>This is just begging to be abused. How "close" is >close enough?
That is of course an issue for the courts to decide what is close and what is not (not sure what terminology the law uses exactly in Norway though). In Sweden the law is the same and courts have basically set what is considered ok and what is not, your class mates for example are OK, so is coworkers, someone you just met in the bar is not. Also note, that at least in Sweden (and probably Norway too), in addition to being family or close friends, you can only do "a few" copies. This has been interpreted to be for sure not more than 10, possibly a bit less (I can't recall exactly or if there is such a precise number but the consensus is that it is in that region). So you can't get 50 friends together and give compies to all of them no mater how close friends they are.
>Traceroute is not a firewall, and so isn't >effected.
Just doing the same thing but insinde/through/with another type of program is not a reason for granting a patent since such a thing would be trivial and obvious to someone with averge skill in the field. Hence, one can't just take some idea say I patent it "with a firewall".
Well, it might depend on country, here the text from the US patent law (Title 35, part II, chapter 10, 103, section (a)):
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
So it is really only ordinary skill needed. For full text:
Perhaps, still, no matter what, you can't really be sure of were an IP is located. The actual computer using the IP can basically be anywere in the world. Sure, move upwards to who was allocated the IP range to startr with, and wee were that company resides, but what good/use is that?
As an example, take my computer at work. Despite being located in Sweden, it will always end up being decided to be in Finland since the company happens to be finnish.
>Stupid patent? Yes. Prior art? It's specific >enough that I doubt there is any.
As the original poster said, prior art is not the only requirement one look at. In addition to no prior art, a patent can't be something that is obvious to people in the field (call them experts or whatever), or trivial. In many of the cases of software patents I would say that even if there is no prior art (which seems to be what people focus on mostly here), it is really very obvious things even to someone NOT in the field.
>This may be a little farfetched but I could >imagine the one of the intents for Life + 70 >years is to prevent someone from killing the >author in order that their works would pass on >to the public domain immediately.
So, skip tieing it to the lifetime of someone, just have it at a fixed duration in stead. Makes much more sense to me.
Ahh, sp just because they have a problem making their finances turn out well, consumers should not be allowed to shop outside their country (perhaps town? or should each person have their own price?), but they should be allowed to manufacture and move the products anywere they want? If they have a problem with golbal markets and selling in multiple markets, they can always decide to NOT do that.
True, iot never says copyright or patent, those are the means to fullfill what it says though. From article 1, section 8 clause 8:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
It only mentiones writings and inventions though were one can say that inventions is covered through patents and writings through copyright. Do note that the principles of copyrights for example, existed far before the consitition was created so that concept was just taken not made up to fullfill the consitution. I am sure someone more knowledge in the consitution and the story and thinking behind it can tell more (I am note even an american, just looked it up for now). I am sure there are more text to tell the reasoning behind various parts and so on.
>but do I have a right to decrypt the audiovisual >work contained on that disc and watch it? Not >since October 1998.
Are youi claiming that it is illegal for you to own and use a DVD player that would actually play a DVD with other region codings than 1 if you live in the USA? Are you saying that is specifically written in law? So if you bring a DVD player along with the DVD you bought, you can't use it? By the way, were do you get the permission to play your DVD region 1 discs? Are you saying there is an EULA you have to agree to before you view DVDs in USA?
By the way, as far as I have seen, most computer software is not encrypted on the CD, but that might be because I don't live in the USA, what do I know...
>I'm not sure if such blanket solution will even >be fair. There are some materials that 5-10 >years is too short for copyright period: books, >work of art, etc.
Are you saying that for the majority of books, if the copyright had only lasted, say, 10 years, the writers would have argued, that it is too short and that it is not worth writing the book? I doubt that.
You seem to have missed the point and reason for copyright to start with. It is to encourage the creation of new work for the society to experience and have. The purpose is not to be able to make as much money for as long as possible. Actually, too long copyright time hinder creation in part, since you don't have to create new work. Instead you can live off old work.
In almost any case, be it books, movies of computer software or anything else covered by copyright, a time frame of 5 to 10 years is more than adequate for the creator to be able to make enough money to be motivated to make the creation. Any length after that does not in any way promote the creation of new art and other works.
Actually, a typical EULA will claim that you must agree to it to even use the program to start with. The GPL is something you don't have to care or agree to at all to use a program. It is something you must agree to only in case you want to do additional things with the program. Huge difference to me.
>The L in both cases is for "LICENSE" which is >the type of agreement/contract you enter into by >clicking on the "I agree" button.
Ehh, a license is typically a permision to do/use something you would otherwise normally not be allowed to do. SInce using and running a computer program is not something forbidden, you really don't need a license for it. To redistribute someone elses work, and create derivtae works of it, you DO need permision or a licnese (for example the GPL). So the GPL is there in case you need those additional rights. The EULA is really there for no particular reason (other than the creator wanting to restrict you and believe you need it).
>But what you are failing to understand is that >US law generally supports that Data has a >monitary value because it is property.
So what would trading items in games have anything to do with the problem of Blizzard losing data? If that was the case, it is just a transfer of who has a claim. Or are you claiming that the value only exist as soon as someone pay? That would be very strange. AND the value would equal what is paied? So one can inflate the value and thus claims (when you sue) by having someone simply pay enormous money first?
By real world property I was meaning physical property which is what you normally mean with "property". Sorry if my english is not good enough though. The post I was replying to was talking about a situation which would be equivalent to Blizzard having MY (physical) property.
Besides, just because YOU put value to something, doesn't mean you are entiteled to getting money for Blizzard for losing the data.
>Ah, but if you look at most EULAs, they contain >something like the following language: "This >Software is licensed, not sold.
So, the EULA obviously does not cover the sale since it is not something you agree upon when you buy it.
> If the company that sold the software finds out >you violated the EULA, they can revoke your right >to use the software,
There is no such right for them to grant to start with. There is nothing forbiding the use of software (or anytnhing else related to copyright). Similary, a car maker can't forbid me from using a car I buy (or claim I did not buy it, only licens it when I get home and find a piece of paper stating so in the trunk. Since you are claiming and appearantly understand this very think based on the following sections you write, I don't see why you are making this claim though.
Re:Question isn't just "Enforcable?", but "Provabl
on
The Basics of EULAs
·
· Score: 1
>Then Blizzard sues them for copyright >infringement. By default, you don't actually >have the right to run Blizzard's software. It's >copyrighted, which means you can't copy it (for >example, to your hard drive during install), >without their permission.
Almost every country has exceptions so that such copies needed to run for example software are NOT considered as infringing ones and hence no permission is needed. You should check your own countries copyright law, it probably has such a part in it.
I don't know what your mice has to do with items in a game. For one, we are not talking about Blizzard taking care or affecting any real property of yours. We are talking about virtual items in a game, that is both hosted and handled by Blizzard. It is pointless to start making examples of something completely unrelated and then trying claim it is the same.
We are not talking real world property and we are not talking about a situation were Blizzard take care of my belongings for me! There is no such belongings involved here. That is not changed by the fact that some people exchange money for exchanging items in the game.
By your reasoning, they should worry even if I don't sell it, then it is ME they have to pay. In addition, why would me and my seller/buyer be the one that tells the worth of something? You car guy doesn't pay you 10 million dollars just because that was what you bought it for.
They have never admited that. Just because they don't forbid you giving money to someone else does not mean they admit and promise items are worth real money and that they will pay you for your losses. They have nothing to do with you giving money to someone else for transfering an item in-game.
>With a EULA, you are buying a right to use a >copy of the program.
Since there is nothing that prevent you from using the program to start with, what is the point then?
>You do not own the copy, an so you have no right >to modify it if the EULA says you can't.
One right and one wrong statement. If you bought a copy in a store (which you usually do, normal sale laws regulate this), you do indeed own that copy which is different from owning/holding the copyright of course, which you don't do. The right to modify is regulated through copyright laws (no need for any EULA there either unless one want to grant such a right possibly) and you need a permision to do so.
>The EULA can say pretty much whatever it want - >e.g. "You may only use this software on leap >years between the hours of 6 and 7 am"
Disregarding any other problems with EULA, it can most definately NOT say "whatever it want". Most sane countries has laws regulating sales, consumer sales and similar situations which dictate manything which can't be changed or contracted away no matter what. Such things are pointless to put into a EULA for example.
"We can also change anything in the contract at any time, basically making anything stated in it pointless since we just change it to suit whatever we want"
This typically is amended with:
"We won't even tell you when we change it, you should spend half an hour (each time you start the program) comparing the old text with the new to spot and keep yourself updated with changes"
>Most EULAs also conveniently include that all >properly attained in the game world is still the >sole possession of the parent company. >Therefore, that Hackmaster +13 you want to sell >on Ebay is technically not yours by more than >right of use.
This opens up the problem of calling some saved data somewhere "property". By the way, as a player you seem to have full permision to mess with this data anyway. YOur actions playing creatied it, you can give away the item (if we disuss items) to another character in the game (how could you possibly do that if you want to claim ownership of it?) And the "selling" would not be the normal selling either. Blizzard, in this case, still has the item (or its "property) on their servers, sure, you transfer it to another character, but you are supposed to do that, they even have special windowns, mail systems and such for it in the game. So one really doesn't get arround any problem, rather one create a whole new set of unclear issues and problems.
>B. If Blizzard accepts that in-game items have >real world value, and there is a server crash >causing you to lose items, you can now sue them >over it.
Blizzard doesn't have to accept or not. If two people make some deal, what would Blizzard have to do with it? Just because you value something doesn't mean Blizzard have to compensate it for you!
>As much as we hate them, EULAs are necessary. >EULAs also include things like your distribution >rights, and (I assume) that you can't hack.
No, EULA are not at all nessecary. Tell me what part of a typical EULA is nessecary (from a consumers/buyers point of view)? Obviously as a seller you would be happy the more power you can have but that does not make them something nessecary.
If you look at distribution, what distribution? A typical buyer won't need any extra distribution rights. "Hacks" would for many parts be illegal for other reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
>This is just begging to be abused. How "close" is
>close enough?
That is of course an issue for the courts to decide what is close and what is not (not sure what terminology the law uses exactly in Norway though). In Sweden the law is the same and courts have basically set what is considered ok and what is not, your class mates for example are OK, so is coworkers, someone you just met in the bar is not. Also note, that at least in Sweden (and probably Norway too), in addition to being family or close friends, you can only do "a few" copies. This has been interpreted to be for sure not more than 10, possibly a bit less (I can't recall exactly or if there is such a precise number but the consensus is that it is in that region). So you can't get 50 friends together and give compies to all of them no mater how close friends they are.
>Traceroute is not a firewall, and so isn't
>effected.
Just doing the same thing but insinde/through/with another type of program is not a reason for granting a patent since such a thing would be trivial and obvious to someone with averge skill in the field. Hence, one can't just take some idea say I patent it "with a firewall".
Well, it might depend on country, here the text from the US patent law (Title 35, part II, chapter 10, 103, section (a)):
s c_sec_35_00000103----000-.html
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
So it is really only ordinary skill needed. For full text:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/u
Perhaps, still, no matter what, you can't really be sure of were an IP is located. The actual computer using the IP can basically be anywere in the world. Sure, move upwards to who was allocated the IP range to startr with, and wee were that company resides, but what good/use is that?
As an example, take my computer at work. Despite being located in Sweden, it will always end up being decided to be in Finland since the company happens to be finnish.
>Stupid patent? Yes. Prior art? It's specific
>enough that I doubt there is any.
As the original poster said, prior art is not the only requirement one look at. In addition to no prior art, a patent can't be something that is obvious to people in the field (call them experts or whatever), or trivial. In many of the cases of software patents I would say that even if there is no prior art (which seems to be what people focus on mostly here), it is really very obvious things even to someone NOT in the field.
>This may be a little farfetched but I could
>imagine the one of the intents for Life + 70
>years is to prevent someone from killing the
>author in order that their works would pass on
>to the public domain immediately.
So, skip tieing it to the lifetime of someone, just have it at a fixed duration in stead. Makes much more sense to me.
Ahh, sp just because they have a problem making their finances turn out well, consumers should not be allowed to shop outside their country (perhaps town? or should each person have their own price?), but they should be allowed to manufacture and move the products anywere they want? If they have a problem with golbal markets and selling in multiple markets, they can always decide to NOT do that.
True, iot never says copyright or patent, those are the means to fullfill what it says though. From article 1, section 8 clause 8:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
It only mentiones writings and inventions though were one can say that inventions is covered through patents and writings through copyright. Do note that the principles of copyrights for example, existed far before the consitition was created so that concept was just taken not made up to fullfill the consitution. I am sure someone more knowledge in the consitution and the story and thinking behind it can tell more (I am note even an american, just looked it up for now). I am sure there are more text to tell the reasoning behind various parts and so on.
>For more information look into the bnetd court
>case.
If I am not mistaken the decision was appealed, was it not? So it is not really decided yet and one can't draw any conclusions at all.
>but do I have a right to decrypt the audiovisual
>work contained on that disc and watch it? Not
>since October 1998.
Are youi claiming that it is illegal for you to own and use a DVD player that would actually play a DVD with other region codings than 1 if you live in the USA? Are you saying that is specifically written in law? So if you bring a DVD player along with the DVD you bought, you can't use it? By the way, were do you get the permission to play your DVD region 1 discs? Are you saying there is an EULA you have to agree to before you view DVDs in USA?
By the way, as far as I have seen, most computer software is not encrypted on the CD, but that might be because I don't live in the USA, what do I know...
>But Blizzard obviously will want to prevent
>this, so they will use the force of an EULA to
>sue someone for heavy damages.
Easy, make sure whoever writes the program to never have come into any contact with any of Blizzard's EULA or ToS.
>I'm not sure if such blanket solution will even
>be fair. There are some materials that 5-10
>years is too short for copyright period: books,
>work of art, etc.
Are you saying that for the majority of books, if the copyright had only lasted, say, 10 years, the writers would have argued, that it is too short and that it is not worth writing the book? I doubt that.
You seem to have missed the point and reason for copyright to start with. It is to encourage the creation of new work for the society to experience and have. The purpose is not to be able to make as much money for as long as possible. Actually, too long copyright time hinder creation in part, since you don't have to create new work. Instead you can live off old work.
In almost any case, be it books, movies of computer software or anything else covered by copyright, a time frame of 5 to 10 years is more than adequate for the creator to be able to make enough money to be motivated to make the creation. Any length after that does not in any way promote the creation of new art and other works.
Actually, a typical EULA will claim that you must agree to it to even use the program to start with. The GPL is something you don't have to care or agree to at all to use a program. It is something you must agree to only in case you want to do additional things with the program. Huge difference to me.
>The L in both cases is for "LICENSE" which is
>the type of agreement/contract you enter into by
>clicking on the "I agree" button.
Ehh, a license is typically a permision to do/use something you would otherwise normally not be allowed to do. SInce using and running a computer program is not something forbidden, you really don't need a license for it. To redistribute someone elses work, and create derivtae works of it, you DO need permision or a licnese (for example the GPL). So the GPL is there in case you need those additional rights. The EULA is really there for no particular reason (other than the creator wanting to restrict you and believe you need it).
>But what you are failing to understand is that
>US law generally supports that Data has a
>monitary value because it is property.
So what would trading items in games have anything to do with the problem of Blizzard losing data? If that was the case, it is just a transfer of who has a claim. Or are you claiming that the value only exist as soon as someone pay? That would be very strange. AND the value would equal what is paied? So one can inflate the value and thus claims (when you sue) by having someone simply pay enormous money first?
>Data is considered real world property.
By real world property I was meaning physical property which is what you normally mean with "property". Sorry if my english is not good enough though. The post I was replying to was talking about a situation which would be equivalent to Blizzard having MY (physical) property.
Besides, just because YOU put value to something, doesn't mean you are entiteled to getting money for Blizzard for losing the data.
>Ah, but if you look at most EULAs, they contain
>something like the following language: "This
>Software is licensed, not sold.
So, the EULA obviously does not cover the sale since it is not something you agree upon when you buy it.
> If the company that sold the software finds out
>you violated the EULA, they can revoke your right
>to use the software,
There is no such right for them to grant to start with. There is nothing forbiding the use of software (or anytnhing else related to copyright). Similary, a car maker can't forbid me from using a car I buy (or claim I did not buy it, only licens it when I get home and find a piece of paper stating so in the trunk. Since you are claiming and appearantly understand this very think based on the following sections you write, I don't see why you are making this claim though.
>Then Blizzard sues them for copyright
>infringement. By default, you don't actually
>have the right to run Blizzard's software. It's
>copyrighted, which means you can't copy it (for
>example, to your hard drive during install),
>without their permission.
Almost every country has exceptions so that such copies needed to run for example software are NOT considered as infringing ones and hence no permission is needed. You should check your own countries copyright law, it probably has such a part in it.
I don't know what your mice has to do with items in a game. For one, we are not talking about Blizzard taking care or affecting any real property of yours. We are talking about virtual items in a game, that is both hosted and handled by Blizzard. It is pointless to start making examples of something completely unrelated and then trying claim it is the same.
We are not talking real world property and we are not talking about a situation were Blizzard take care of my belongings for me! There is no such belongings involved here. That is not changed by the fact that some people exchange money for exchanging items in the game.
By your reasoning, they should worry even if I don't sell it, then it is ME they have to pay. In addition, why would me and my seller/buyer be the one that tells the worth of something? You car guy doesn't pay you 10 million dollars just because that was what you bought it for.
>As soon as Blizzard admits that items == money
They have never admited that. Just because they don't forbid you giving money to someone else does not mean they admit and promise items are worth real money and that they will pay you for your losses. They have nothing to do with you giving money to someone else for transfering an item in-game.
>With a EULA, you are buying a right to use a
>copy of the program.
Since there is nothing that prevent you from using the program to start with, what is the point then?
>You do not own the copy, an so you have no right
>to modify it if the EULA says you can't.
One right and one wrong statement. If you bought a copy in a store (which you usually do, normal sale laws regulate this), you do indeed own that copy which is different from owning/holding the copyright of course, which you don't do. The right to modify is regulated through copyright laws (no need for any EULA there either unless one want to grant such a right possibly) and you need a permision to do so.
>The EULA can say pretty much whatever it want -
>e.g. "You may only use this software on leap
>years between the hours of 6 and 7 am"
Disregarding any other problems with EULA, it can most definately NOT say "whatever it want". Most sane countries has laws regulating sales, consumer sales and similar situations which dictate manything which can't be changed or contracted away no matter what. Such things are pointless to put into a EULA for example.
...or:
"We can also change anything in the contract at any time, basically making anything stated in it pointless since we just change it to suit whatever we want"
This typically is amended with:
"We won't even tell you when we change it, you should spend half an hour (each time you start the program) comparing the old text with the new to spot and keep yourself updated with changes"
>Most EULAs also conveniently include that all
>properly attained in the game world is still the
>sole possession of the parent company.
>Therefore, that Hackmaster +13 you want to sell
>on Ebay is technically not yours by more than
>right of use.
This opens up the problem of calling some saved data somewhere "property". By the way, as a player you seem to have full permision to mess with this data anyway. YOur actions playing creatied it, you can give away the item (if we disuss items) to another character in the game (how could you possibly do that if you want to claim ownership of it?) And the "selling" would not be the normal selling either. Blizzard, in this case, still has the item (or its "property) on their servers, sure, you transfer it to another character, but you are supposed to do that, they even have special windowns, mail systems and such for it in the game. So one really doesn't get arround any problem, rather one create a whole new set of unclear issues and problems.
>B. If Blizzard accepts that in-game items have
>real world value, and there is a server crash
>causing you to lose items, you can now sue them
>over it.
Blizzard doesn't have to accept or not. If two people make some deal, what would Blizzard have to do with it? Just because you value something doesn't mean Blizzard have to compensate it for you!
>As much as we hate them, EULAs are necessary.
>EULAs also include things like your distribution
>rights, and (I assume) that you can't hack.
No, EULA are not at all nessecary. Tell me what part of a typical EULA is nessecary (from a consumers/buyers point of view)? Obviously as a seller you would be happy the more power you can have but that does not make them something nessecary.
If you look at distribution, what distribution? A typical buyer won't need any extra distribution rights. "Hacks" would for many parts be illegal for other reasons.