement, at least for now. I am note sure the directive actually state that it must be infringement either.
Re:copyrighted worldwide? sorry kiddo, bullshit
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
I would say you didn't get much facts correct, if any in your post.
>Ya see, many countries actually charge money in >order to register a copyright. Yep, that's >right --it's not automatic or free everywhere >just because it is in the US. In fact, it wasn't >alwasy the case in the US either.
Actually this is not the case. Most countries in the world (and that really IS most) have signed the Bern convention that recognises copyright automatically and do NOT require registration. It used to be that USA was in the minority before signing it when they required registration, not the other way arround.
>Besides which, the US is the only country in the >world with a 70 year copyright. Most countries >pass all works into the public domain after >thirty years.
Typically copyright is not 70 years at all, it is lifetime plus X years (some countries have copyright from companies being just X years though. There is really not many countries (if any) that has just 30 years. I think the Bern convention, which most countries have signed up to, requires a minimum of life plus 50 for example.
>The US is clearly an extremist minority country >when it comes to copyright, they're not even >close to the norm.
They might be it in some cases, but most definately not when it comes to requiring registration or not and the length of copyright.
OK, interesting, but what constitues testifying and what constitues presenting, defending and arguing for your case? Is presenting some evidence, denying some statement and so on done under oath?
Lets take an example, you are acused of not having payed a bill. The first (well, one of the first or possible) reply or statement of the defendant would of course be, "I have no agreement to pay any bill with the other person/company)", hence having they actually first have to prove that you have a contract to pay something to start with. If they can show that, one can move on and you would have to prove that you hav payed it in some way.
Would claiming that you don't have (or can't remember or whatever way you express yourself) any contract that you have to pay something be a perjury if you are found to actually have such an agreement?
>The copyright owner sets forth the terms of how >you can obtain a copy of the intellectual >property.
Sorry, that is really not something a copyright holder can control fully.
>If the copyright owner says that you must pay a >fee to own a copy of the work,
No, they can't control how you own or what you must do to own it, that is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Copying in itself is though. How the created copy is then used lies (after their first sale) outside their scope to control. I can for example give away a book or movie I have bough and whoever recieves it doesn't have to pay your fee to own that copy.
>but you don't pay the fee and make a copy >anyway,then not only have you violated the >copyright by making an unauthorized copy,
Creating a copy/regardless of paying fees or not is in most cases infringement unless you have permission. That we agree upon.
>but you have also deprived the copyright owner >of his compensation for that copy.
That really have nothing to do with copyright. Besides, there are cases were you CAN do copies that are no infringement and were the copyright holder doesn'ty get money.
>It's not stealing in the dictionary sense, but >you'd better believe that it's stealing in a >legal sense.
Nope, it is the other way arround, you can probably find a dictionary were it would be stealing, but from a legal sense it is copyright infringement and nothing else. You can't go about prosecuting for theft when someone creates a copy in an infringing way.
>What is your point or motivation behind this? As >it stands now in the US, copyright infringement >is a more serious crime than theft. So what >gives in the eternal copyright infringement vs >theft debate?
It is about using proper and meaningfull terminology and avoid very strange conclusions and argumentations. Of course, we can all just not care and call every illegal activity "murder" and not have to bother about it. Anything that can in the most remote way be turned into something similar to murder would then by the same logic used in most "copyright infringement is theft" argumentations be completely as illegal as real murder and hence illegal.
Would you like to come home to me and engage in some stealing? We could for example look at a movie I have, or read some poems from a book.
What? That is not stealing you say? But you are taking away money in the form of you reading/watching my book/dvd instead of going out buying a copy yourself....
For your information, depriving someone of income is not in itself illegal, nor is it copyright infringement or theft. Those three concepts have very little to do with each other.
And theft is a kind of murder (you take something away in both cases, life with murder) so basically downloading something is really just a kind of murder. Yeah, sounds like good logic!
Slashdot Mirror
>by having large sections all in caps (likely a
>requirement for emphasis, but more difficult to
>read I find),
Requirement of what? The laws on contracts? Don't think so. Besides, this is all about computers and computers have been able to use bold and italic text for a LONG time. Using all caps is an old relique of the typewriter.
Cool, so by seting the flag yourself first, you don't have to agree to it?
>They do, it's called copyright.
Actually, copyright is about a few restrictions. More important are consumer sale/contract laws though. It is those that often make much of what is said in EULA not enforcible (disregarding the procedure for entering the contract after purchase and so on).
>(b) They still won't understand the real point
>to reading the EULA - which is understanding
>exactly what the software claims it will do on
>your computer.
In my experience most EULA actually claims the program is not guaranteed to do ANYTHING on your computer, it might not even work.
>Perhaps I'm not being clear as to what I mean by
>EULA. By EULA, I mean an end-user license which
>you are theoritically required to have accept
>simply to use the product in question, even
>though you'd think by paying for it you'd
>implicitly get that right.
No, you are not required to accept it since there is nothing forbidding you to use it to start with. Copyright for example does not cover use at all and most countries have copyright law that allows for the temprary copies in computer ram and so on needed to run software. So EULA are basically about contracts and very little (if anything) about copyright and copyright law.
Even worse, many of them claim they can be changed without notice and at any time, hence you really need to read them (or compare with an old printout) EVERY time you use the program. Oh well.
>One thing you need to understand is that
>copyright also prohibits anybody else from
>independently coming up with that series of
>notes later.
Ehh, this might be something that is different in US copyright laws, but if you can show that you came up with it independantly it is NOT a copyright infringement. The hard part is showing that though. But if you actually do create something independantly you would not infringne. As I said, not sure if it is the same way in US copyright laws though.
>I get hauled into court because someone finds a
>burned copy of Corel Office Suite 8 in my
>home....
Ehh, is possession something stated as infringement in US copyright laws?
>Now with software, I don't have ownership rights.
Of course you do!!
>I own the physical piece of plastic the software
>is distributed on, but not the software itself.
>I don't own an original, nor do I have access to
>the original.
Not sure what you mean by "original". I think you are confusing holding/owning the copyright to the work (software in this case) and owning individual copies (in tangible, "physical" form, usually on a CD). They are quite different. The individual copies of a work, like a book, or a CD with software on it, is no different from any other property you buy and own. Hence you own it, but don't hold the copyright. The only difference to that compared to a, for example, chair, is that you can't make additional copies, distribute them, make public performances and other related exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Other than that, it is just as with any other things you buy and own.
>Modifying the software is prohibited.
Depends a bit, usually correct. This is due to copyright laws and has nothing to do with ownership. Some countries actually DO allow you to make changes for example to fix errors. Still, modification or not, this has nothing to do with ownership but with copyright which is something different.
>The software folks are trying to reach out of
>the copyright arena and expand their reach into
>the realm of real property.
The issue of license (or rent if you prefer to call it that) really has NOTHING to do with copyright. Copyright does not require you to get licenses. Nor does copyright give USE as an exclusive right to the copyright holder. It is completely a contract issue and could be done to a toaster or chair just as it could with software. There is really nothing different.
>If software is to be considered real property,
>it needs to abandon the copyright protections.
As mentioned above, you are confusing two things, the work and the ownership of copyright to it, and the individual copies made of the work. Two different thing and one does not imply the other. For the individual copies, which ARE normal physical properties, there is nothing special and you can sell, buy and own it completely unrelated to holding the copyright. What copyright handle is the creation (through copying fundamentally but also by creating similar derived works) new copies of the work. That copying is not allowed under most conditions. Copyright has nothing to do about the use of individual copies (except forbidding some specific uses like public performances) and should not be confused with such things. Thus claiming you don't own software or books or anything else just because it is a work with copyright is quite wrong if you refer to individual copies.
>Products aren't licensed. ...yet!
Just wait a few years and you can't buy a toaster without finding that little paper inside were you should put the bread telling that by removing the paper (so you can put in the bread) you agree to not have bought the toaster but only licensed it. You can of course then only use approved bread and since you don't own the toaster they can come and get it back for whatever reason they make up at any time. Of course, should you house burn down when using the toaster (after all, it is sold "as is" with no guarantee of even being able to make toasts), the most they pay you is for a new toaster. Finally, don't be affraid if you wake up in the middle of the night with some stranger in your kitchen, they are just auditing your toaster to see you comply with the license or alternatively they are "updating" it in some way, perhaps just making one slice at a time instead of two, but in a different "better" way.
It is only a matter of time...
>2) It will only be tied up if the case is moving
>int he Plaintiffs' favor.
Bah, that is probably to make the date on the coupons expire before they can be cashed in...
>No, the idea is that IP never becomes the
>customer's property, it always remains the
>property of the company that created it.
I think one reason this "confusion" is relatively iso to sell to people is that in most arguments for it, there is a mix up of ownership of the copyright on a work and ownership of individual copies of a work. They are two very different things, yet many (preferably those advocating for the point you mentioned) simply use the "own the IP".
Another such confusion is the (allready badly named) Intellectual Property and what is really meant by it. It is used to both be the actual copyright ownership, but with the "property" tag it expands into the physical copies created of thw work. Then one get situations like "their IP" refering to the individual copies and people feeling copyright equals ownership of any individual copy.
>I've got serious objections to folks who try
>to "license" me physical objects.
What makes that any different from someone trying to "license" you, for example, computer software?
>If I purchase it through retail channels, it's
>a "sale."
Same with software.
>You can't take that away from me with some
>crummy EULA-esque piece of toilet paper jammed
>in the box.
What makes you think it can not be done when appearantly many thinks it can be done with computer software?
So, why would you need a scale of 70 different points to tell a game is not worth it but only 20 for good games (and an extra 10 that seems to be not good unless you are a fanatic). Isn't there a problem with such a system? You might as well just cut of the lower 50 points since they are really not used anyway.
Really, take one year of a magazine having such a system and look at all their reviews and see were most of them are. I can tell you it is not in the under 70.
In addition, the absolute main focus, in both pages and otherwise is probably on the ones scoring 95+. WHY? really, they are supposed to be so good you should just go out and buy it, why is there need for page after page of info on them? If anything, most of the pages and info should be on the games in the 70-90 range (or if we skip the lower 50 and have a 0-50 scale, the mid range of 20-40). THAT is games I want to know more about to see if they are worth getting, not reading another 5 pages on the smash hit 99 scorer I get anyway.
Judging from what is said here, Norway have gone much further than the directive requires though.
>Bnetd are your friends? They publish a public
>server to bypass the copy protection on Blizzard
>games and they're your friends?
and
> You can't log into BattleNet with a pirated
>CDkey, its pretty good copy protection.
How is that related to copying? It doesn't in ANY way make it easier to copy the game. What you could argue is that it (the protection system) prevents ACCESS to bnet. That is not a copy protection. You could for example not only copy the games, but also install and play them, just not the bnet mode.
What they did was basically to create a competing game server. Can't see the problem with that. Or perhaps you are the same type of guy who would argue that if I buy a VHS player from Sony, I should only be allowed to use it with tapes also from Sony. Or?
What makes you think that IGE has agreed to any ToS???
So, just don't agree to such things that limit you. You don't HAVE to. If you don't, the copyright holder can't control it. Only in those cases the copyright give the copyright holder and exclusive right can they have control regardless of what you want to agree to or not.
>No. It isn't. And No, it doesn't. (There is no
>general "fair use" provision under European
>Union copyright law, although certain exceptions
>are made for research and educational purposes.)
>I'd be interested to know why you believe that,
>when it is simply untrue.
Actually, there is no European Union Copyright law. Each country has their own copyright law, not always identical. There exist several directives made by the unions which countries have to follow by adjusting their laws so they follow the directive. That can be done in many different ways and is one reason why different countries have different laws in regard to copyright. Still, there are several (or at least one that I know of, namely Sweden) countries that has not yet adopted the directive. Although never tested in court in Sweden for example, the download (at least for non computer programs) could most likely NOT be considered infringement, at least for now. I am note sure the directive actually state that it must be infringement either.
I would say you didn't get much facts correct, if any in your post.
>Ya see, many countries actually charge money in
>order to register a copyright. Yep, that's
>right --it's not automatic or free everywhere
>just because it is in the US. In fact, it wasn't
>alwasy the case in the US either.
Actually this is not the case. Most countries in the world (and that really IS most) have signed the Bern convention that recognises copyright automatically and do NOT require registration. It used to be that USA was in the minority before signing it when they required registration, not the other way arround.
>Besides which, the US is the only country in the
>world with a 70 year copyright. Most countries
>pass all works into the public domain after
>thirty years.
Typically copyright is not 70 years at all, it is lifetime plus X years (some countries have copyright from companies being just X years though. There is really not many countries (if any) that has just 30 years. I think the Bern convention, which most countries have signed up to, requires a minimum of life plus 50 for example.
>The US is clearly an extremist minority country
>when it comes to copyright, they're not even
>close to the norm.
They might be it in some cases, but most definately not when it comes to requiring registration or not and the length of copyright.
OK, interesting, but what constitues testifying and what constitues presenting, defending and arguing for your case? Is presenting some evidence, denying some statement and so on done under oath?
Lets take an example, you are acused of not having payed a bill. The first (well, one of the first or possible) reply or statement of the defendant would of course be, "I have no agreement to pay any bill with the other person/company)", hence having they actually first have to prove that you have a contract to pay something to start with. If they can show that, one can move on and you would have to prove that you hav payed it in some way.
Would claiming that you don't have (or can't remember or whatever way you express yourself) any contract that you have to pay something be a perjury if you are found to actually have such an agreement?
>The copyright owner sets forth the terms of how
/regardless of paying fees or not is in most cases infringement unless you have permission. That we agree upon.
>you can obtain a copy of the intellectual
>property.
Sorry, that is really not something a copyright holder can control fully.
>If the copyright owner says that you must pay a
>fee to own a copy of the work,
No, they can't control how you own or what you must do to own it, that is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Copying in itself is though. How the created copy is then used lies (after their first sale) outside their scope to control. I can for example give away a book or movie I have bough and whoever recieves it doesn't have to pay your fee to own that copy.
>but you don't pay the fee and make a copy
>anyway,then not only have you violated the
>copyright by making an unauthorized copy,
Creating a copy
>but you have also deprived the copyright owner
>of his compensation for that copy.
That really have nothing to do with copyright. Besides, there are cases were you CAN do copies that are no infringement and were the copyright holder doesn'ty get money.
>It's not stealing in the dictionary sense, but
>you'd better believe that it's stealing in a
>legal sense.
Nope, it is the other way arround, you can probably find a dictionary were it would be stealing, but from a legal sense it is copyright infringement and nothing else. You can't go about prosecuting for theft when someone creates a copy in an infringing way.
>What is your point or motivation behind this? As
>it stands now in the US, copyright infringement
>is a more serious crime than theft. So what
>gives in the eternal copyright infringement vs
>theft debate?
It is about using proper and meaningfull terminology and avoid very strange conclusions and argumentations. Of course, we can all just not care and call every illegal activity "murder" and not have to bother about it. Anything that can in the most remote way be turned into something similar to murder would then by the same logic used in most "copyright infringement is theft" argumentations be completely as illegal as real murder and hence illegal.
Would you like to come home to me and engage in some stealing? We could for example look at a movie I have, or read some poems from a book.
What? That is not stealing you say? But you are taking away money in the form of you reading/watching my book/dvd instead of going out buying a copy yourself....
For your information, depriving someone of income is not in itself illegal, nor is it copyright infringement or theft. Those three concepts have very little to do with each other.
>Copyright infringement is a type of theft.
And theft is a kind of murder (you take something away in both cases, life with murder) so basically downloading something is really just a kind of murder. Yeah, sounds like good logic!